The URL can be used to link to this page

2022-09-26_CC_AgendaPacket1.CALL TO ORDER 2.ROLL CALL 3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4.PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 5.BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL) Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted agenda packet, and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file. 6.PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda. 7.CONSENT CALENDAR Business items, except those formally noticed for public hearing, or those pulled for discussion are assigned to the Consent Calendar. The Mayor or any Councilmember may request that any Consent Calendar item(s) be removed, discussed, and acted upon separately. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be taken up under the "Excluded Consent Calendar" section below. Those items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved in one motion. The Mayor will call on anyone wishing to address the City Council on any Consent Calendar item on the agenda, which has not been pulled by Councilmembers for discussion. 7.A.APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 AGENDA Regular City Council Meeting CITY COUNCIL Monday, September 26, 2022 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 7:00 PM 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://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php Next Resolution No. 1310 Next Ordinance No. 380 CL_AGN_220926_CC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf 1 7.B.APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 7.C.APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 7.D.PAYMENT OF BILLS. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 7.E.REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR JULY & AUGUST 2022 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 7.F.APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GMU GEOTECHNICAL, INC. FOR SERVICES SPECIFIC TO THE CITY HALL ADA IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND ADOPT BY RESOLUTION NO. 1306 AUTHORIZING A NOT TO EXCEED TRANSFER OF $9,695.00 FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented and Adopt Resolution No. 1306 7.G.APPROVE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY TO PROVIDE ONE-YEAR FIRE FUEL MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR PHASES 1, 3 AND 4 AREAS AND ADOPT BY RESOLUTION NO. 1307 AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER OF $33,500.00 FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR FIRE FUEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES R E COM M EN DATI O N : Approve the Fifth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement as presented and Adopt Resolution No. 1307. 7.H.ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1308 ACCEPTING THE TRANSFER OF $1,000,000 OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESÂ RULE 20A WORK CREDITS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO ENABLE THE TRANSFER OF SAID WORK CREDITS RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 1308 accepting the transfer of $1,000,000 of the County of Los Angeles Rule 20A work credits to the City CL_MIN_220912_CC_F.pdf CL_AGN_220926_PaymentOfBills.pdf CL_AGN_220926_TonnageReport.pdf ResolutionNo1306_GMU_PSA_BudgetAmendment.pdf CA_AGR_220926_PSA_GMU.pdf ResolutionNo1307_PVPLC_5thAmendment_Budget Amendment_with_exhibits.pdf Fifth Amendment to Fire Fuel Abatement_092622.pdf PVP_Land_Conservancy_Agreement_111519_E.pdf First Amendment to Fire Fuel Abatement_060820_E.pdf Second Amendment_to Fire Fuel Abatement_071221_E.pdf Third Amendment to Fire Fuel Abatement_022822_E.pdf Fourth Amendment to Fire Fuel Abatement_042522_E.pdf 2 and authorize the City Manager to execute necessary documents to enable the transfer of said work credits. 7.I.REPORT ON AUGUST 2ND EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION EXERCISE USING ALERT SOUTH BAY AND EMERGENCY INFORMATION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. 7.J.RECEIVE AND FILE ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 939 ANNUAL REPORT FOR CALENDAR 2021 TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY (CALRECYCLE) RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File Assembly Bill (939) Annual Report for Calendar 2021 to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 7.K.RECEIVE A FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE EASTFIELD DRIVE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AD-2021-1, AND DIRECT STAFF TO REIMBURSE RESIDENTS MIKE AND MARCIA SCHOETTLE FOR OVERPAYMENT OF $11,645.18. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 7.L.ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1305 APPROVING THE 2017 UPDATED GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGION INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ENABLE THE CITY TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDING RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 1305 adopting the 2017 Updated Greater Los Angeles County Region Integrated Regional Water Management Plan to enable the City to apply for grant funding. 7.M.RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO PAY TYLER TECHNOLOGY $3,000 FOR WORK ENGAGED BY PREVIOUS FINANCE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 8.EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 9.COMMISSION ITEMS Hahn_Rule 20A Donation Approval.pdf ResolutionNo1308_ Rule20A_LACoFundTransfer.pdf Survey Results - Emergency Notification Exercise August 2, 2022.pdf CL_AGN_220926_CC_2021_SB1383EARjurisdictionSummary.pdf Ltr_Schoettle_Undergrounding_Assessment_Engr_Cost_Needed_2019-09-17__SIGNED .pdf 2022ResidentPayVendorCostSpreadsheet.pdf 11-15-19__NV5 Professional Services Agreement__Signed Copy.pdf Urban Futures Inc Professional Services Agreement with wet signatures.pdf Bond Council Agreement SYC&R.pdf PW_SEW_220831_Grant_Prop84_R1_ProjectSummary_RH_SewerMain.pdf CL_AGN_CC_220926_AgreementTemplateProp1Implementation.pdf ResolutionNo1305_IRWM_Adoption.pdf 2020_Jan_13_StaffReport.pdf 2020_Jan13_Minutes_9A.pdf CL_AGN_220926_CC_TylerTechnologyCorrespondences.pdf 3 10.PUBLIC HEARINGS 10.A.CONSIDER AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1309 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING THE 2021-2029 ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 1309 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2021-2029 Rolling Hills Housing Element. 11.OLD BUSINESS 11.A.RECEIVE REPORT ON THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2022 ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (RHCA) BOARD MEETING ON THE CITY'S OUTDOOR SIREN PROJECT; CONSIDER PROJECT OPTIONS PROPOSED BY HQE; AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive report, consider project options and provide direction to staff. 12.NEW BUSINESS 12.A.RECEIVE AND FILE RESIDENT DUSTIN MCNABB'S PRESENTATION ON HOME-BASED FIRE FIGHTING SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 12.B.DISCUSS AN UPDATE ON THE COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN (CWPP) RECOMMENDATION: Receive an updated CWPP and direct staff to share the updated plan with the community. 13.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 13.A.RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE Attachment A - ResolutionNo1309_HousingElementAdoption.pdf Attachment B - Exhibit "A" 2021-2029 Housing Element 0922.pdf Attachment C - HCDComments7212022.pdf Attachment D - ResponsestoHCDComments.pdf Attachment E - RedlinedChapters5-6.pdf Attachment F1 - FinalMND_0922_Part1.pdf Attachment F2 - FinalMND_0922_Part2.pdf Attachment F3 - FinalMND_0922_Part3.pdf Attachment F4 - FinalMND_0922_Part4.pdf Attachment G - 2022-15_PC_Resolution_HousingElementUpdate_E.pdf CL_AGN_CC_220926.RHCA Letter.pdf CL_AGN_220912_HQE Systems_Feasbility Study.pdf CL_AGN_220912_CC_Supplemental_Q&A_RHCABoard_Residents.pdf CL_AGN_CC_220926_Sound Propagation Info V2.1 9-20-22.pdf CL_AGN_CC_09.26.22_11 Quail Ridge Rd S - Code 3 Fire Suppression System - v3 - 09- 13-22.pdf CL_AGN_CC_09.26.22_FireDeptComment.pdf CWPP_final_2020-09-10_v2020.1.pdf CL_AGN_CC_220926_CWPPAppendix D - September 2022_F_2022-09-22.pdf 4 MEETING AND APPROVE THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 14.MATTERS FROM STAFF 14.A.DISCUSS ITEMS PROVIDED IN COMMISSION REPORTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide feedback to staff. 15.RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 16.RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION 17.ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Monday, October 10, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274. CL_AGN_220913_FF_Agenda.pdf 1994_4 Storm Hill Lane - CC Staff Report for SFR 2b.pdf 2000_4 Storm Hill Lane - CC Staff Report for a Barn.pdf 2011_16 Pine Tree Lane - Staff Report for Tennis Court.pdf 2019_8 Middleridge Lane S - CC Staff Report for SFR.pdf Vicinity Map - 8 Middleridge Ln South.pdf Vicinity Map - 11 Flying Mane.pdf Vicinity Map - 12 UBWC.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.: 7.A Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 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 SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve. ATTACHMENTS: CL_AGN_220926_CC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf 6 Administrative Report 7.A., File # 1435 Meeting Date: 09/26 /2022 To: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL From: Christian Horvath, City Clerk TITLE APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In compliance with the Brown Act, the following materials have been posted at the locations below. Legislative Body City Council Posting Type Regular Meeting Agenda Posting Location 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 City Hall Window City Website: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/city_council/city_council_archive_agendas/index.php Meeting Date & Time September 26, 2022 7:00pm Open Session As City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, I declare under penalty of perjury, the document noted above was posted at the date displayed below. Christian Horvath, City Clerk Date: September 23 , 2022 7 Agenda Item No.: 7.B Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 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:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve. ATTACHMENTS: 8 Agenda Item No.: 7.C Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 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: SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: CL_MIN_220912_CC_F.pdf 9 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2022 Page 1 Minutes Rolling Hills City Council Mon day, September 12 , 202 2 Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills met in person on the above date at 7:01 p.m. Mayor Black presiding. 2. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Mayor Pro Tem Wilson, Mayor Black Councilmembers Absent: None Staff Present: Christian Horvath, City Clerk / Executive Assistant to the City Manager Patrick Donegan, Deputy City Attorney John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director Vanessa Hevener, Senior Management Analyst Robert Samario, Finance Director 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Councilmember Pieper 4. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS – NONE 5. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL) Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Dieringer to receive and file supplemental items for 11C. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: None ABSENT: None 6. PUBLI C COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Public Comment: Alfred Visco, Jim Aichele 7. CONSENT CALENDAR 7.A. APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 7.B. APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA 7.C. APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: AUGUST 22, 2022 7.D. PAYMENT OF BILLS 7.E. APPROVE AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH BOLTON ENGINEERING TO FILE/ACHIEVE BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE TENNIS COURT ADA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 10 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2022 Page 2 7.F. PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER DIERINGER 7.G. REVIEW FIRE SAFETY MITIGATION LIST FROM THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE DEVELOPED AT THE MARCH 1, 2022 MEETING; AND RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE ON ITEMS ON THE MITIGATION LIST 7.H. RECEIVE AND FILE A REPORT ON THE JULY 28, 2022 TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING 7.I. RECEIVE AND FILE CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE CITY OF TORRANCE REGARDING DIRECTION TO WITHDRAW PARTICIPATION IN THE TORRANCE AIRPORT STORMWATER BASIN PROJECT 7.J. PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER DIERINGER 7.K. RECEIVE AND FILE NOTICE OF NOMINEES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE 7.L. RECEIVE AND FILE CITY HALL LANDSCAPE SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 7.M. PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER DIERINGER 7.N. PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER DIERINGER Motion by Councilmember Dieringer, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to approve Consent Calendar, excluding Items 7F, 7J, 7M and 7N. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: None ABSENT: None 8. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 7.F. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH LANCE, SOLL & LUNGHARD, LLP (LSL) FOR AUDITING SERVICES TO EXTEND THE TERM FOR ONE YEAR TO COVER THE AUDIT OF THE CITY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022 Motion by Councilmember Dieringer, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to approve for now and direct staff to put out an RFP for Auditing Services at Mid-Year Budget. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: None ABSENT: None 7.J. RECEIVE AND FILE THE BLOCK CAPTAIN PROGRAM LEADERSHIP GROUP RECRUITMENT SCHEDULE Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wilson to receive and file. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: None ABSENT: None 11 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2022 Page 3 7.M. RECEIVE AND FILE CITY HALL REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO EVALUATE EXISTING HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) AT CITY HALL, AND PROVIDE ENGINEERING DESIGN FOR A FUNCTIONING SYSTEM Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wilson to receive and file. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: None ABSENT: None 7.N. RECEIVE AND FILE A REPORT ON THE CLOSURE OF THE CITY HALL CAMPUS RECYCLING CENTER Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to receive and file. Motion carried with the following vote: AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: Dieringer ABSENT: None Mayor Black moved to Item 13B. Without objection, so ordered. 13. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 13.B. DISCUSSION REQUEST BY THE WOMEN'S CLUB BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE FOR NEW FENCING ALONG ON PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD, ADJACENT TO CITY HALL CAMPUS (BLACK) Presentation by Christian Horvath, City Clerk / Executive Assistant to the City Manager Public Comment: Judy Martin, Beth Howell Motion by Councilmember Dieringer, seconded by Councilmember Pieper directing staff to have discussion with the Community Association regarding the timing of the fence removal, create an RFP for replacement with vinyl fencing, and bring back the RFP at the next meeting for council approval. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: None ABSENT: None 13.A. DISCUSS COYOTE CONTROL MEASURES (BLACK) Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director Public Comment: Arlene Honbo, Leslie Stetson, Jim Aichele, Alfred Visco No action taken. Mayor Black moved to Item 11A. Without objection, so ordered. 11. OLD BUSINESS 12 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2022 Page 4 11.A. APPROVE FINANCE/AUDIT/BUDGET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND RESERVE POLICY Presentation by Robert Samario, Finance Director Motion by Councilmember Dieringer, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to approve as presented. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: None ABSENT: None 9. COMMISSION ITEMS 9.A. RECEIVE AND FILE A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE ZONING CASE NO. 22-14: SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 525-SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE ATTACHED BY A BREEZEWAY TO THE RESIDENCE, CONVERT AN EXISTING GARAGE TO HABITABLE SPACE, INTERIOR REMODEL, NEW PATIO WITH TRELLIS, LANDSCAPING, AND HARDSCAPING; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, AND DEVIATE FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE A STABLE AND CORRAL SET ASIDE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 FLYING MANE ROAD (Lot 62-A-SF) Presentation by John Signo, Plann ing & Community Services Director Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to receive and file. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: None ABSENT: None 9.B. RECEIVE AND FILE A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE ZONING CASE NO. 21-02, MODIFICATION NO. 1: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,215-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING NON-EXEMPT GRADING; VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A FIVE-FOOT -HIGH RETAINING WALL IN THE SETBACK AREA AND CONDUCT NON-EXEMPT GRADING; MODIFICATION TO ADD A 1,428- SQUARE-FOOT BASEMENT, STAIRCASE, AND RETAINING WALL ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 53-SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (NEVENKA LCC) Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to receive and file. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: None ABSENT: None 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS – NONE 13 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2022 Page 5 Mayor Black moved to Item 11C. Without objection, so ordered. 11. OLD BUSINESS 11.C. RECEIVE REPORT ON THE SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (RHCA) BOARD MEETING ON THE CITY'S OUTDOOR SIREN PROJECT; CONSIDER PROJECT OPTIONS PROPOSED BY HQE; AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF Presentation by Vanessa Hevener, Senior Management Analyst Public Comment: Arlene Honbo, Alfred Visco, Jim Aichele, Judith Haenel, Lola Fantappie Based on Council discussion and comments, Mayor Black stated that the council is interested in proceeding, although they haven’t completely decided on the final choice, and directed the council subcommittee to meet with the Rolling Hills Community Association subcommittee. Without objection, so ordered. Mayor Black moved to Item 11B. Without objection, so ordered. 11.B. RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE CREST ROAD EAST AND EASTFIELD DRIVE ELECTRIC UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING PROJECTS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE EASTFIELD DRIVE FEMA/CALOES GRANT Presentation by Vanessa Hevener, Senior Management Analyst Public Comment: Judith Haenel, Marcia Schoettle Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Dieringer to receive and file. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: None ABSENT: None 12. NEW BUSINESS 12.A. CONSIDER FUEL LOAD REDUCTION MAINTENANCE IN THE PHASE THREE AND FOUR AREAS BY THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director Public Comments: Cris Sarabia, Alfred Visco Motion by Mayor Black, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to approve funding for Phases 1, 3 and 4. Motion carried with the following vote: AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: Dieringer ABSENT: None 12.B. APPROVE THIRD AMENDMENT TO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ALAN PALERMO FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 Presentation by Christian Horvath, City Clerk / Executive Assistant to the City Manager 14 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2022 Page 6 Primary Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wilson to approve as presented. Substitute motion by Councilmember Dieringer to approve half of the agreement’s stated amount. Motion failed for lack of a second. Primary Motion carried with the following vote: AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: Dieringer ABSENT: None 12.C. CONSIDER THREE PROPOSALS FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES NECESSARY FOR THE CITY HALL ADA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GMU FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $9,700 Presentation by Christian Horvath, City Clerk / Executive Assistant to the City Manager Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Dieringer to approve as presented. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilmember Dieringer and Mayor Pro Tem Wilson reported out on the recent League of California Cities conference. 14. MATTERS FROM STAFF Planning & Community Services Director Signo announced the return of former staff member Stephanie Grant as the new Assistant Planner. City Clerk / Executive Assistant to the City Manager Horvath recognized Mayor Pro Tem Wilson for his forthcoming birthday. 15. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION – NONE 16. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION – NONE 17. ADJOURNMENT : 10:30 P.M. Hearing no further business before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned in memory of Rolling Hills Resident Tuba Ghannadi at 10:30 p.m on September 12, 2022. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, September 26, 2022 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. It will also be available via City’s website link at: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php All written comments submitted are included in the record and available for public review on the City website. 15 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2022 Page 7 Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Christian Horvath, City Clerk Approved, ____________________________________ James Black, M.D., Mayor 16 Agenda Item No.: 7.D Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 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:PAYMENT OF BILLS. DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: CL_AGN_220926_PaymentOfBills.pdf 17 18 19 Agenda Item No.: 7.E Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 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 JULY & AUGUST 2022 DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. ATTACHMENTS: CL_AGN_220926_TonnageReport.pdf 20 Year 2022 Franchise Y/N Y Month Commodity Tons Collected Tons Recovered Tons Disposed Diversion % Jan Greenwaste 98.26 98.26 - 100.00% Trash 156.54 - 156.54 0.00% Jan Total 254.80 98.26 156.54 38.56% Feb Greenwaste 93.00 93.00 - 100.00% Trash 134.41 - 134.41 0.00% Feb Total 227.41 93.00 134.41 40.90% Mar Greenwaste 111.44 111.44 - 100.00% Trash 183.40 - 183.40 0.00% Mar Total 294.84 111.44 183.40 37.80% Apr Greenwaste 100.44 100.44 - 100.00% Trash 156.07 - 156.07 0.00% Apr Total 256.51 100.44 156.07 39.16% May Greenwaste 111.54 111.54 - 100.00% Trash 162.42 - 162.42 0.00% May Total 273.96 111.54 162.42 40.71% Jun Greenwaste 79.14 79.14 - 100.00% Trash 177.90 - 177.90 0.00% Jun Total 257.04 79.14 177.90 30.79% Jul Greenwaste 92.26 92.26 - 100.00% Greenwaste - Free Residential Roll Off Bin 2.37 2.37 - 100.00% Trash 158.90 - 158.90 0.00% Trash - Free Residential Roll Off Bin 32.09 - 32.09 0.00% Jul Total 285.62 94.63 190.99 33.13% Aug Greenwaste 80.20 80.20 - 100.00% Greenwaste - Free Residential Roll Off Bin - - - #DIV/0! Trash 176.31 - 176.31 0.00% Trash - Free Residential Roll Off Bin 7.76 - 7.76 0.00% Aug Total 264.27 80.20 184.07 30.35% Grand Total 2,114.45 768.65 1,345.80 36.35% 80.20 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL FRANCHISE 2022 Contract Requires 30% Household - Page 1 of 2 21 Agenda Item No.: 7.F Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 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 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GMU GEOTECHNICAL, INC. FOR SERVICES SPECIFIC TO THE CITY HALL ADA IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND ADOPT BY RESOLUTION NO. 1306 AUTHORIZING A NOT TO EXCEED TRANSFER OF $9,695.00 FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: At the October 25, 2021 meeting, staff presented a third option for the City Hall ADA Improvement Project prepared by staff for consideration. Option 3 took into consideration the City Council's feedback from the September 13, 2021 meeting. Option 3 proposed by staff includes pushing the existing line of wall at the front door to the City Hall, moving one of the three All Gender restrooms to the newly expanded space and enclosing the hallway to the Council Chambers to allow for a meeting room. The City Council favored Option 3 but decided to hold off on giving staff direction on the next steps until the City Council has an opportunity to consider all the capital improvement projects at the 2022 Strategic Planning Workshop. At the April 25, 2022 meeting, staff presented this third option for the City Hall ADA Improvement Project and Pacific Architecture and Engineering's fee proposal to complete engineering design for Option 3. City Council approved Option 3 and directed staff to prepare Amendment No. 3 to the service agreement with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. (PAE) to complete engineering design for Option 3. PAE has completed the project through Design Verification and Schematic Design, and will be moving into Design Development/Construction Documents in September/October 2022. Preparation of Design Development/Construction Documents requires additional site investigation to for PAE's use in preparing cost effective design in the Construction Documents. The site investigation being requested/needed is a Geotechnical Report to support the structural design for the building. 22 Staff solicited and obtained proposals from three geotechnical firms to perform the site investigation and prepare a Geotechnical Report for use by PAE in development of the Construction Documents. Proposals were evaluated on; their understanding of the project, the services they proposed/included to meet the projects needs, and the fee to provide the required services. At the September 12, 2022 meeting, the City Council unanimously directed staff to prepare a professional services agreement with with GMU Geotechnical Inc.for a not-to-exceed amount of $9,700. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no funding available in the adopted FY 2022-2023 budget for the Geotechnical Services fee. An appropriation of $9,700 from the general fund reserves to the Capital Improvement Program Fund 40 is necessary to pay for this expense. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented and Adopt Resolution No. 1306 ATTACHMENTS: ResolutionNo1306_GMU_PSA_BudgetAmendment.pdf CA_AGR_220926_PSA_GMU.pdf 23 RESOLUTION NO. 1306 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 BUDGET MODIFICATION TO APPROPRIATE $9,700.00 IN GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GMU GEOTECHNICAL, INC. FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RELATED TO THE CITY HALL ADA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. A. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills to review the adopted budget from time to time. B. On September 12, 2022, the City Council reviewed multiple proposals and approved the award of a professional services agreement to GMU Geotechnical, Inc. for geotechnical services related to the City Hall ADA Improvement Project. This expense was not included in the adopted fiscal year 2022-2023 budget. C. The City desires to appropriate $9,700 from the General Fund Reserves to fund the Professional Services Agreement (attached as Exhibit “A”) with GMU Geotechnical, Inc. for Geotechnical Services as described in the Scope of Work in the Professional Services Agreement. Section 2. The sum of nine thousand seven hundred dollars ($9,700.00) is hereby appropriated from the General Fund Reserves to fund the Professional Services Agreement with GMU Geotechnical, Inc. for Geotechnical Services. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book or original resolutions. 24 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of September, 2022 ______________________________ DR. JAMES BLACK MAYOR ATTEST: ___________________________ CHRISTIAN HORVATH CITY CLERK 25 Exhibit A 26 - 1 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES FOR CITY HALL ADA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this 26th day of September, 2022 by and between the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ("City") and GMU GEOTECHNICAL, INC, a California Corporation ("Consultant"). R E C I T A L S A. The City does not have the personnel able and available to perform the services required under this Agreement. B. The City desires to retain the services of Consultant to provide geotechnical services to perform site investigation and Geotechnical Report for use by the City and other City consultants related to the City Hall ADA Improvement Project. C. Consultant warrants to the City that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities to perform properly and timely the services under this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements set forth below, City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall furnish all materials and perform all work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to CITY the services set forth in the scope of work attached as Exhibit A. 2. Compensation. Compensation shall not exceed nine thousand and seven hundred dollars ($9,700.00) for all services rendered, and City need not incur nine thousand and seven hundred dollars ($9,700.00) worth of services. Consultant shall submit to the City, by no later than the 10th day of each month, its invoice for services describing the services, time spent on the services, and the date services were performed and itemizing the fees incurred during the previous month. The City shall pay the Consultant all uncontested amounts set forth in the Consultant's invoice within 30 days after it is received. 3. Term and Termination. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon full execution and terminate after one year of such execution unless extended by mutual written agreement of the parties. City may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause. In such event, Consultant shall be compensated for work satisfactorily accomplished up to the time of termination. 4. Insurance. Consultant shall, at his expense, obtain and keep in force during the term of this Agreement, the following policies of insurance that covers Consultant in connection with the performance of work under this Agreement: A. Consultant shall maintain and deliver to the City copies of their Comprehensive General Liability Insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000. Such insurance shall (a) name City of Rolling Hills and its appointed and elected officials, officers, employees, and agents as additional insureds; and (b) be primary with respect to any insurance or self-insurance programs maintained by the City. 27 - 2 - B. Consultant shall maintain and deliver to City Copies of Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non-owned automobiles. C. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance covering their employees for injuries arising out of and in the course of their employment with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident. Consultant shall provide copies of said policies of Certificate of Insurance. D. If Consultant, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage, which is required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. City, at its sole option, may forthwith terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from the Consultant resulting from said breach. Alternatively, City may purchase such required insurance coverage, and without further notice to Consultant, City may deduct from s ums due to Consultant any premium costs advanced by City for such insurance. 5. Indemnity. Notwithstanding the existence of insurance coverage required of Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant shall save, keep, indemnify, hold harmless, and defend City and its appointed and elected officials, officers, employees, and agents, from every claim or demand made and every liability, loss, damage or expense of any nature whatsoever and all costs or expenses incurred in connection therewith, which arise at any time, by reason of damage to the property of, or personal injury to, any person, occurring or arising out of the performance by Consultant, its officers, agents or employees, including, but not limited to, its subcontractors (hereinafter collectively "Consultant"), of the work required pursuant to this Agreement, occasioned by any alleged or actual negligence or wrongful act or omission by the Consultant, including any such liability imposed by reason of any infringement or alleged infringement of rights of any person or persons, firm or corporation, in consequence of the use in the performance by Consultant of the work hereunder of any article or material supplied or installed pursuant to this Agreement. A. Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred in connection herewith; B. Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims, penalties, obligations or liabilities; and, C. In the event City, its officers, agents or employees are made a part to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the sole negligence or wrongful acts of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay City, its officers, agents, or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by City, its officers, agents of employees in such action or proceeding, including by not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees. 6. Personnel. Consultant shall provide at all times sufficient landscape personnel with the skills and experience necessary to perform the various landscape activities for the full performance of this work. All personnel provided for the performance of this Agreement shall be employees of the Consultant and Consultant shall assume payment of all wages, taxes and 28 - 3 - all other employee costs, unless otherwise provided. Consultant shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the customer against any liability or assessment connected with violations of Federal Statutes pertaining to alien/citizen status. On-site personnel shall wear identifiable company uniforms including shirts, jackets, and caps, as necessary. 7. Work Schedule. Consultant shall perform the work at times to be determined by the City. 8. Licenses and Permits. Consultant shall maintain all necessary licenses and shall comply with all other license and permit requirements of the City, State and Federal governments, as well as all other requirements of the law. 9. Taxes. Consultant agrees to pay all applicable taxes, including sales tax on material supplies where applicable. 10. General Requirements. Consultant shall comply with all City, State and Federal laws in the performance of its services. 11. Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable nor the performance of either party's duties delegable without the prior written consent of the other party. Any attempted or purported assignment or delegation of any of the rights or obligations of either party without the prior written consent of the other shall be void and of no force and effect. 12. Attorney's Fees. In any action brought to declare the rights granted herein or to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees in an amount determined by the court. 13. Non-discrimination. Consultant shall not discriminate in the hiring of employees or in the employment of subcontractors on any basis prohibited by law. 14. Independent Contractor. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control of the conduct of Consultant or any of the Consultant's employees, except as herein set forth. 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. 15. Notices. Any notice required to be given hereunder shall be deemed to have been given by depositing said notice in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: CITY: City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 CONSULTANT: GMU Geotechnical, Inc. Attn: Aron Taylor or Greg Silver 23241 Arroyo Vista Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 29 - 4 - 16. Authorized Signature. Consultant affirms that the signatures, titles, and seals set forth hereinafter in execution of this Agreement represents all individuals, firm members, partners, joint ventures, and/or corporate officers having a principal interest herein. 17. Entire Agreement; Modification. This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or written, between the parties and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties. 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 any other agreement, statements or promise not contained in this Agreement shall not be valid or binding. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if signed by the party to be charged. In the event this Agreement conflicts with any other provisions of any work orders or other agreements related to the work contemplated by this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained and have caused this Agreement to be executed by setting hereunto their names, titles, hands, and seals this 26th day of September 2022. CONSULTANT : ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Aron Taylor or Greg Silver, Principals CITY: ______________________________________________________ Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager of the City of Rolling Hills Attested: ______________________________________________________ Christian Horvath, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills Date: _________________ 30 Agenda Item No.: 7.G Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 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:APPROVE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY TO PROVIDE ONE-YEAR FIRE FUEL MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR PHASES 1, 3 AND 4 AREAS AND ADOPT BY RESOLUTION NO. 1307 AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER OF $33,500.00 FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR FIRE FUEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: On September 12, 2022, the City Council voted, 4-1 (Dieringer dissenting), to direct staff to prepare an amendment with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) for one year maintenance of the Phase 1, 3, and 4 areas for a not to exceed amount of $33,500. History PVPLC proposed four phases for fuel load reduction work in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve south and southwest of the City's boundaries. Phase 1 implemented approximately 18 acres of fuel load reduction maintenance for $34,200. Of the 18 acres, 2 acres of previously removed acacia areas were monitored for regrowth (and t r e a t e d ), and 16 acres of mustard and non-native grasses were mowed. All sites had biological monitoring surveys done before any work was implemented. Phase 1 was started in 2019 with follow-up maintenance for $12,000 annually for three years from 2020-2022. Phase 2 implemented approximately 15 acres of fuel load reduction maintenance for $50,000. Of the 15 acres, 1 acre of previously removed acacia areas were monitored for regrowth (and treated), and 14 acres of mustard and non-native grasses were mowed. All sites had biological monitoring surveys done before any work was implemented. Phase 2 was started in 2020 with follow-up maintenance for $20,800 annually for three years from 2021-2023. Phase 3 was completed in the fall of 2021 and implemented a pproximately 7.5 acres of fuel 31 load reduction for $87,000. Of the 7.5 acres, 2 acres were acacia removal and 5.5 acres were mowing of mustard and non-native grasses. The site is currently being monitored for acacia regrowth. All sites had biological monitoring surveys done before any work was implemented. Phase 3 was started in 2021 with follow-up maintenance for $14,000 in 2022. Phase 4 was proposed in the winter of 2021 and implements 7 acres of fuel load reduction, including 1.5 acres of acacia removal and 5.5 acres of mustard and non-native grass mowing. Phase 4 costs $34,900 and was completed in the late spring 2022. DISCUSSION: Cost Proposal In order to maintain clearance of mustard and other non-native vegetation, regular maintenance is needed. PVPLC proposes a one-year maintenance schedule for 2023 for the Phase 1, 3, and 4 areas in the amount of $33,500. Phase 1 maintenance mowing for approximately 18 acres: $7,500 Phase 3 maintenance mowing for approximately 7.5 acres: $13,000 Phase 4 maintenance mowing for approximately 7 acres: $13,000 One-time project total: $33,500 The City had previously agreed to maintenance in the Phase 2 area in 2023 for $20,800. A fifth amendment to the agreement with PVPLC is attached for the proposed work in 2023. Additionally, since the City did not budget for the maintenance work for the current fiscal year (FY2022-23), a budget amendment is included to pay for the cost from the Reserve Fund. FISCAL IMPACT: One-year maintenance for Phases 1, 3, and 4 will cost $33,500 which will be taken from the General Fund. Since this was not budgeted for FY2022-23, a resolution for a budget amendment is attached. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Fifth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement as presented and Adopt Resolution No. 1307. ATTACHMENTS: ResolutionNo1307_PVPLC_5thAmendment_Budget Amendment_with_exhibits.pdf Fifth Amendment to Fire Fuel Abatement_092622.pdf PVP_Land_Conservancy_Agreement_111519_E.pdf First Amendment to Fire Fuel Abatement_060820_E.pdf Second Amendment_to Fire Fuel Abatement_071221_E.pdf Third Amendment to Fire Fuel Abatement_022822_E.pdf Fourth Amendment to Fire Fuel Abatement_042522_E.pdf 32 RESOLUTION NO. 1307 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 BUDGET MODIFICATION TO APPROPRIATE $33,500 IN GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY FOR FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT SERVICES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. A. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills to review the adopted budget from time to time. B. On September 12, 2022, the City Council received a report from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (“PVPLC”) on the status and impact of the fire fuel abatement measure the PVPLC has been providing to the City under an existing Professional Services Agreement. C. After the report and possible options for future fire fuel abatement measures, the City Council directed City staff to draft and execute a Fifth Amendment to the PVPLC Professional Services Agreement for further Phase 1, Phase 3 and Phase 4 fire fuel abatement services. The proposed cost for these services shall not exceed $33,500. D. The City desires to appropriate $33,500 from the General Fund Reserves to fund the Fifth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with PVPLC (attached as Exhibit “A”) as described in the Scope of Work in the Fifth Amendment. Section 2. The sum of thirty three thousand and five hundred dollars ($33,500.00) is hereby appropriated from the General Fund Reserves to fund the Fifth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with PVPLC. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. 33 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of September, 2022 ______________________________ DR. JAMES BLACK MAYOR ATTEST: ___________________________ CHRISTIAN HORVATH CITY CLERK 34 Exhibit A 35 Fire Fuel Abatement Fifth Amendment to Agreement - 1 - CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT is made and entered into as of September 26, 2022 by and between the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, a municipal corporation ("City") and the PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY, a California public benefit corporation ("Conservancy"). R E C I T A L S A. City and Conservancy entered into an Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement dated October 21, 2019 whereby Conservancy is obligated to remove the fire fuel on the land under the City’s control as a fire hazard abatement measure for the direct benefit of Rolling Hills residents (the “Agreement”). B. In 2020, the City paid Conversancy the fixed sum of $34,200 for services rendered under the Agreement. C. City and Conservancy entered into a First Amendment to Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement dated June 8, 2020 to expand the scope of work and increase the cost to include additional areas of work and work days for acacia and non-native shrub/tree removal and mustard mowing services (the “First Amendment”). D. In 2020, the City paid Conversancy the fixed sum of $50,000 for services rendered under the First Amendment. In 2020, the City also paid Conservancy $12,000 for annual mowing services. The total amount the City paid to the Conservancy in 2020, for all services was $96,200. E. City and Conservancy entered into a Second Amendment to Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement dated July 13, 2021 to expand the scope of work and add funds for the expanded scope of work (the “Second Amendment”). In 2021, the City paid Conservancy the fixed sum of $119,800. F. On February 28, 2022, City and Conservancy entered into a Third Amendment to Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement to expand the scope of work for phase III maintenance in 2022 and add funds for the expanded scope of work (the “Third Amendment”). G. On April 25, 2022, City and Conservancy entered into a Fourth Amendment to the Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement to expand the scope of work for phase IV work and add funds for the expanded scope of work (the “Fourth Amendment”). H. City and Conservancy now desire to enter in this Fifth Amendment to the 36 Fire Fuel Abatement Fifth Amendment to Agreement - 2 - Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement to expand the scope of work for phases I, III and IV and to add funds for the expanded scope of work (“Fifth Amendment”). H. Conservancy has represented to City that it has the expertise, experience, and qualifications to perform or cause the performance of the services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements set forth below, City and Conservancy agree as follows: 1. City and Conservancy agree to amend and supplement the Scope of Services attached to the Agreement as Exhibit A, the Scope of Services (Supplemental) attached to the Second Amendment as Exhibit A, the Scope of Services (Second Supplemental) attached to the Third Amendment as Exhibit A, the Scope of Services (Third Supplemental) attached to this Fourth Amendment as Exhibit A with the Scope of Services (Fourth Supplemental) attached to this Fifth Amendment as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Section 2 “Compensation” of the Agreement is amended to read as follows: A. In 2021, City shall pay Conservancy the fixed sum of $87,000 for the services described in Exhibit A (Supplemental), and $32,800 for mowing services ($12,000 for annual mowing services and $20,800 for follow up mustard mowing services), for a total amount not to exceed $119,800, and representing the total compensation for all work, labor, equipment, materials and expenses incurred by Conservancy in 2021. Conservancy shall submit an invoice to City upon completion of the services and the City will make payment within 10 days of the close of the month in which work was performed. B. In 2022, City shall pay Conservancy for the services described in Exhibit A (Second Supplemental) and Exhibit A (Third Supplemental) $72,600 for mowing services ($37,800 for annual mowing services and $34,800 for follow up mustard mowing services) and $9,100 for acacia cutting and chipping for a total not to exceed $81,700, representing the total compensation for all work, labor equipment, materials and expenses incurred by Conservancy in 2022. Conservancy shall submit an invoice to City upon completion of the services and the City will make payment within 10 days of the close of the month in which work was performed. C. In 2023, City shall pay Conservancy $20,800 for follow up mustard mowing services. D. Further, in 2023, City shall pay Conservancy for the services described in the attached Exhibit A to this Fifth Amendment. City shall pay a total amount not to exceed $33,500 for further maintenance mowing for Phase 1, Phase 3 and Phase 4 as described in Exhibit A. this amount represents the total compensation for all work, labor equipment, materials and expenses incurred by Conservancy related to the work in Exhibit A. Conservancy shall submit an invoice to City upon completion of the services and the City will make payment within 10 days of the close of the month in which work was performed E. Prevailing Wage. Conservancy or its contractor shall abide be the minimum prevailing rate of wages as determined by the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations for each craft, classification, or type of workman employed to carry out provisions of 37 Fire Fuel Abatement Fifth Amendment to Agreement - 3 - the Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, Conservancy shall keep on file sufficient evidence of its employee compensation to enable verification of compliance of Prevailing Wages as established by State of California, Department of Industrial Relations. 3. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment and this Fifth Amendment remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained and have caused this Third Amendment to be executed by setting hereunto their names, titles, hands, and seals this 26th day of September 2022. CONSERVANCY: ______________________________________________________ Cris Sarabia, Conservation Director CITY: ______________________________________________________ Elaine Jeng, City Manager of the City of Rolling Hills Attested: ______________________________________________________ Christian Horvath, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills Date: _________________ 38 Fire Fuel Abatement Fifth Amendment to Agreement - 4 - EXHIBIT A (FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL) 39 1 Proposal to the City of Rolling Hills Fuel Load Reduction in 2023 (Phases 1, 3, and 4 Maintenance) Submitted by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (Conservancy) is intimately aware of the fire concerns on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and continues to discuss measures to reduce fire risk with the four peninsula cities. Conservancy staff members continue to work with City of Rolling Hills staff to implement fuel modification work as required by County Department of Agriculture Weights and Measures as part of landowner responsibilities for fuel modification near adjacent homes as well as measures above and beyond. Additionally, the Conservancy clears over 90 acres of weeds in restoration sites within the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and clears 30+ miles of trails annually. This weeding approach is very specialized and must be accomplished while complying with the NCCP/HCP implementation guidelines and respecting the natural resources on the preserve. We understand that the city desires to continue to prioritize efforts to reduce fuel load in Preserve areas, and the Conservancy understands that vegetation exists beyond current fuel mod zones that pose fire threats. Therefore, the Conservancy is offering technical expertise to aid the City and augment city staff in the effort to continue reduce fuel load vegetation beyond fuel modification zones by targeting the removal of invasive plants such as mustard and other non-native plants, which in turn improves habitat for local wildlife, including the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, the cactus wren, a state species of concern and the federally endangered Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly. This proposal outlines the potential areas for this 2023 maintenance work of areas previously cleared of acacia and mowed of mustard and other non-native species. This proposal outlines phase 1, 3, and 4 as part of maintenance for the 2023 work for one-time grant from the city up to $33,500. Phase 2 will be cleared as part of the previously agreed upon terms. 40 2 Phase 1 41 3 Phase 3 42 4 Phase 4 43 5 Budget The budget reflects a typical maintenance mowing project within the preserve with minimal disturbance to native habitat and to the surrounding vegetation, following NCCP/HCP protocols. Careful mowing proposed in this project, increase the habitat value for the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, a state species of concern, as well as other native species while providing public benefit. These costs reflect the estimated time it would take the contractors to complete the project using hand tools and machinery and oversight and bird monitoring by Conservancy biologists to assure that best management practices are implemented (ie. minimization and avoidance measures such as nesting bird surveys are required by the NCCP/HCP) as well coordination with Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills city staff. Project Acres Budget Phase 1 Maintenance Mowing ~18 $7,500 Phase 3 Maintenance Mowing ~7.5 $13,000 Phase 4 Maintenance Mowing ~7 $13,000 One-time Project Total $33,500 44 Fire Fuel Abatement Fifth Amendment to Agreement - 1 - CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT is made and entered into as of September 26, 2022 by and between the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, a municipal corporation ("City") and the PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY, a California public benefit corporation ("Conservancy"). R E C I T A L S A. City and Conservancy entered into an Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement dated October 21, 2019 whereby Conservancy is obligated to remove the fire fuel on the land under the City’s control as a fire hazard abatement measure for the direct benefit of Rolling Hills residents (the “Agreement”). B. In 2020, the City paid Conversancy the fixed sum of $34,200 for services rendered under the Agreement. C. City and Conservancy entered into a First Amendment to Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement dated June 8, 2020 to expand the scope of work and increase the cost to include additional areas of work and work days for acacia and non-native shrub/tree removal and mustard mowing services (the “First Amendment”). D. In 2020, the City paid Conversancy the fixed sum of $50,000 for services rendered under the First Amendment. In 2020, the City also paid Conservancy $12,000 for annual mowing services. The total amount the City paid to the Conservancy in 2020, for all services was $96,200. E. City and Conservancy entered into a Second Amendment to Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement dated July 13, 2021 to expand the scope of work and add funds for the expanded scope of work (the “Second Amendment”). In 2021, the City paid Conservancy the fixed sum of $119,800. F. On February 28, 2022, City and Conservancy entered into a Third Amendment to Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement to expand the scope of work for phase III maintenance in 2022 and add funds for the expanded scope of work (the “Third Amendment”). G. On April 25, 2022, City and Conservancy entered into a Fourth Amendment to the Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement to expand the scope of work for phase IV work and add funds for the expanded scope of work (the “Fourth Amendment”). H. City and Conservancy now desire to enter in this Fifth Amendment to the 45 Fire Fuel Abatement Fifth Amendment to Agreement - 2 - Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement to expand the scope of work for phases I, III and IV and to add funds for the expanded scope of work (“Fifth Amendment”). H. Conservancy has represented to City that it has the expertise, experience, and qualifications to perform or cause the performance of the services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements set forth below, City and Conservancy agree as follows: 1. City and Conservancy agree to amend and supplement the Scope of Services attached to the Agreement as Exhibit A, the Scope of Services (Supplemental) attached to the Second Amendment as Exhibit A, the Scope of Services (Second Supplemental) attached to the Third Amendment as Exhibit A, the Scope of Services (Third Supplemental) attached to this Fourth Amendment as Exhibit A with the Scope of Services (Fourth Supplemental) attached to this Fifth Amendment as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Section 2 “Compensation” of the Agreement is amended to read as follows: A. In 2021, City shall pay Conservancy the fixed sum of $87,000 for the services described in Exhibit A (Supplemental), and $32,800 for mowing services ($12,000 for annual mowing services and $20,800 for follow up mustard mowing services), for a total amount not to exceed $119,800, and representing the total compensation for all work, labor, equipment, materials and expenses incurred by Conservancy in 2021. Conservancy shall submit an invoice to City upon completion of the services and the City will make payment within 10 days of the close of the month in which work was performed. B. In 2022, City shall pay Conservancy for the services described in Exhibit A (Second Supplemental) and Exhibit A (Third Supplemental) $72,600 for mowing services ($37,800 for annual mowing services and $34,800 for follow up mustard mowing services) and $9,100 for acacia cutting and chipping for a total not to exceed $81,700, representing the total compensation for all work, labor equipment, materials and expenses incurred by Conservancy in 2022. Conservancy shall submit an invoice to City upon completion of the services and the City will make payment within 10 days of the close of the month in which work was performed. C. In 2023, City shall pay Conservancy $20,800 for follow up mustard mowing services. D. Further, in 2023, City shall pay Conservancy for the services described in the attached Exhibit A to this Fifth Amendment. City shall pay a total amount not to exceed $33,500 for further maintenance mowing for Phase 1, Phase 3 and Phase 4 as described in Exhibit A. this amount represents the total compensation for all work, labor equipment, materials and expenses incurred by Conservancy related to the work in Exhibit A. Conservancy shall submit an invoice to City upon completion of the services and the City will make payment within 10 days of the close of the month in which work was performed E. Prevailing Wage. Conservancy or its contractor shall abide be the minimum prevailing rate of wages as determined by the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations for each craft, classification, or type of workman employed to carry out provisions of 46 Fire Fuel Abatement Fifth Amendment to Agreement - 3 - the Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, Conservancy shall keep on file sufficient evidence of its employee compensation to enable verification of compliance of Prevailing Wages as established by State of California, Department of Industrial Relations. 3. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment and this Fifth Amendment remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained and have caused this Third Amendment to be executed by setting hereunto their names, titles, hands, and seals this 26th day of September 2022. CONSERVANCY: ______________________________________________________ Cris Sarabia, Conservation Director CITY: ______________________________________________________ Elaine Jeng, City Manager of the City of Rolling Hills Attested: ______________________________________________________ Christian Horvath, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills Date: _________________ 47 Fire Fuel Abatement Fifth Amendment to Agreement - 4 - EXHIBIT A (FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL) 48 1 Proposal to the City of Rolling Hills Fuel Load Reduction in 2023 (Phases 1, 3, and 4 Maintenance) Submitted by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (Conservancy) is intimately aware of the fire concerns on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and continues to discuss measures to reduce fire risk with the four peninsula cities. Conservancy staff members continue to work with City of Rolling Hills staff to implement fuel modification work as required by County Department of Agriculture Weights and Measures as part of landowner responsibilities for fuel modification near adjacent homes as well as measures above and beyond. Additionally, the Conservancy clears over 90 acres of weeds in restoration sites within the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and clears 30+ miles of trails annually. This weeding approach is very specialized and must be accomplished while complying with the NCCP/HCP implementation guidelines and respecting the natural resources on the preserve. We understand that the city desires to continue to prioritize efforts to reduce fuel load in Preserve areas, and the Conservancy understands that vegetation exists beyond current fuel mod zones that pose fire threats. Therefore, the Conservancy is offering technical expertise to aid the City and augment city staff in the effort to continue reduce fuel load vegetation beyond fuel modification zones by targeting the removal of invasive plants such as mustard and other non-native plants, which in turn improves habitat for local wildlife, including the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, the cactus wren, a state species of concern and the federally endangered Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly. This proposal outlines the potential areas for this 2023 maintenance work of areas previously cleared of acacia and mowed of mustard and other non-native species. This proposal outlines phase 1, 3, and 4 as part of maintenance for the 2023 work for one-time grant from the city up to $33,500. Phase 2 will be cleared as part of the previously agreed upon terms. 49 2 Phase 1 50 3 Phase 3 51 4 Phase 4 52 5 Budget The budget reflects a typical maintenance mowing project within the preserve with minimal disturbance to native habitat and to the surrounding vegetation, following NCCP/HCP protocols. Careful mowing proposed in this project, increase the habitat value for the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, a state species of concern, as well as other native species while providing public benefit. These costs reflect the estimated time it would take the contractors to complete the project using hand tools and machinery and oversight and bird monitoring by Conservancy biologists to assure that best management practices are implemented (ie. minimization and avoidance measures such as nesting bird surveys are required by the NCCP/HCP) as well coordination with Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills city staff. Project Acres Budget Phase 1 Maintenance Mowing ~18 $7,500 Phase 3 Maintenance Mowing ~7.5 $13,000 Phase 4 Maintenance Mowing ~7 $13,000 One-time Project Total $33,500 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Agenda Item No.: 7.H Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:VANESSA HEVENER, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1308 ACCEPTING THE TRANSFER OF $1,000,000 OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RULE 20A WORK CREDITS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO ENABLE THE TRANSFER OF SAID WORK CREDITS DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: Through efforts and involvement from Councilmember Wilson, the City of Rolling Hills was informed on August 31, 2022, that the City will be receiving a donation from Supervisor Hahn’s Office in the amount of $1,000,000 of County of Los Angeles Rule 20A work credits for the Eastfield Drive utility undergrounding project. Based on discussions with Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Staff, the Board of Supervisors is anticipated to approve the donation at its December meeting. DISCUSSION: In order for the County of Los Angeles to transfer its Rule 20A work credits to the City, the County must send a letter to Southern California Edison (SCE), which holds the account, indicating that a transfer is requested. Once the transfer has been made, the City could then request SCE to commence work on the Eastfield Drive utility undergrounding project. The adoption of Resolution No. 1308 allows the City to accept the transfer of $1,000,000 of the County of Los Angeles Rule 20A work credits. FISCAL IMPACT: The City will receive $1,000,000 of County Rule 20A work credits for the Eastfield Drive utility undergrounding project. 92 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 1308 accepting the transfer of $1,000,000 of the County of Los Angeles Rule 20A work credits to the City and authorize the City Manager to execute necessary documents to enable the transfer of said work credits. ATTACHMENTS: Hahn_Rule 20A Donation Approval.pdf ResolutionNo1308_ Rule20A_LACoFundTransfer.pdf 93 1 Vanessa Hevener From:Gonzalez, Daritza <DGonzalez@bos.lacounty.gov> Sent:Wednesday, August 31, 2022 10:48 AM To:Christian Horvath; Vanessa Hevener Cc:James Chon; Jose Suarez; Velazquez, Erika Subject:Rule 20A Funding Hi, I am writing to confirm that Supervisor Hahn has agreed to transfer $1 million of the Fourth District’s Rule 20A funding allocation to the City of Rolling Hills for their Crest Road and Eastfield Drive underground utility projects. LA County’s Department of Public Works has confirmed that the projects are Rule20A eligible projects. Department staff will work with City staff on the transfer of the funds. James Chon and Jose Suarez will be the department contacts. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Daritza Gonzalez Public Works, Parks & Rec, and ISD Deputy LA County Supervisor Janice Hahn O: 213.974.4444 C: 213.705.8770 94 RESOLUTION NO. 1308 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING THE TRANSFER OF $1,000,000 IN RULE 20A FUNDS FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY (4TH DISTRICT) AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE ACCEPTING OF THIS $1,000,000 IN RULE 20A FUNDS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. A. The City of Rolling Hills received petitions from the property owners along Eastfield Drive requesting the formation of an underground utility assessment district. B. The County of Los Angeles is expected to approve the transfer of Rule 20A credits at its December Board of Supervisors meeting. C. The City of Rolling Hills has been identified as the recipient for surplus Rule 20A credits currently held by the County of Los Angeles. D. The City of Rolling Hills has identified the Eastfield Drive Electric Utility Undergrounding project as a qualifying project for the use of Rule 20A funds. E. The City of Rolling Hills recognizes that certain steps must be taken and certain correspondence sent to effectuate the transfer and receipt of this Rule 20A funds. F. At this time the City desires to accept the Rule 20A funds and direct the City Manager to take all necessary steps to ensure that the Rule 20A funds are accepted. Section 2. The City of Rolling Hills hereby accepts the transfer of Rule 20A funds from the County of Los Angeles. Section 3. The City Council directs the City Manager to execute or transmit any additional correspondence or agreements to effectuate the transfer of the Rule 20A funds to the City. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Section 5. The City Manager is hereby directed and authorized to execute any necessary documents, including, but not limited to agreements, amendments, forms, and 95 applications to follow through with the acceptance of the Rule 20A Funds contemplated by this Resolution. Section 6. The City Clerk, or duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest thereto. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ON THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022. Dr. James Black Mayor ATTEST: Christian Horvath City Clerk 96 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) The foregoing Resolution No. _____ entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA ASSIGNING TO THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES ITS AVAILABLE PROPOSITION C TRANSPORTATION FUNDS was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on April 22, 2019 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: City Clerk 97 EXHIBIT A 98 Agenda Item No.: 7.I Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:VANESSA HEVENER, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:REPORT ON AUGUST 2ND EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION EXERCISE USING ALERT SOUTH BAY AND EMERGENCY INFORMATION SYSTEM DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: At the July 11, 2022, City Council meeting, there was an "After Action" discussion of the June 26, 2022 fire incident in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Staff identified eight "lessons learned" from the fire incident which resulted in the Emergency Notification Exercise on August 2, 2022. DISCUSSION: On August 2, 2022, Staff simulated a mock Peninsula wildfire event and sent out three notifications using Alert South Bay. Alert South Bay is a notification system for the region and allows one agency to communicate across jurisdictional lines and notify its registrants in surrounding agencies. Residents who received the alerts via text or email were included as a result of their enrollment in either Alert South Bay directly or via the new City's Emergency Information System (EIS). Staff has continued to offer assistance to residents for EIS registration through the months of July and August. Naturally, emergency notifications function best when they can reach the most people. Staff also included a link to a survey in the final notification message as well as in a subsequent Blue Newsletter to gain immediate feedback from participants on how the notification exercise worked and was received. Between August 2nd and August 16th, 40 individuals participated in the survey. The results are attached. 99 Staff is using the exercise as a way to improve our ability to employ Alert South Bay. A second emergency notification exercise is scheduled in October 2022, date to be determined and plan to include an annual allowable test using Reverse 911 in conjunction with the existing Alert South Bay platform. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. ATTACHMENTS: Survey Results - Emergency Notification Exercise August 2, 2022.pdf 100 City of Rolling H ills Emergenc y Notific ation Exerc ise - August 2, 2022 1 / 5 75.00%30 25.00%10 Q1 Have you registered for the City of Rolling Hills' Emergency Information System (EIS)? Answered: 40 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 40 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 101 City of Rolling H ills Emergenc y Notific ation Exerc ise - August 2, 2022 2 / 5 89.74%35 10.26%4 Q2 Have you registered for Alert South Bay? Answered: 39 Sk ipped: 1 TOTAL 39 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 102 City of Rolling H ills Emergenc y Notific ation Exerc ise - August 2, 2022 3 / 5 92.50%37 7.50%3 Q3 Did you receive the City's test notifications on August 2, 2022? Answered: 40 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 40 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 103 City of Rolling H ills Emergenc y Notific ation Exerc ise - August 2, 2022 4 / 5 7.50%3 5.00%2 35.00%14 52.50%21 Q4 How many test notifications did you receive? Answered: 40 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 40 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% None 1 2 3 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES None 1 2 3 104 City of Rolling H ills Emergenc y Notific ation Exerc ise - August 2, 2022 5 / 5 Q5 How effective was the content of the test notifications? What could be improved? We want your feedback! Answered: 26 Sk ipped: 14 105 How effective was the content of the test notifications? What could be improved? We want your feedback! Open-Ended Response: 1. I was glad there was the word FAKE in there so I wouldn't mix it up with a real alert. Well done. 2. It was very clear that it was a test. It was done very well. 3. Good. Location details key (tho may not know all yet). thanks!! 4. It was great - received notifications at email and text. Should there have been calls to land line if that # was included in registration info, or was test designed to only do electronic notifications? Thanks for the test and this follow-up survey. 5. It was perfect 6. Very clear 7. A reminder by email would be nice--I forgot. 8. Excellent 9. Effective 10. It worked well 11. Good job! 2 ppl I also registered in my household did not get the alerts. Really like the texting aspect. Thank you!!! 12. Maybe only use bolded bright red font for real emergencies - non-bold and/or another color (burgundy) instead for test messages. Perhaps add a note: "In an emergency this text would appear in a bolded red font." 13. Content good. Received email before text message probably due to poor cell reception in city. 14. It was great from my perspective. Thank you 15. Effective for the fake drill, but in other occasions more information would be better. As even after an event has concluded there’s typically very little released about it. 16. Need to be able to choose other sounds (more alarming) to be activated and be able to make them louder. 17. It’s great! 18. In general notification was great & helpful. Important to know whether to evacuate or stay in place. 19. Works well 20. Was good 21. Effective - but just for my contact info. Is there a way to add in my spouse’s phone number (for texts) and email? 22. Effective 23. Just the right amount of information! 24. Looks good :) I look forward to getting alerts like this when the real thing happens. 25. Too many notifications 26. Excellent 106 Agenda Item No.: 7.J Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:VANESSA HEVENER, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 939 ANNUAL REPORT FOR CALENDAR 2021 TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY (CALRECYCLE) DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: Each year on August 1st, the City of Rolling Hills is required to prepare and submit the solid waste annual report to the CalRecycle for the preceding calendar year which covers the following laws and regulations: Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), the Mandatory Commercial Recycling or AB 341 (MCR); Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling or AB 1826 (MORe) and the Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Act or SB 1383. Because the City is exclusively residential with no commercial areas, the MCR and MORe programs are not applicable to the City. CalRecycle reviews the annual reports and other data to determine if the jurisdiction has implemented the solid waste diversion programs it selected and whether it has met those requirements. Because of significant changes to annual report format and information requested, CalRecycle moved 2021 Annual Report due date from August 1, 2022 to October 3, 2022. DISCUSSION: The City’s Residential Solid Waste Management Services Agreement requires Republic Services to prepare the Annual Report on the City’s behalf. Staff has submitted the Annual Report on September 21, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of preparing the Annual Report is included in the Agreement with Republic Services. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. 107 ATTACHMENTS: CL_AGN_220926_CC_2021_SB1383EARjurisdictionSummary.pdf 108 2021 Rolling Hills Electronic Annual Report summary This Annual Report Summary is an official record of your CalRecycle Electronic Annual Report submission, except for your Venue/Event section information, which is contained in a separate report. You may reach that section from the Electronic Annual Report's left navigation bar. Before submitting your report to CalRecycle, please take the time to review everything on this page to confirm it is complete and correct. If you need to modify some information, close this window to return to the Electronic Annual Report to make your corrections. Then, preview the report again. SLCP Procurement Procurement: Rolling Hills (2021) Rolling HillsJurisdiction: Report Year Filed:2021 Report Status:Due Summary Submitted Information Monday, January 1, 0001Date Report Submitted: Report Submitted By: () Wednesday, September 21, 2022, 3:27:33 PMSummary Generated On: Jurisdiction Contact Address: Jurisdiction Contact: Phone Number:310377521 2 Portuguese Bend Rd., Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Vanessa Hevener Email Address:vhevener@cityofrh.net Fax Number: Update Contact Info:https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Forms/LGCentral/ReportingEntityContactChange/ Page 1 of 46 109 Jurisdiction name Procurement target Annual procurement Adjusted Procurement target Rolling Hills 149 0.00 0.00 Recovered Organic Waste Product Procurement Jurisdiction name Did the jurisdiction implement an Adjusted Recovered Organic Waste Product Procurement Target? Transportation fuel (DGE)Electricity (kWh)Gas used for heating applications (therms) Rolling Hills No Adjusted Recovered Organic Waste Product Procured Jurisdiction name Additional description Rolling Hills Jurisdiction name Renewable gas in the form of transportation fuel (DGE) Electricity from renewable gas (kWh) Renewable gas used for heating applications (therms) Electricity from biomass conversion (kWh) Compost (cubic yards Compost (tons) Mulch Rolling Hills 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Recovered Organic Waste Product Procured Jurisdiction name Additional description Rolling Hills Page 2 of 46 110 Recycled Product Procurement þ Compost þ Mulch ¨Renewable transportation fuel (from organic waste) ¨Energy (from organic waste) ¨Renewable gas in the form of transportation fuel ¨Electricity from renewable gas ¨Renewable gas used for heating applications ¨Electricity from biomass conversion þ Recycled-content paper (janitorial supplies, paper towels, etc.) þ Recycled-content paper (white & colored ledger, computer paper, other office paper, etc.) ¨Re-refined oil ¨Re-treaded tires ¨Pavement surfacing (RAC, recycled aggregate) ¨Recycled-content paint ¨Other procurement Program Name Program description þ 1030-SR-PMT Procurement The City meets the low population density waiver. The recycled product will come from the compost and mulch generated in the City and purchasing of recycled content material. SRRE Programs Page 3 of 46 111 Edible Food: Rolling Hills (2021) Jurisdiction name Number of commercial edible food g enerators Number of food recovery services and organizations located in the jurisdictions Total pounds of edible food recovered by food recovery organizations and services Rolling Hills 0 0.00 0.00 Edible Food Recovery Jurisdiction name Description Rolling Hills City is Residential Only Collection Systems: Rolling Hills (2021) SLCP Page 4 of 46 112 Jurisdiction Name Hauler name Low Population Waiver Rolling Hills Republic Services þ Collection Container Systems Jurisdiction Name Hauler name 3+ containers Number of generators 3-containers Number of generators 2-containers Number of generators Rolling Hills Republic Services ¨¨¨ Residential Jurisdiction Name Hauler name 1-containers Number of generators Other Number of generators Rolling Hills Republic Services ¨þ 675 Commercial Jurisdiction Name Hauler name 3+ containers Number of generators 3-containers Number of generators 2-containers Number of generators Rolling Hills Republic Services ¨¨¨ Jurisdiction Name Hauler name 1-containers Number of generators Other Number of generators Rolling Hills Republic Services ¨þ 0 Jurisdiction Name Hauler name Additional description Rolling Hills Republic Services 2021: Residential is serviced twice a week using the residents unlimited internally owned containers. All trash and recyclables are mixed waste and sent to be MRF. Page 5 of 46 113 Jurisdiction Name Low Population Waiver Rolling Hills þ Compostable plastics and plastic bags allowed in green container and collection facilities Jurisdiction Name Compostable plastics allowed in green container? Identify the facility that provided notice that it accepts and recovers compostable plastics from the green container or select applicable RDRS facility number(s) if applicable Rolling Hills No Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills Jurisdiction Name Organics allowed to be placed in plastic bags in green container? Identify the facility that provided notice that it accepts and removes plastic bags from the green container when it recovers source separated organic waste or select applicable RDRS facility number(s) if applicable Rolling Hills No Page 6 of 46 114 Commercial Programs: Rolling Hills (2021) Material Types Collected Jurisdiction Name Low Population Waiver Number of haulers approved to collect organic waste Number of haulers approval revoked or denied Rolling Hills þ Organic Waste Haulers Jurisdiction Name Identify the facility that provided notice that it accepts and recovers compostable plastics or select applicable RDRS facility number(s) if applicable Rolling Hills Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills Page 7 of 46 115 þ Leaves and grass þ Prunings and trimmings þ Branches and stumps Landscape materials þ Uncoated corrugated cardboard þ Paper grocery bags þ Other paper bags/kraft paper þ Newspaper þ Office paper (white & colored ledger, computer paper, other office paper) þ Magazines and catalogs þ Folding cartons and other paperboard packaging þ Other recyclable paper (describe in box below) ¨Miscellaneous paper packaging (describe in box below) ¨Aseptic containers þ Gable-top cartons þ Compostable paper - non-packaging þ Compostable paper - packaging ¨Remainder/compost paper - other (describe in box below) Paper Page 8 of 46 116 ¨Foodwaste ¨Food soiled paper Food þ Clean dimensional lumber ¨Clean engineered wood þ Clean pallets and crates þ Wood waste - treated/painted/stained ¨Other recyclable wood (describe in box below) ¨Remainder/composite organic (describe in box below) Building products þ Glass Glass þ Aluminum þ Tin/Steel Metal Page 9 of 46 117 þ Plastic #1 - PET ¨Expanded or foamed plastic (any resin type) ¨Film plastic (any resin type) þ Plastic #2 - HDPE þ Plastic #3 - PVC þ Plastic #4 - LDPE þ Plastic #5 - PP þ Plastic #6 - PS ¨Plastic #7 - Other Plastic ¨Biosolids ¨Digestate ¨Manure ¨Sludges ¨Organic textiles and carpet ¨Other materials (describe in box below) Other Describe Materials(s): 2021: Only commercial account is located in City Hall. There are less that 10 employees in the City. Page 10 of 46 118 Program Name Program description þ 1050-SR-GOV Government Source Reduction Programs 2021: CITY TO ANSWER- þ 2030-RC-OSP Commercial On-Site Pickup 2021: City is residential only. Only commercial business is City Hall. þ 2050-RC-SCH School Recycling Programs 2021: Residential only no schools located within City limits. þ 2060-RC-GOV Government Recycling Programs 2021: City hall hosts a mixed recycling program. þ 3035-CM-COR Commercial Organics Recycling 2021: Residential only no commercial except City Hall. þ 3060-CM-GOV Government Composting Programs 2021: Residential only no commercial except City Hall. þ 3070-CM-OTH Other Composting 2021: Residential only no commercial except City Hall. SRRE Programs Residential Programs: Rolling Hills (2021) Material Types Collected Page 11 of 46 119 þ Leaves and grass þ Prunings and trimmings þ Branches and stumps Landscape materials þ Uncoated corrugated cardboard þ Paper grocery bags þ Other paper bags/kraft paper þ Newspaper þ Office paper (white & colored ledger, computer paper, other office paper) þ Magazines and catalogs þ Folding cartons and other paperboard packaging þ Other recyclable paper (describe in box below) þ Miscellaneous paper packaging (describe in box below) ¨Aseptic containers ¨Gable-top cartons þ Compostable paper - non-packaging þ Compostable paper - packaging ¨Remainder/compost paper - other (describe in box below) Paper Page 12 of 46 120 þ Aluminum þ Tin/Steel Metal þ Glass Glass þ Foodwaste þ Food soiled paper Food þ Clean dimensional lumber ¨Clean engineered wood þ Clean pallets and crates þ Wood waste - treated/painted/stained þ Other recyclable wood (describe in box below) ¨Remainder/composite organic (describe in box below) Building products Page 13 of 46 121 Describe Materials(s): None ¨Manure ¨Organic textiles and carpet ¨Other materials (describe in box below) Other þ Plastic #1 - PET ¨Expanded or foamed plastic (any resin type) þ Film plastic (any resin type) þ Plastic #2 - HDPE þ Plastic #3 - PVC þ Plastic #4 - LDPE þ Plastic #5 - PP þ Plastic #6 - PS ¨Plastic #7 - Other Plastic Page 14 of 46 122 Program Name Program description þ 1010-SR-BCM Backyard and On-Site Composting/Mulching 2021: City continues to promote the Los Angeles County Smart Gardening events. þ 2000-RC-CRB Residential Curbside 2021: No changes to the program. Republic Services report 1.14 tons collected at residential home. There is no curbside pickup. All service is valet and directly serviced on residential property. þ 2010-RC-DRP Residential Drop-Off 2021: Republic Services Spring and Fall Community Cleanup and Drop-off events. Residents can drop off shredded paper and ewaste in the parking lot at City Hall. In August, the City and Republic Services collaborated to provide 5-40 yard roll-offs to lend support to community members who are performing vegetation management in fire fuel abatement on their properties. The roll-offs are placed strategically throughout the community in prior area. þ 2020-RC-BYB Residential Buy-Back 2021: No buy back centers located within the City limits þ 3000-CM-RCG Residential Curbside Greenwaste Collection 2021: Republic Services reported 77.43 tons of greenwaste collected curbside. Greenwaste is collected twice a week and hand thrown into a separate small truck. þ 3010-CM-RSG Residential Self-haul Greenwaste 2021: No program to report. SRRE Programs Education and Outreach: Rolling Hills (2021) Page 15 of 46 123 Jurisdiction Name Low Population Waiver Rolling Hills þ Jurisdiction Name Print Number of generators that received SLCP material Electronic Number of generators that received SLCP material Direct contact Number of generators that received SLCP material Other Number of generators that received SLCP material Rolling Hills þ 0 þ 0 þ 0 þ 0 What type of education and outreach were provided to all generators, including organic waste generators, and how many generators received each type of education and outreach? (Includes education and outreach for SLCP, MORe, MCR, and SRRE/HHWE) Select all that apply. Jurisdiction Name Describe education and outreach selected Rolling Hills Does not meet SLCP SLCP, MCR, MORe, and SRRE/HHWE Education and Outreach Page 16 of 46 124 Jurisdiction Name Print Number of edible food generators that received material Electronic Number of edible food generators that received material Direct contact Number of edible food generators that received material Other Number of edible food generators that received material Rolling Hills þ 0 þ 0 þ 0 þ 0 What type of education and outreach were provided to commercial edible food generators and how many generators received each type of education and outreach? Select all that apply. Jurisdiction Name Describe education and outreach selected Rolling Hills 2021: No commercial located within the City limits Commercial Edible Food Generators Education and Outreach Page 17 of 46 125 Program Name Program description þ 5000-ED-ELC Electronic (radio ,TV, web, hotlines) 2021: The City makes all efforts to update website annually. https://pw.lacounty.gov/epd/cleanla/ þ 5010-ED-PRN Print (brochures, flyers, guides, news articles) 2021: The City and Republic Services creates separate quarterly newsletters and an annual brochure. þ 5020-ED-OUT Outreach (tech assistance, presentations, awards, fairs, field trips) 2021: No changes to the changes. þ 5040-ED-OTH Other Public Education 2021: No schools are located within the City limits. þ 9040-HH-EDP Education Programs 2021: City and Republic Services continues to promote the County of Los Angeles hazardous and electronic waste events, South Bay Environmental Service Center and S.A.F.E Center located in San Pedro. https://pw.lacounty.gov/epd/cleanla/. SRRE Programs MWELO, CALGreen, C&D, and Other Programs: Rolling Hills (2021) SLCP Page 18 of 46 126 Jurisdiction Name Low Population Waiver Number of projects subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) Rolling Hills þ 0 Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills Mwelo Jurisdiction Name Low Population Waiver Number of construction and demolition debris removal activities conducted in compliance with CALGreen Rolling Hills þ 0 Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills CALGreen Page 19 of 46 127 þ Asphalt Paving þ Brick þ Concrete/cement þ Gypsum Board/drywall þ Rock, soils and fines þ Mixed C + D Inerts Recycling Program Name Program description þ 2070-RC-SNL Special Collection Seasonal (regular) 2021: Spring (March) and Fall (October) Community clean up Events : Greenwaste, Bulky items, Shred and E-waste Collections. þ 2080-RC-SPE Special Collection Events 2021: August Greenwastee Communal vegetation management and fire fuel abatement of residential properties. þ 4050-SP-WDW Wood Waste 2021: Collected in the general C&D residential projects. þ 4060-SP-CAR Concrete/Asphalt/Rubble 2021: Republic Services diverted 33.94 tons of material from residential projects. þ 6010-PI-EIN Economic Incentives 2021: None SRRE Programs Hazardous Waste Programs: Rolling Hills (2021) Page 20 of 46 128 Program Name Program description þ 9000-HH-PMF Permanent Facility 2021: The City and Republic Services promotes the proper management of HHW and Ewaste to be taken to the S.A.F.E Center located in San Pedro. þ 9010-HH-MPC Mobile or Periodic Collection 2021: Republic Services electronic waste collection event held at City Hall on March 26th, 2021. þ 9030-HH-WSE Waste Exchange 2021: None to report þ 9045-HH-EWA Electronic Waste 2021: Republic Services electronic waste collection event held at City Hall on March 26th, 2021. SRRE Programs Disposal Rate Calculation:Rolling Hills (2021) Page 21 of 46 129 Definition of Terms "Disposal" - Resources Code – PRC 40192. (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), “solid waste disposal,” “disposal,” or “dispose” means the final deposition of solid wastes onto land, into the atmosphere, or into the waters of the state. (b) For purposes of Part 2 (commencing with Section 40900), “solid waste disposal,” “dispose,” or “disposal” means the management of solid waste through landfill disposal, transformation, or EMSW conversion, at a permitted solid waste facility, unless the term is expressly defined otherwise.(c) For purposes of Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 42800) and Chapter 19 (commencing with Section 42950) of Part 3, Part 4 (commencing with Section 43000), Part 5 (commencing with Section 45000), Part 6 (commencing with Section 45030), and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 47901) of Part 7, “solid waste disposal,” “dispose,” or “disposal” means the final deposition of solid wastes onto land. Reporting-Year Disposal Amount (tons) – Defaults to the total tonnage disposed in the Reporting-Year by a jurisdiction as reported to the Recycling and Disposal Reporting System (RDRS). This total disposal contains all jurisdiction waste that was disposed in CA landfills (including Green Material ADC), transformation facilities, EMSW facilities, and exported out-of-state (including Green Material Potential Beneficial Reuse Exported), except for declared disaster debris disposal and disposal in Class II facilities, as those two types of tonnage are no longer tracked by jurisdiction of origin. Any changes will require you submit a Reporting Reporting Year Disposal Modification Certification Sheet (PDF). See User's Guide or contact LAMD representative if uncertain. Disposal Reduction Credits - the EAR calculator will subtract these credits from your requested total in the Reporting-Year Disposal Amount field. Requesting credits will require you submit a Reporting Year Disposal Modification Certification Sheet (PDF). Descriptions of these credits can be found on that sheet. See EAR User’s Guide or contact LAMD representative if uncertain. Reporting-Year Transformation Waste (tons) – defaults to the total tonnage of waste sent in the Reporting-Year by a jurisdiction to a CalRecycle- permitted transformation facility as reported to the Recycling and Disposal Reporting System (RDRS). Transformation is factored into the Per Capita rate only, and is not deductible. To eliminate the Per Capita credit for transformation tonnage, change the Reporting-Year Transformation Waste (tons) number to 0.00. Reporting-Year Population – January 1st estimate of the number of inhabitants occupying a jurisdiction in the Reporting-Year as prepared by the California Department of Finance (DOF) Reporting-Year Employment – the estimate of the annual average number of employees by jurisdiction in the Reporting-Year as prepared by the California Employment Development Department (EDD). Additional Definitions - for additional definitions and/or acronym descriptions, see the LGCentral Glossary. Page 22 of 46 130 Reporting-Year Disposal Amount (tons):3,756.23 Disposal Reduction Credits (Reported): 0.00Disaster Waste (tons): Medical Waste (tons):0.00 Regional Diversion Facility Residual Waste (tons):0.00 C & D Waste (tons):0.00 Class II Waste (tons):0.00 Out of State Export (Diverted) (tons):0.00 Other Disposal Amount (tons):0.00 Total Disposal Reduction Credit Amount (tons):0.00 3,756.23Total Adjusted Reporting-Year Disposal Amount (tons): 127.41Reporting-Year Transformation Waste (tons): Reporting-Year Population:1,703 Reporting-Year Employment:297 Reporting-Year Calculation Results (Per Capita) Green Material Potential Beneficial Reuse Exported (tons):0.00 Green Material ADC (tons): Engineered Municipal Solid Waste (EMSW) Conversion Facility (tons): Transformation (tons): Landfill Disposal (tons): 0.00 0.00 127.41 3,628.82 Page 23 of 46 131 Population Employment Target Annual Target Annual Disposal Rate without Transformation (pounds/person/day): 12.1 69.3 Transformation Rate (pounds/person/day):3.3 0.4 20.5 2.4 The Calculated Disposal Rate (pounds/person/day)16.7 11.7 102.3 66.9 Calculation Factors:Rolling Hills (2021) If either 1. Alternative disposal or 2. Deductions to RDRS boxes are checked, please complete, and sign the Reporting Year Disposal Modification Certification Sheet (PDF) and save to your computer. You may enter the data and save the Disposal Modification Form to you rcomputer. Then either upload the sheet and supporting documentation using the Document Upload Section before submitting your report, or mail, e-mail or FAX to CalRecycle within 7 business days of submitting your report. If you are only claiming report-year disposal deductions for waste transported to a certified Transformation facility, you do not need to fill out the certification request. Disposal Rate Accuracy Are there extenuating circumstances pertaining to your jurisdiction's disposal rate that CalRecycle should consider, as authorized by the Public Resources Code Section 41821(c)? If you wish to attach additional information to your annual report, please send those items or electronic files to your LAMD representative; include a brief description of those files below. If so, please use the space below to tell CalRecycle. ¨Yes. Please use the space below to tell CalRecycle. þ No. 1. Calculation Factors Page 24 of 46 132 1. Alternative disposal tonnage 2. Deductions to RDRS disposal tonnage 3. Green Material ADC (AB1594)o ¨ ¨ 2021 Rolling Hills Green Material ADC (tons): 0.00 If 3. Green Material ADC (AB 1594) box is checked: Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 41781.3 [(AB) 1594 (Williams, Chapter 719, Statutes of 2014)], beginning in the 2017 EAR jurisdictions are required to include information on plans to address how green material that is being used as ADC will be diverted. Jurisdictions can review disposal facilities that assigned green material ADC and the amount by using the RDRS Reports: Jurisdiction Disposal and Beneficial Reuse by Destination. More information and brief instructions for using the inflow/outflow map is available on CalRecycle’s Green Material Used as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) webpage. 1. Please describe in the box below the jurisdiction’s plans to divert green material that is being used as ADC. 2. If the jurisdiction is not meeting the requirements of Section 41780 as a result of not being able to claim diversion for the use of green material as alternative daily cover, then please identify and describe the barriers to recycling green material. Our jurisdiction has submitted a request to facilities that have assigned green material ADC to our jurisdiction to adjust the tons assigned as we believe they may be misallocated •For reporting entities that check this box, the following questions may still require answers if there was green material assigned at the time this EAR was made available for editing. If the tons were changed in RDRS after the date the EAR opens for reporting by jurisdictions, please note that revised information in the answer to the first question below including the tons adjusted, facility name(s), date(s) the changes were made in RDRS system. o Page 25 of 46 133 Although you will be able to submit your electronic Annual Report without completing a disposal modification form, your Annual Report will not be deemed complete until it is completed and received by CalRecycle. Contact your LAMD representativeffor details. 3. If the jurisdiction is not meeting the requirements of Section 41780 as a result of not being able to claim diversion for the use of green material as alternative daily cover, and if sufficient capacity at facilities that recycle green material is not expected to be operational before the jurisdiction's next review pursuant to Section 41825, then the jurisdiction should include a plan to address the barriers identified in the second question that are within the control of the jurisdiction. Waivers and Exemptions:Rolling Hills (2021) Jurisdiction Name Low Population Waiver Number of generators waived from requirement to subscribe to an organic waste collection service Number of days an emergency processing facility or operational failure waiver was in effect Tons disposed as a result of emergency processing facility or operational failure waiver Number of days a disaster and emergency waiver was in effect Rolling Hills þ 0 0 0.00 0 Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills Department Issued Waivers SLCP Waivers and Exemptions Page 26 of 46 134 Jurisdiction Name Number of commercial business (includes multifamily) exemptions Additional description Rolling Hills 0 There are no commercial or multifamily properties with City boundaries. MoRE Exemptions Jurisdiction Name Low Population Waiver Number of de-minimis waivers issued Number of physical space waivers issued Rolling Hills þ 0 0 Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills There are no commercial or multifamily properties located within City's boundaries. Jurisdiction Issued Waivers Contamination, Inspections, and Complaints:Rolling Hills (2021) Page 27 of 46 135 Jurisdiction Name Low Population Waiver Route Reviews Rolling Hills þ ¨ Contamination Monitoring for Prohibited Container Contaminants Jurisdiction Name Number of route reviews conducted for prohibited container contaminants Waste evaluations Waste evaluation results description Rolling Hills ¨ Jurisdiction Name Number of targeted route reviews resulting from waste evaluations Number of notices, violations, or targeted education materials issued to generators Rolling Hills Inspections Jurisdiction Name Number of commercial edible food (tier one) generators inspections Number of commercial edible food (tier two) generators inspections Number of food recovery organizations or services inspections Number of commercial businesses inspections, if applicable Rolling Hills 0 0 0 0 Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills Page 28 of 46 136 Complaints Jurisdiction Name Number of complaints received Number of complaints investigated Rolling Hills 0 0 Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills Enforcement and Monitoring: Rolling Hills (2021) Jurisdiction Name Low Population Waiver Number of commercial businesses (includes multifamily) included in a compliance review Number of commercial businesses (includes multifamily) included in a compliance review NOT Recycling organics Rolling Hills þ 0 0 Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills SLCP Page 29 of 46 137 Jurisdiction Name Number of commercial businesses (includes multifamily) required to recycle organics Number of commercial businesses (includes multifamily) NOT recycling organics Monitoring to inform those not recycling about MORe Rolling Hills 0 0 The City does not have any commercial or multifamily units within boundaries. Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills MORe Jurisdiction Name Number of commercial businesses (includes multifamily) required to recycle organics Number of commercial businesses (includes multifamily) NOT recycling organics Monitoring to inform those not recycling about MORe Rolling Hills 0 0 City does not have any commercial or multifamily units located within boundaries. Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills MCR Page 30 of 46 138 Jurisdiction Name Low Population Waiver Rolling Hills þ Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills City does not have any commercial or multifamily units located within boundaries. Notices of Violation Jurisdiction Name Number of Notices of Violation issued for commercial organics waste generators Number of Notices of Violation issued for commercial edible food generators (tier one) Number of Notices of Violation issued for commercial edible food generators (tier two) Number of Notices of Violation issued for food recovery organizations Number of Notices of Violation issued for food recovery services Number of Notices of Violation issued based on investigation of compliants Number of Notices of Violation issued for residential organics waste generators Rolling Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 31 of 46 139 Jurisdiction Name Low Population Waiver Rolling Hills þ Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills City does not have any commercial or multifamily units within boundaries. Penalty Orders Jurisdiction Name Number of penalty orders issued for commercial organics waste generators Number of penalty orders issued for commercial edible food generators (tier one) Number of penalty orders issued for commercial edible food generators (tier two) Number of penalty orders issued for food recovery organizations Number of penalty orders issued for food recovery services Number of penalty orders issued for residential organics waste generators Rolling Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 32 of 46 140 Jurisdiction Name Low Population Waiver Rolling Hills þ Jurisdiction Name Additional description Rolling Hills City does not have any commercial or multifamily units within boundaries. Enforcement Actions Resolved Jurisdiction Name Number of enforcement actions resolved for commercial organics waste generators Number of enforcement actions resolved for commercial edible food generators (tier one) Number of enforcement actions resolved for commercial edible food generators (tier two) Number of enforcement actions resolved for food recovery organizations Number of enforcement actions resolved for food recovery services Number of enforcement actions resolved for residential organics waste generators Rolling Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 Facilities: Rolling Hills (2021) Program Name Program description þ 7000-FR-MRF MRF 2021: No changes to the program. þ 7040-FR-ADC Alternative Daily Cover No ADC used in the City or sent to landfill SRRE Programs Page 33 of 46 141 Infrastructure and Barriers: Rolling Hills (2021) Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling (MORe): Infrastructure and barriers (AB 876) Has anything changed in the last year, since the submittal of the County capacity planning reporting requirements per 14 CCR Section 18992.1 et at.? If yes, describe in box below. ¨Yes. þ No. 1. Enforceable Mechanisms and Ordinances: Rolling Hills (2021) Ordinance or Enforceable Mechanism Changes Jurisdiction Name Changes to the ordinance or enforceable mechanism? If yes, describe changes to ordinance or enforceable mechanism Rolling Hills ¨ Page 34 of 46 142 Contact Changes Jurisdiction name Change to primary contact information? First Name Last name Street address City Rolling Hills þ Vanessa Hevener 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills Primary contact Jurisdiction name Zip code Email address Phone Rolling Hills 90274 vhevener@cityofrh.net 310-377-1521 Jurisdiction name Change to official contact information? First Name Last name Street address City Rolling Hills þ Elaine Jeng 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills Official contact Jurisdiction name Zip code Email address Phone Rolling Hills 90274 ejeng@cityofrh.net 3103771521 Ordinances Page 35 of 46 143 ¨Mandatory organic waste disposal reduction ordinance (SLCP) þ C & D ordinance ¨Mandatory commercial recycling ordinance ¨Mandatory multifamily recycling ordinance ¨Mandatory residential recycling ordinance ¨Mandatory waste collection ordinance ¨Recycled content procurement ordinance ¨Antiscavenging ordinance ¨Green building ordinance þ Model water efficient landscape ordinance ¨Single use foodware and litter reduction ordinance ¨Safe consumer-generated sharps disposal ordinance ¨Safe pharmaceutical disposal ordinance ¨Plastic bags and/or single use plastic bags ordinance ¨Polystyrene (food and drink containers etc.) ordinance ¨Mulch ordinance ¨Edible Food Recovery ordinance þ CALGreen (LEED or other Green Building requirements) ordinance ¨Other ordinances (describe below) Program Name Program description þ 6020-PI-ORD Ordinances 2021: No new ordinances. SRRE Programs Page 36 of 46 144 Planning Documents: Rolling Hills (2021) Rural Petition for Reduction Was your jurisdiction granted a Rural Petition for Reduction by CalRecycle? See Jurisdictions with an Approved Petition for Rural Reduction. For more information regarding Rural Petition for Reduction, go to Rural Solid Waste Diversion Home Page. ¨Yes. If yes, please discuss whether the conditions under which the petition was granted still apply. þ No. Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) Does the SRRE need to be revised? ¨Yes. Explain below why the SRRE is not adequate, the revisions that are necessary and the timeline for making those revisions. Note: Diversion program information is updated in each Annual Report, SB 1066 time extension or alternative diversion requirement report, compliance order, etc. So, before taking any action on the revision process, please contact your LAMD representative for further discussion and additional information. þ No. Please add any notes or updates below. Page 37 of 46 145 Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) Does the HHWE need to be revised? ¨Yes. Explain below why the HHWE is not adequate, the revisions that are necessary and the timeline for making those revisions. Note: Diversion program information is updated in each Annual Report. So, before taking any action on the revision process, please contact your LAMD representative for further discussion and additional information. þ No. Please add any notes or updates below. Non-Disposal Facility Element (NDFE) Describe below any changes in the use of non-disposal facilities, both existing and planned (e.g., is the jurisdiction using a different facility within or outside of the jurisdiction, has a facility closed, is a new one being planned). None Are there currently any non-disposal facilities that require a solid waste facility permit located (or planned to be sited) in your jurisdiction that are not identified in your NDFE? ¨Yes. Your NDFE may need to be amended before the permit for this facility comes before CalRecycle for concurrence. If the facility is not identified in the NDFE, the permit may not be in conformance with your NDFE, and the permit may be denied. See CalRecycle's NDFE Guidelines at https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Library/Policy/NDFEGuide.htm and contact your LAMD representative if you have any questions about the need to amend your NDFE. þ No. Please add notes or updates below. Page 38 of 46 146 Areas of concern Did CalRecycle require your jurisdiction to address any areas of concern when determining the adequacy of your solid waste planning documents, or any of their elements? ¨Yes. Below, discuss the actions taken to address the areas of concern. þ No. Conditional approvals Did CalRecycle give conditional approval to any of your solid waste planning documents, or any of their elements? ¨Yes. Below, discuss the actions taken gain full approval of the plan/elements. þ No. Additional Information and Document Management: Rolling Hills (2021) 1010-SR-BCM (Backyard and On-Site Composting/Mulching) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1990 Existed before 1990: Yes Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: City continues to promote the Los Angeles County Smart Gardening events. 1030-SR-PMT (Procurement) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1996 Existed before 1990: No SRRE and HHWE Diversion Programs Page 39 of 46 147 Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: Yes Jurisdiction Notes: The City meets the low population density waiver. The recycled product will come from the compost and mulch generated in the City and purchasing of recycled content material. 1050-SR-GOV (Government Source Reduction Programs) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1992 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: Yes Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: CITY TO ANSWER- 2000-RC-CRB (Residential Curbside) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1995 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: No Selected Program Details: Uncoated corrugated cardboard and paper bags | Office paper (white & colored ledger, computer paper, other office paper) | Newspaper | Misc. paper or paperboard – clean | Glass | Single-family residences | Mixed Waste Processing at MRF Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: No changes to the program. Republic Services report 1.14 tons collected at residential home. There is no curbside pickup. All service is valet and directly serviced on residential property. 2010-RC-DRP (Residential Drop-Off) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1990 Existed before 1990: Yes Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: Republic Services Spring and Fall Community Cleanup and Drop-off events. Residents can drop off shredded paper and ewaste in the parking lot at City Hall. In August, the City and Republic Services collaborated to provide 5-40 yard roll- offs to lend support to community members who are performing vegetation management in fire fuel abatement on their properties. The roll-offs are placed strategically throughout the community in prior area. 2020-RC-BYB (Residential Buy-Back) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1990 Existed before 1990: Yes Page 40 of 46 148 Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: No buy back centers located within the City limits 2030-RC-OSP (Commercial On-Site Pickup) Current Status: AO - Alternative and Ongoing Program Start Year: 2005 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: No Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: City is residential only. Only commercial business is City Hall. 2050-RC-SCH (School Recycling Programs) Current Status: AO - Alternative and Ongoing Program Start Year: 2005 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: No Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: Residential only no schools located within City limits. 2060-RC-GOV (Government Recycling Programs) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1990 Existed before 1990: Yes Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: Yes Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: City hall hosts a mixed recycling program. 2070-RC-SNL (Special Collection Seasonal (regular)) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1995 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: Spring (March) and Fall (October) Community clean up Events : Greenwaste, Bulky items, Shred and E-waste Collections. Page 41 of 46 149 2080-RC-SPE (Special Collection Events) Current Status: AO - Alternative and Ongoing Program Start Year: 2005 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: No Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: August Greenwastee Communal vegetation management and fire fuel abatement of residential properties. 3000-CM-RCG (Residential Curbside Greenwaste Collection) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1995 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: No Selected Program Details: Single-family residences | Green Waste Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: Republic Services reported 77.43 tons of greenwaste collected curbside. Greenwaste is collected twice a week and hand thrown into a separate small truck. 3010-CM-RSG (Residential Self-haul Greenwaste) Current Status: AO - Alternative and Ongoing Program Start Year: 2005 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: No Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: No program to report. 3035-CM-COR (Commercial Organics Recycling) Current Status: AO - Alternative and Ongoing Program Start Year: 2016 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: No Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: Residential only no commercial except City Hall. 3060-CM-GOV (Government Composting Programs) Current Status: AO - Alternative and Ongoing Program Start Year: 2000 Existed before 1990: No Page 42 of 46 150 Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: No Owned or Operated: Yes Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: Residential only no commercial except City Hall. 3070-CM-OTH (Other Composting) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1998 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: No Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: Residential only no commercial except City Hall. 4050-SP-WDW (Wood Waste) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1990 Existed before 1990: Yes Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: Collected in the general C&D residential projects. 4060-SP-CAR (Concrete/Asphalt/Rubble) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1998 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: Republic Services diverted 33.94 tons of material from residential projects. 5000-ED-ELC (Electronic (radio ,TV, web, hotlines)) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1995 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: Yes Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: The City makes all efforts to update website annually. https://pw.lacounty.gov/epd/cleanla/ Page 43 of 46 151 5010-ED-PRN (Print (brochures, flyers, guides, news articles)) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1995 Existed before 1990: Yes Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: Yes Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: The City and Republic Services creates separate quarterly newsletters and an annual brochure. 5020-ED-OUT (Outreach (tech assistance, presentations, awards, fairs, field trips)) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1995 Existed before 1990: Yes Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: Yes Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: No changes to the changes. 5040-ED-OTH (Other Public Education) Current Status: AO - Alternative and Ongoing Program Start Year: 2005 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: No Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: No schools are located within the City limits. 6010-PI-EIN (Economic Incentives) Current Status: AO - Alternative and Ongoing Program Start Year: 2005 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: No Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: None 6020-PI-ORD (Ordinances) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1993 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: Yes Page 44 of 46 152 Selected Program Details: C & D ordinance Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: No new ordinances. 7000-FR-MRF (MRF) Current Status: AO - Alternative and Ongoing Program Start Year: 2009 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: No Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: No changes to the program. 7040-FR-ADC (Alternative Daily Cover) Current Status: AO - Alternative and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1995 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: No Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: No ADC used in the City or sent to landfill 9000-HH-PMF (Permanent Facility) Current Status: AO - Alternative and Ongoing Program Start Year: 2005 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: No Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: The City and Republic Services promotes the proper management of HHW and Ewaste to be taken to the S.A.F.E Center located in San Pedro. 9010-HH-MPC (Mobile or Periodic Collection) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1995 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: Republic Services electronic waste collection event held at City Hall on March 26th, 2021. 9030-HH-WSE (Waste Exchange) Page 45 of 46 153 Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1995 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: None to report 9040-HH-EDP (Education Programs) Current Status: SO - Selected and Ongoing Program Start Year: 1995 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: Yes Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: City and Republic Services continues to promote the County of Los Angeles hazardous and electronic waste events, South Bay Environmental Service Center and S.A.F.E Center located in San Pedro. https://pw.lacounty.gov/epd/cleanla/. 9045-HH-EWA (Electronic Waste) Current Status: AO - Alternative and Ongoing Program Start Year: 2005 Existed before 1990: No Report Year Diversion Tons: 0 Selected in SRRE: No Owned or Operated: No Jurisdiction Notes: 2021: Republic Services electronic waste collection event held at City Hall on March 26th, 2021. Is there anything else you would like to tell CalRecycle about unique or innovative efforts by your jurisdiction to reduce organic waste generation and increase diversion, about your jurisdiction's public education efforts, or about specific obstacles to reaching your jurisdiction's implementation of an organic recycling program? None Brief description of additional information files, including calculation data for infrastructure planning. None Additional Information Page 46 of 46 154 Agenda Item No.: 7.K Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 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:RECEIVE A FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE EASTFIELD DRIVE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AD-2021-1, AND DIRECT STAFF TO REIMBURSE RESIDENTS MIKE AND MARCIA SCHOETTLE FOR OVERPAYMENT OF $11,645.18. DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: Property owners along Eastfield Drive, within the City, submitted petitions requesting the formation of an underground utility assessment district. NV5, the City’s Assessment Engineer, certified the petitions for the proposed City of Rolling Hills Assessment District No. 2021-1 (Eastfield Drive Utility Improvements) (“AD 2021-1”) and on January 25, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1270, declaring its intention to take proceedings to form AD 2021-1, and Resolution No. 1269, setting a public hearing for March 22, 2021. Each of the property owners within the proposed AD 2021-1 was mailed a ballot and notice of the public hearing. The public hearing on the improvements and assessments was held on March 22, 2021 in accordance with Assessment Law. The City Council received all ballots filed with the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the hearing. The Council found and determined, based upon the Certificate of Assessment Engineer who conducted the ballot tabulation, that a majority of the ballots received were in opposition to the assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots were weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property. DISCUSSION: The City has previously approved professional services contracts with Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth (SYCR), as bond counsel to the City with respect to formation of the proposed AD 2021-1, NV5 as the Assessment Engineer and Urban Futures, Inc., as the City’s Municipal Advisor. Itemized expenses relating to the AD 2021-1 are included with this report and summarized below: Utility design total expense $70,500 (City and RHCA contributed 1/3 of total cost) 155 Assessment Engineer, NV5 total expense $31,035 (City and RHCA contributed 1/3 of total cost) Financial Advisor, Urban Futures would only be compensated if there was a sale of a bond. No expense for Urban Futures. Bond Counsel, Strandling Yocca Carlson & Rauth (SYCR) total expense $14,293 Following the vote of the property owners, staff was waiting for Urban Futures to invoice the city for their work on AD 2021-1. Meanwhile, funds were collected from the ten property owners that initiated AD 2021-1 for utility design, assessment engineer, and financial advisor. Residents were informed that the collection for bond counsel fee would take place after the final fee was determined. After the vote of property owners, residents Marcia and Mike Schoettle decided to pay the total fee ($14,293.18) for the bond counsel instead of dividing the cost between ten property owners. After reaching out to Urban Futures in August, 2022, staff was informed that the agreement with the city required a sale of a bond in order for Urban Futures to be compensated for their work on AD 2021-1. This provision prevented Urban Futures from billing the city. Zero expenses associated with the Financial Advisor resulted in $11,645.18 of unspent funds for the AD 2021-1. Since Marcia and Mike Schoettle shouldered the entire cost of the bond counsel, staff is recommending that the unspent funds of $11,645.18 be refunded to the Schoettles. FISCAL IMPACT: The previous Finance Director deposited the funds from residents for AD 2021-1 in the Utility Fund. The unspent funds of $11,645.18 would be refunded to the Schoettles from the Utility Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: Ltr_Schoettle_Undergrounding_Assessment_Engr_Cost_Needed_2019-09-17__SIGNED .pdf 2022ResidentPayVendorCostSpreadsheet.pdf 11-15-19__NV5 Professional Services Agreement__Signed Copy.pdf Urban Futures Inc Professional Services Agreement with wet signatures.pdf Bond Council Agreement SYC&R.pdf 156 157 158 159 TABLE 1 Eastfield Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Initiatived by Residents Accounting of collected funds and vendor cost 2016-2019 Engineering Cost 2016 Resident Deposit 2017 City Contribution RHCA Contribution 1 Southern California Edison $50,000 1 22 Eastfield Drive $2,817 1 2017 $23,500 2 2017 $23,500 2 Cox $3,700 2 24 Eastfield Drive $2,817 3 Frontier $800 3 25 Eastfield Drive $2,817 4 Frontier Adjustment $16,000 4 26 Eastfield Drive $2,817 5 Benefit Study Cost $20,700 5 27 Eastfield Drive $2,817 $91,200 6 28 Eastfield Drive $2,817 7 29 Eastfield Drive $2,817 8 30 Eastfield Drive $2,817 9 31 Eastfield Drive $2,817 10 2 Chuckwagon Road $2,817 $28,170 Total spent in 2018 $70,500 Total collected funds $75,170.00 Remaining funds in 2017 $4,670 Actual remaining funds applied $5,500 160 TABLE 2 Eastfield Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Initiated by Residents Account of collected funds and vendor cost 2019 Assessment Engineer 2019 $28,635 Resident Deposit 2019 City Contribution RHCA Contribution 1 NV5 - 2/10/2020 Invoice $2,028 1 22 Eastfield Drive $771.20 1 2019 $7,712 2019 $7,712 2 NV5 - 5/11/2020 Invoice $6,077.50 2 24 Eastfield Drive$771.20 3 NV5 - 9/28/2020 Invoice $790.00 3 25 Eastfield Drive$771.20 4 NV5 - 10/28/2020 Invoice $450.00 4 26 Eastfield Drive$771.20 5 NV5 - 9/15/2021 Invoice $5,880.65 5 27 Eastfield Drive$771.20 6 NV5 - 9/13/2021 Invoice $450.00 6 28 Eastfield Drive$771.20 7 NV5 - 2/25/2021 Invoice $9,028.85 7 29 Eastfield Drive$771.20 8 NV5 - 1/22/2021 Invoice $450.00 8 30 Eastfield Drive$771.20 9 NV5 - 3/16/2021 Invoice $2,377.50 9 31 Eastfield Drive$771.20 10 NV5 - 4/14/2021 Invoice $3,503.15 #2 Chuckwagon Road$771.20 $7,712.00 Total spent in 2021 $31,035 Total collected funds$23,135.33 Remaining funds in 2017 $5,500 Remaining balance $25,535 Actual remaining funds ($2,399.82) 161 TABLE 3 Eastfield Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Initiated by Residents Account of collected funds and vendor cost 2020 Finance Advisor Resident Deposit 2019 City Contribution RHCA Contribution 1 Urban Futures $12,500 1 22 Eastfield Drive $1,250.00 1 2020 $0 2020 $0 2 24 Eastfield Drive$2,500.00 3 24 Eastfield $1,545.00 4 25 Eastfield $1,250.00 5 26 Eastfield $1,250.00 6 27 Eastfield Drive$1,250.00 7 28 Eastfield Drive$1,250.00 8 29 Eastfield Drive$1,250.00 9 30 Eastfield Drive$1,250.00 10 31 Eastfield Drive$1,250.00 $14,045 Total spent in 2021 $0 Total collected funds$14,045.00 Remaining funds in 2021 ($2,399.82) Acutal remaining funds $11,645.18 162 TABLE 4 Eastfield Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Initiated by Residents Account of collected funds and vendor cost 2021 Bond Counsel Resident Deposit 2019 City Contribution RHCA Contribution 1 Stradling - Invoice $12,841 1 22 Eastfield Drive $0.00 1 2020 $0 2020 $0 2 Stradling - Invoice $1,452 2 24 Eastfield Drive$14,293.18 3 25 Eastfield Drive $0.00 4 26 Eastfield Drive $0.00 5 27 Eastfield Drive $0.00 6 28 Eastfield Drive $0.00 7 29 Eastfield Drive $0.00 8 30 Eastfield Drive $0.00 9 31 Eastfield Drive $0.00 10 2 Chuckwagon Road$0.00 $14,293 Total spent in 2021 $14,293 Total collected funds$14,293.18 Remaining funds in 2021 $11,645.18 Acutal remaining funds $11,645.18 Funds to be refunded to 24 Eastfield Drive 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 Agenda Item No.: 7.L Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:VANESSA HEVENER, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1305 APPROVING THE 2017 UPDATED GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGION INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ENABLE THE CITY TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDING DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) established the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Program to encourage regional strategies for managing water resources and to provide grant funding for the planning and implementation of projects that support management of water supply, water quality, environmental interests, drought protection, flood protection, and reduction of dependence on imported water. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) leads the Greater Los Angeles County IRWM and the preparation and adoption of the Greater Los Angeles County (GLAC) IRWM Plan, a living document detailing our region’s integrated water management efforts. Approximately $2.5M in unspent funds from the Proposition 84 Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Prop 84) IRWM Implementation Grant previously awarded to the GLAC has just become available for eligible projects which are ready to proceed. The City’s planned Portuguese Bend Road/Rolling Hills Road Sewer Main project may be selected to receive some of this unspent grant funding, and to be eligible the City must adopt the 2017 IRWM Plan. DISCUSSION: DWR recently issued a notification that unspent funds from projects in the GLAC under the Prop 84 IRWM Round 1 Implementation Grant must be expended prior to the grant end date of December 31, 2022, however an extension to this end date will be considered by DWR contingent on a projects’ successful completion within a short timeframe (by June 2023). Projects that have completed CEQA and design and are ready to proceed are being considered for this funding. City staff has proposed the Portuguese Bend Road/Rolling Hills Road Sewer Main project for this funding. 217 IRWM Program Guidelines issued in 2016 by DWR and State Legislators require governing bodies of member agencies of the IRWM groups, as well as project proponents for IRWM grant funding proposals, to formally adopt updated IRWM Plans. The 2014 GLAC IRWM Plan was amended in 2017 to conform to the 2016 IRWM Guidelines and DWR has approved the amended plan. Therefore, adopting the 2017 GLAC IRWM Plan will enable the City to apply for this Prop 84 IRWM grant funding as well as other grant funding opportunities in the future. The 2017 IRWM Plan consists of the 2014 IRWM Plan available on the GLAC IRWM website (2014 GLAC IRWM Plan ), along with the 2017 amendment to the GLAC IRWM Plan (2017 Amendment to the Greater Los Angeles County IRWM Plan). As a condition of funding, the City would be required to enter an MOU with LACFCD who administers the IRWM grant funds from DWR. The MOU with LACFCD will pass-through certain provisions of the IRWM Implementation grant agreement between LACFCD and DWR to individual projects being funded by the grant. The MOU is not yet available and will be brought back to City Council if the project is selected for funding; however, the City Attorney has reviewed the current, more recent Prop 1 Implementation Grant Agreement template and finds the terms acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this resolution. If the City receives the Prop 84 Round 1 IRWM grant funding, a 25% match is required. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 1305 adopting the 2017 Updated Greater Los Angeles County Region Integrated Regional Water Management Plan to enable the City to apply for grant funding. ATTACHMENTS: PW_SEW_220831_Grant_Prop84_R1_ProjectSummary_RH_SewerMain.pdf CL_AGN_CC_220926_AgreementTemplateProp1Implementation.pdf ResolutionNo1305_IRWM_Adoption.pdf 218 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 8” SEWER MAIN ALONG PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD/ROLLING HILLS ROAD TO REPALCE SEPTIC TANKS IN THE COMMUNITY The City of Rolling Hills is a gated, residential community on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in Southern California. The community has about 700 plus homes in an area of three square miles. Ninety-nine percent of the homes in Rolling Hills are on septic tanks. The first sewer main project proposed for the city is comprised of three phases. The first phase of the project includes the installation of a new 8” line (1,585 linear feet) from the main gate to connect to an existing line in the adjacent City of Rolling Hills Estates. The second phase of the project includes upsizing downstream lines (8” VCP to 10” VCP for 255 LF, 8” VCP to 12” VCP for 236 LF) in the City of Torrance to accept effluent from 235 homes in Rolling Hills. The third phase of the project includes installing a new 8” line from the main gate into the community laterals to 235 homes. The Los Angeles County Public Works Department and Sanitation District issued two Will-serve letters to the city for the project. The engineering design plan for the first phase of the project is complete. The environmental analysis for the first and second phases of the project are complete. The adjacent city of Rolling Hills Estates is ready to issue permit for construction. The engineering design plan for the second phase of the project is near completion, pending approval of the City of Torrance. The design work for the third phase is pending City Council’s direction. Project Benefit The wastewater from existing septic tanks are seeping into the ground. This project will reclaim wastewater for treatment and reuse. The City of Rolling Hills has a landslide area in the community designated as the Flying Triangle. The City of Rolling Hills is also located at the top of the well- documented Portuguese Bend landslide in Rancho Palos Verdes. Reclaiming the wastewater from the ground could enhance soil strength. Project Cost The cost of phase 1 is approximately $1M. The cost of the second phase is approximately $1.5M for a total $2.5M. Project Schedule The first phase of the project will advertise for construction bids in October/November 2022 if funded and complete construction in May 2023. Construction of the second phase of the project would advertise for construction bids in May 2023 and complete construction in November 2023. 219 GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES) AND <GRANTEE NAME> AGREEMENT NUMBER <SAP AGREEMENT NUMBER> PROPOSITION 1 ROUND 2 INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT (IRWM) IMPLEMENTATION GRANT THIS GRANT AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the Department of Water Resources of the State of California, herein referred to as the "State" or “DWR,” and the <insert Grantee Name>, a <select appropriate descriptor and delete others: public agency, non-profit, etc.> in the State of California, duly organized, existing, and acting pursuant to the laws thereof, herein referred to as the "Grantee," which parties do hereby agree as follows: 1)PURPOSE. The State shall provide funding from the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1) to the Grantee to assist in financing the projects, which are included in and implemented in an adopted Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM Plan), pursuant to Chapter 7. Regional Water Security, Climate, and Drought Preparedness (Wat. Code, § 79740 et seq.). The provision of State funds pursuant to this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted to mean that the IRWM Plan, or any components of the IRWM Plan, implemented in accordance with the Work Plan as set forth in Exhibit A, has been adopted through the IRWM Plan Review Process, and is/are consistent with Water Code section 10530 et seq. 2)TERM OF GRANT AGREEMENT. The term of this Grant Agreement begins on <insert the day after final award date> and ends three (3) years following the retention payment for the last project work, unless otherwise terminated or amended as provided in this Grant Agreement. However, all work shall be completed by <insert the last project completion date based on schedule>, in accordance with the Schedule as set forth in Exhibit C and no funds may be requested after <insert date 3 months after the last project work is scheduled to be completed>. 3)GRANT AMOUNT. The maximum amount payable by the State under this Grant Agreement shall not exceed $<INSERT AMOUNT>. 4)GRANTEE COST SHARE. <Not applicable to this Agreement> or <The Grantee is required to provide a Local Cost Share (non-state funds) as set forth in Exhibit B (Budget). Local Cost Share may include Eligible Project Costs directly related to Exhibit A incurred after January 1, 2015.> 5)BASIC CONDITIONS. A.Unless exempt as per the 2021 IRWM Implementation Grant Proposal Solicitation Package, project(s) that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) including final land purchases, shall not be included in this Agreement until the CEQA process is completed and all permits necessary to begin construction are acquired. i.Such projects will be included in the Agreement as a placeholder. Placeholder projects are not eligible for grant reimbursement and may not submit invoices to DWR until such time as they are fully included in the Agreement. ii.Placeholder projects that complete CEQA and/or acquire permits (necessary to begin construction) within eighteen (18) months of the agreement execution date will be amended into the Agreement. At the end of the eighteen (18)-month term, any placeholder projects that fail to complete CEQA and/or acquire permits will be deleted from the Agreement. The total grant award will be reduced by the amount of the deleted project(s). Replacement projects will not be allowed. Reduced amount will be made available to the respective Funding Area in future funding rounds on a competitive basis. Deleted placeholder projects will not be eligible to receive any grant reimbursement under this Agreement; however, such project could be eligible under the next round of grant solicitation. 220 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 2 of 41 B. The State shall have no obligation to disburse money for the Project(s) under this Grant Agreement until the Grantee has satisfied the following conditions (if applicable): i. The Grantee shall demonstrate compliance with all eligibility criteria as set forth on pages 9-11, inclusive, of the 2019 IRWM Implementation Grant Program Guidelines (2019 Guidelines). ii. For the term of this Agreement, the Grantee shall submit Quarterly Progress Reports which must accompany an invoice and all invoice backup documentation ($0 Invoices are acceptable). The Quarterly Progress Report shall be submitted within 60 days following the end of the calendar quarter (i.e. reports due May 30, August 29, November 29, and March 1) and all other deliverables as required by Paragraph 14, “Submission of Reports” and Exhibit A, “Work Plan”. iii. Prior to the commencement of construction or implementation activities, if applicable, the Grantee shall submit the following to the State. 1. Final plans and specifications certified, signed and stamped by a California Registered Civil Engineer (or equivalent registered professional as appropriate) to certify compliance for each approved project as listed in Exhibit A of this Grant Agreement. 2. Work that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (including final land purchases) shall not proceed under this Grant Agreement until the following actions are performed: a) The Grantee submits to the State all applicable environmental permits, as indicated on the Environmental Information Form to the State, b) All documents that satisfy the CEQA process are received by the State, c) The State has completed its CEQA process as a Responsible Agency, and d) The Grantee receives written notification from the State of concurrence with the Lead Agency’s CEQA documents (s) and State’s notice of verification of environmental permit submittal. The State’s concurrence of Lead Agency’s CEQA documents is fully discretionary and shall constitute a condition precedent to any work (i.e., construction or implementation activities) for which it is required. Once CEQA documentation has been completed, the State will consider the environmental documents and decide whether to continue to fund the project, or to require changes, alterations, or other mitigation. Proceeding with work subject to CEQA prior to the State’s concurrence shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. The Grantee or Local Project Sponsor (LPS) shall also demonstrate that it has complied with all applicable requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by submitting copies of any environmental documents, including Environmental Impact Statements, Finding of No Significant Impact, mitigation monitoring programs, and environmental permits as may be required prior to beginning construction/ implementation. iv. A monitoring plan as required by Paragraph 16, “Monitoring Plan Requirements,” if applicable. 6) DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS. The State will disburse to the Grantee the amount approved, subject to the availability of funds through normal State processes. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Grant Agreement, no disbursement shall be required at any time or in any manner which is in violation of, or in conflict with, federal or state laws, rules, or regulations, or which may require any rebates to the federal government, or any loss of tax-free status on state bonds, pursuant to any federal statute or regulation. Any and all money disbursed to the Grantee under this Grant Agreement shall be deposited in a non- interest bearing account and shall be used solely to pay Eligible Project Costs. 7) ELIGIBLE PROJECT COST. The Grantee shall apply State funds received only to Eligible Project Costs in accordance with applicable provisions of the law and Exhibit B, “Budget”. Eligible Project Costs include the reasonable costs of studies, engineering, design, land and easement acquisition and associated legal fees, preparation of environmental documentation, environmental mitigations, monitoring, and project 221 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 3 of 41 construction. Reimbursable administrative expenses are the necessary costs incidental but directly related to the Project included in this Agreement. Costs incurred after the <Insert Final Award date> may be eligible for reimbursement. Costs that are not eligible for reimbursement include, but are not limited to, the following items: A. Costs, other than those noted above, incurred prior to the award date of this Grant. B. Costs for preparing and filing a grant application. C. Operation and maintenance costs, including post construction performance and monitoring costs. D. Purchase of equipment that is not an integral part of a project. E. Establishing a reserve fund. F. Purchase of water supply. G. Replacement of existing funding sources for ongoing programs. H. Meals, food items, or refreshments. I. Payment of any punitive regulatory agency requirement, federal or state taxes. J. Purchase of land in excess of the minimum required acreage necessary to operate as an integral part of a project, as set forth and detailed by engineering and feasibility studies, or acquisition of land by eminent domain. K. Indirect Costs. “Indirect Costs” means those costs that are incurred for a common or joint purpose benefiting more than one cost objective and are not readily assignable to the funded project (i.e., costs that are not directly related to the funded project). Examples of Indirect Costs include, but are not limited to: central service costs; general administration of the Grantee or LPSs; non-project-specific accounting and personnel services performed within the Grantee’s or LPS’ organization; depreciation or use allowances on buildings and equipment; the costs of operating and maintaining non-project- specific facilities; tuition and conference fees; forums, trainings, and seminars; and, generic overhead or markup. This prohibition applies to the Grantee, LPSs, and any subcontract or sub-agreement for work on the Project that will be reimbursed pursuant to this Agreement. L. Mitigation for environmental impacts not resulting from implementation of the Project funded by this program. M. Costs incurred as part of any necessary response and cleanup activities required under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Hazardous Substances Account Act; or other applicable law. 8) METHOD OF PAYMENT. After the disbursement requirements in Paragraph 5, “Basic Conditions” are met, the State will disburse the whole or portions of State funding to the Grantee, following receipt from the Grantee of an electronic invoice certified and transmitted via electronic/digital signature system (e.g., DocuSign) or via US mail or Express mail delivery of a “wet signature” for costs incurred, including Local Cost Share, and timely Quarterly Progress Reports as required by Paragraph 14, “Submission of Reports.” Payment will be made no more frequently than <choose one: quarterly/monthly>, in arrears, upon receipt of an invoice bearing the Grant Agreement number. Quarterly Progress Report must accompany an invoice ($0 Invoices are acceptable) and shall be submitted within 60 days following the end of the calendar quarter (i.e. invoices due May 30, August 29, November 29, and March 1). The State will notify the Grantee, in a timely manner, whenever, upon review of an invoice, the State determines that any portion or portions of the costs claimed are not eligible costs or is not supported by documentation or receipts acceptable to the State. The Grantee may, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of receipt of such notice, submit additional documentation to the State to cure such deficiency(ies). If the Grantee fails 222 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 4 of 41 to submit adequate documentation curing the deficiency(ies), the State will adjust the pending invoice by the amount of ineligible or unapproved costs. Invoices submitted by the Grantee shall include the following information: A. Costs incurred for work performed in implementing the Project during the period identified in the particular invoice. B. Costs incurred for any interests in real property (land or easements) that have been necessarily acquired for a project during the period identified in the particular invoice for the implementation of a project. C. Invoices shall be submitted on forms provided by the State and shall meet the following format requirements: i. Invoices shall contain the date of the invoice, either the time period covered by the invoice or the invoice date received within the time period covered, and the total amount due. ii. Invoices shall be itemized based on the categories (i.e., tasks) specified in Exhibit B, “Budget.” The amount claimed for salaries/wages/consultant fees shall include a calculation formula (i.e., hours or days worked times the hourly or daily rate = the total amount claimed). iii. One set of sufficient evidence (i.e., receipts, copies of checks, personnel hours’ summary table, time sheets) shall be provided for all costs included in the invoice. iv. Each invoice shall clearly delineate those costs claimed for reimbursement from the State’s funding amount, as depicted in Paragraph 3, “Grant Amount” and those costs that represent the Grantee’s costs, as applicable, in Paragraph 4, “Grantee Cost Share.” v. Original signature and date of the Grantee’s Project Representative. Submit an electronic invoice, certified and transmitted via electronic/digital signature system (e.g., DocuSign), from authorized representative to the Project Manager or the original “wet signature” copy of the invoice form to the Project Manager at the following address: <Insert appropriate address>. All invoices submitted shall be accurate and signed under penalty of law. Any and all costs submitted pursuant to this Agreement shall only be for the tasks set forth herein. The Grantee shall not submit any invoice containing costs that are ineligible or have been reimbursed from other funding sources unless required and specifically noted as such (i.e., cost share). Any eligible costs for which the Grantee is seeking reimbursement shall not be reimbursed from any other source. Double or multiple billing for time, services, or any other eligible cost is illegal and constitutes fraud. Any suspected occurrences of fraud, forgery, embezzlement, theft, or any other misuse of public funds may result in suspension of disbursements of grant funds and/or termination of this Agreement requiring the repayment of all funds disbursed hereunder plus interest. Additionally, the State may request an audit pursuant to Standard Condition D.5 and refer the matter to the Attorney General’s Office or the appropriate district attorney’s office for criminal prosecution or the imposition of civil liability. (Civ. Code, §§ 1572-1573; Pen. Code, §§ 470, 487-489.) 9) ADVANCED PAYMENT. Water Code section 10551 authorizes advanced payment by the State for projects included and implemented in an applicable Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, and when the project proponent is a nonprofit organization; a disadvantaged community (DAC); or the project benefits a DAC. If a project is awarded less than $1,000,000 in grant funds, the project proponent may receive an advanced payment of fifty (50) percent of the grant award; the remaining fifty (50) percent of the grant award will be reimbursed in arrears after the advanced funds of a budget category have been fully expended. Within ninety (90) calendar days of execution of the Grant Agreement, the Grantee may provide the State an Advanced Payment Request. Advanced Payment Requests received ninety-one (91) calendar days after the execution of this Agreement will not be eligible to receive an advanced payment. The Advanced Payment Request shall contain the following: 223 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 5 of 41 A. Documentation demonstrating that each Local Project Sponsor (if different from the Grantee, as listed in Exhibit I) was notified about their eligibility to receive an advanced payment and a response from the Local Project Sponsor stating whether it wishes to receive the advanced payment or not. B. If the Grantee is requesting the advanced payment, the request(s) shall include: i. Descriptive information of each project with an update on project status ii. The names of the entities that will receive the funding for each project, including, but not limited to, an identification as to whether the project proponent or proponents are nonprofit organizations or a DAC, or whether the project benefits a DAC iii. A detailed Funding Plan which includes how the advanced payment will be expended (in terms of workplan, budget, and schedule) within the timeframe agreed upon by DWR and the Grantee. The Funding Plan must clearly identify the total budget (at Budget Category Level) for each project clearly showing the portion of advanced payment and reimbursement funds. iv. Any other information that DWR may deem necessary C. Upon review and approval of the Advanced Payment Request, DWR will authorize payment of the fully requested amount for the qualified project(s). Based on the project’s Funding Plan and other considerations, DWR may determine it is not prudent to advance the full request in a single disbursement. In such a case, DWR will develop a “Disbursement Schedule,” to disburse funds in installments. This Disbursement Schedule may change based on the project’s ongoing compliance with the Advanced Payment requirements and the project’s cash flow needs. D. Once DWR authorizes the Advanced Payment Request, the Grantee shall submit Advanced Payment Invoice(s) for the initial amount based on the “Disbursement Schedule” on behalf of the LPS(s), containing the request for each qualified project, to the State with signature and date of the Grantee’s Project Representative, as indicated in Paragraph 21, “Project Representative.” The Grantee shall be responsible for the timely distribution of the advanced funds to the respective LPS(s). The Advanced Payment Invoice(s) shall be submitted on forms provided by the State and shall meet the following format requirements: i. Invoice shall contain the date of the invoice, the time period covered by the invoice, and the total amount due. ii. Invoice shall be itemized based on the budget categories specified in Exhibit B, “Budget.” iii. The State Project Manager will notify the Grantee, in a timely manner, when, upon review of an Advance Payment Invoice, the State determines that any portion or portions of the costs claimed are not eligible costs. The Grantee may, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of receipt of such notice, submit additional documentation to cure such deficiency(ies). iv. On a quarterly basis, the Grantee will submit an Accountability Report to the State that demonstrates how actual expenditures compare with the scheduled budget. The Accountability Report shall include the following information: 1. An itemization of how advanced funds have been spent to-date (Expenditure Report), including documentation that supports the disbursements (e.g., contractor invoices, receipts, personnel hours, etc.). Accountability Reports shall be itemized based on the budget categories (i.e., tasks) specified in Exhibit B. 2. An updated Accountability Report including an updated Funding Plan that depicts how the remaining advanced funds will be expended and the activities and deliverables associated with the advanced funds within the timeframe agreed upon by DWR and the Grantee when the advanced payment request was approved. 3. Documentation that the funds were placed in a non-interest bearing account, including the dates of deposits and withdrawals from that account. 224 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 6 of 41 4. Proof of distribution of advanced funds to LPS(s), if applicable. v. The State’s Project Manager will notify the Grantee, in a timely manner, when, upon review of the Accountability Report, the State determines that any portion of the expenditures claimed are not eligible costs. The Grantee may, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of receipt of such notice, submit additional documentation to cure such deficiency(ies). If costs are not consistent with the tasks in Exhibit A, the State will reject the claim and remove them from the Accountability Report. E. Once the Grantee has spent all advanced funds in a budget category, then the method of payment will revert to the reimbursement process for that budget category specified in Paragraph 8, “Method of Payment for Reimbursement.” 10) REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES. The State may demand repayment from the Grantee of all or any portion of the advanced State funding along with interest at the California general obligation bond interest rate at the time the State notifies the Grantee, as directed by the State, and take any other action that it deems necessary to protect its interests for the following conditions: A. A project is not being implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. B. The Grantee has failed in any other respect to comply with the provisions of this Grant Agreement, and if the Grantee does not remedy any such failure to the State’s satisfaction. C. Failure by the Grantee to submit complete and accurate quarterly Accountability Reports by the required due dates, unless otherwise approved by DWR. D. Failure to deposit funds in a non-interest-bearing account. E. Use of Advance Payment funds for ineligible expenses and/or activities not consistent with this Agreement. F. Inappropriate use of funds, as deemed by DWR. G. Repayment amounts may also include: i. Actual costs incurred which are not consistent with the activities presented in Exhibit A, not supported, or are ineligible. ii. Advanced funds which are not fully expended by project completion, notwithstanding Water Code section 10551(c)(4). Unused grant funds shall be returned to DWR within sixty (60) calendar days. Any repayment of advanced funds may consist of reducing the amount from future reimbursement invoices. The State may consider the Grantee’s refusal to repay the requested advanced amount a material breach of this Agreement subject to the default provisions in Paragraph 12, “Default Provisions.” If the State notifies the Grantee of its decision to demand repayment or withhold the entire funding amount from the Grantee pursuant to this Paragraph, this Grant Agreement shall terminate upon receipt of such notice by the Grantee and the State shall no longer be required to provide funds under this Agreement. 11) WITHHOLDING OF DISBURSEMENTS BY THE STATE. If the State determines that a project is not being implemented in accordance with the provisions of this Grant Agreement, or that the Grantee has failed in any other respect to comply with the provisions of this Grant Agreement, and if the Grantee does not remedy any such failure to the State’s satisfaction, the State may withhold from the Grantee all or any portion of the State funding and take any other action that it deems necessary to protect its interests. Where a portion of the State funding has been disbursed to the Grantee and the State notifies the Grantee of its decision not to release funds that have been withheld pursuant to Paragraph 12, “Default Provisions,” the portion that has been disbursed shall thereafter be repaid immediately with interest at the California general obligation bond interest rate at the time the State notifies the Grantee, as directed by the State. The State may consider the Grantee’s refusal to repay the requested disbursed amount a 225 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 7 of 41 material breach subject to the default provisions in Paragraph 12, “Default Provisions.” If the State notifies the Grantee of its decision to withhold the entire funding amount from the Grantee pursuant to this Paragraph, this Grant Agreement shall terminate upon receipt of such notice by the Grantee and the State shall no longer be required to provide funds under this Grant Agreement and the Grant Agreement shall no longer be binding on either party. 12) DEFAULT PROVISIONS. The Grantee shall be in default under this Grant Agreement if any of the following occur: A. Substantial breaches of this Grant Agreement, or any supplement or amendment to it, or any other Agreement between the Grantee and the State evidencing or securing the Grantee’s obligations; B. Making any false warranty, representation, or statement with respect to this Grant Agreement or the application filed to obtain this Grant Agreement; C. Failure to operate or maintain the Project in accordance with this Grant Agreement. D. Failure to make any remittance required by this Grant Agreement, including any remittance recommended as the result of an audit conducted pursuant to Standard Condition D.5. E. Failure to submit quarterly progress reports pursuant to Paragraph 5. F. Failure to routinely invoice the State pursuant to Paragraph 8. G. Failure to meet any of the requirements set forth in Paragraph 13, “Continuing Eligibility.” Should an event of default occur, the State shall provide a notice of default to the Grantee and shall give the Grantee at least ten (10) calendar days to cure the default from the date the notice is sent via first- class mail to the Grantee. If the Grantee fails to cure the default within the time prescribed by the State, the State may do any of the following: H. Declare the funding be immediately repaid, with interest, which shall be equal to State of California general obligation bond interest rate in effect at the time of the default. I. Terminate any obligation to make future payments to the Grantee. J. Terminate the Grant Agreement. K. Take any other action that it deems necessary to protect its interests. In the event the State finds it necessary to enforce this provision of this Grant Agreement in the manner provided by law, the Grantee agrees to pay all costs incurred by the State including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees, legal expenses, and costs. 13) CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY. The Grantee shall meet the following ongoing requirement(s) and all eligibility criteria outlined in the 2019 Guidelines to remain eligible to receive State funds: A. An urban water supplier that receives grant funds pursuant to this Agreement shall maintain compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP; Wat. Code, § 10610 et seq.) and Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (Wat. Code, § 10608 et seq.) as set forth on page 11 of the 2019 Guidelines and as stated on page 22 of the Proposal Solicitation Package. B. An agricultural water supplier receiving grant funds shall comply with Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction requirements outlined in Water Code section 10608, et seq. and have their Agricultural Water Management Plan (AWMP) deemed consistent by DWR. To maintain eligibility and continue funding disbursements, an agricultural water supply shall have their 2015 AWMP identified on the State’s website. For more information, visit the website listed in Appendix A in the 2019 Guidelines. C. A surface water diverter receiving grant funds shall maintain compliance with diversion reporting requirements as outlined in Water Code section 5100 et. seq. 226 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 8 of 41 D. If applicable, the Grantee shall demonstrate compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) set forth on page 10 of the 2019 Guidelines. E. If the Grantee has been designated as a monitoring entity under the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program, the Grantee shall maintain reporting compliance, as required by Water Code section 10932 and the CASGEM Program. F. The Grantee shall adhere to the protocols developed pursuant to The Open and Transparent Water Data Act (Wat. Code, § 12406, et seq.) for data sharing, transparency, documentation, and quality control. 14) SUBMISSION OF REPORTS. The submittal and approval of all reports is a requirement for the successful completion of this Grant Agreement. Reports shall meet generally accepted professional standards for technical reporting and shall be proofread for content, numerical accuracy, spelling, and grammar prior to submittal to the State. All reports shall be submitted to the State’s Project Manager and shall be submitted via the DWR “Grant Review and Tracking System” (GRanTS). If requested, the Grantee shall promptly provide any additional information deemed necessary by the State for the approval of reports. Reports shall be presented in the formats described in the applicable portion of Exhibit F, “Report Formats and Requirements.” The timely submittal of reports is a requirement for initial and continued disbursement of State funds. Submittal and subsequent approval by the State of a Project Completion Report is a requirement for the release of any funds retained for such project. A. Quarterly Progress Reports: The Grantee shall submit quarterly Progress Reports to meet the State’s requirement for disbursement of funds. Progress Reports shall be uploaded via GRanTS, and the State’s Project Manager notified of upload. Progress Reports shall, in part, provide a brief description of the work performed, the Grantee’s activities, milestones achieved, any accomplishments and any problems encountered in the performance of the work under this Grant Agreement during the reporting period. The first Progress Report must accompany an invoice ($0 Invoices are acceptable) and shall be submitted within 60 days following the end of the calendar quarter (i.e. invoices due May 30, August 29, November 29, and March 1). B. Accountability Report: The Grantee shall prepare and submit to the State an Accountability Report on a quarterly basis if the Grantee received an advanced payment, consistent with the provisions in Paragraph 9, “Advanced Payment.” C. Project Completion Report: The Grantee shall prepare and submit to the State a separate Project Completion Report for each project included in Exhibit A. The Grantee shall submit a Project Completion Report (or a Component Completion Report, if a Project has multiple Components) within ninety (90) calendar days of Project/Component completion as outlined in Exhibit F. D. Grant Completion Report: Upon completion of all the Projects included in Exhibit A, the Grantee shall submit to the State a Grant Completion Report. The Grant Completion Report shall be submitted within ninety (90) calendar days of submitting the Completion Report for the final project to be completed under this Grant Agreement, as outlined in Exhibits A, and F. Retention for any grant administration line items in the Budget of this Grant Agreement will not be disbursed until the Grant Completion Report is approved by the State. E. Post-Performance Reports: The Grantee shall prepare and submit to the State Post-Performance Reports for the applicable project(s). Post-Performance Reports shall be submitted to the State within ninety (90) calendar days after the first operational year of a project has elapsed. This record keeping and reporting process shall be repeated annually for a total of three (3) years after the project begins operation. 15) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PROJECT. For the useful life of construction and implementation projects and in consideration of the funding made by the State, the Grantee agrees to ensure or cause to be performed the commencement and continued operation of the project, and shall ensure or cause the project to be operated in an efficient and economical manner; shall ensure all repairs, renewals, and 227 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 9 of 41 replacements necessary to the efficient operation of the same are provided; and shall ensure or cause the same to be maintained in as good and efficient condition as upon its construction, ordinary and reasonable wear and depreciation excepted. The State shall not be liable for any cost of such maintenance, management, or operation. The Grantee or their successors may, with the written approval of the State, transfer this responsibility to use, manage, and maintain the property. For purposes of this Grant Agreement, “useful life” means period during which an asset, property, or activity is expected to be usable for the purpose it was acquired or implemented; “operation costs” include direct costs incurred for material and labor needed for operations, utilities, insurance, and similar expenses, and “maintenance costs” include ordinary repairs and replacements of a recurring nature necessary for capital assets and basic structures and the expenditure of funds necessary to replace or reconstruct capital assets or basic structures. Refusal by the Grantee to ensure operation and maintenance of the projects in accordance with this provision may, at the option of the State, be considered a breach of this Grant Agreement and may be treated as default under Paragraph 12, “Default Provisions.” 16) MONITORING PLAN REQUIREMENTS. A Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the State prior to disbursement of State funds for construction or monitoring activities. The Monitoring Plan should incorporate Post-Performance Monitoring Report requirements as defined and listed in Exhibit F, and follow the guidance provided in Exhibit L, “Project Monitoring Plan Guidance.” 17) STATEWIDE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS. The Grantee shall ensure that all groundwater projects and projects that include groundwater monitoring requirements are consistent with the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 (Water Code § 10780 et seq.) and, where applicable, that projects that affect water quality shall include a monitoring component that allows the integration of data into statewide monitoring efforts, including where applicable, the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program carried out by the State Water Resources Control Board. See Exhibit G for web links and information regarding other State monitoring and data reporting requirements. 18) NOTIFICATION OF STATE. The Grantee shall promptly notify the State, in writing, of the following items: A. Events or proposed changes that could affect the scope, budget, or work performed under this Grant Agreement. The Grantee agrees that no substantial change in the scope of a project will be undertaken until written notice of the proposed change has been provided to the State and the State has given written approval for such change. Substantial changes generally include changes to the scope of work, schedule or term, and budget. B. Any public or media event publicizing the accomplishments and/or results of this Grant Agreement and provide the opportunity for attendance and participation by the State’s representatives. The Grantee shall make such notification at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the event. C. Discovery of any potential archaeological or historical resource. Should a potential archaeological or historical resource be discovered during construction, the Grantee agrees that all work in the area of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation and made recommendations regarding preservation of the resource, and the State has determined what actions should be taken to protect and preserve the resource. The Grantee agrees to implement appropriate actions as directed by the State. D. The initiation of any litigation or the threat of litigation against the Grantee or an LPS regarding the Project or which may affect the Project in any way. E. Applicable to construction projects only: Final inspection of the completed work on a project by a Registered Professional (Civil Engineer, Engineering Geologist, or other State approved certified/licensed Professional), in accordance with Exhibit D. The Grantee shall notify the State’s Project Manager of the inspection date at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the inspection in order to provide the State the opportunity to participate in the inspection. 228 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 10 of 41 19) NOTICES. Any notice, demand, request, consent, or approval that either party desires or is required to give to the other party under this Grant Agreement shall be in writing. Notices may be transmitted by any of the following means: A. By delivery in person. B. By certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. C. By “overnight” delivery service; provided that next-business-day delivery is requested by the sender. D. By electronic means. E. Notices delivered in person will be deemed effective immediately on receipt (or refusal of delivery or receipt). Notices sent by certified mail will be deemed effective given ten (10) calendar days after the date deposited with the U.S. Postal Service. Notices sent by overnight delivery service will be deemed effective one business day after the date deposited with the delivery service. Notices sent electronically will be effective on the date of transmission, which is documented in writing. Notices shall be sent to the addresses listed below. Either party may, by written notice to the other, designate a different address that shall be substituted for the one below. 20) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Upon completion of this Grant Agreement, the Grantee’s performance will be evaluated by the State and a copy of the evaluation will be placed in the State file and a copy sent to the Grantee. 21) PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES. The Project Representatives during the term of this Grant Agreement are as follows: Department of Water Resources <Grantee agency/company Name> Arthur Hinojosa Chief, Division of Regional Assistance P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236 Phone: (916) 653-4736 Email: Arthur.Hinojosa@water.ca.gov <Grantee Project Representative Name> <Title> <Mailing address line 1> <Mailing address line 2> Phone: (###) ###-#### Email: Direct all inquiries to the Project Manager: Department of Water Resources <Grantee agency/company Name> <DWR Project Manager Name> <Title> <Mailing address line 1> <Mailing address line 2> Phone: (###) ###-#### Email: <Grantee Project Manager Name> <Title> <Mailing address line 1> <Mailing address line 2> Phone: (###) ###-#### Email: Either party may change its Project Representative or Project Manager upon written notice to the other party. 22) STANDARD PROVISIONS. This Grant Agreement is complete and is the final Agreement between the parties. The following Exhibits are attached and made a part of this Grant Agreement by this reference: Exhibit A – Work Plan 229 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 11 of 41 Exhibit B – Budget Exhibit C – Schedule Exhibit D – Standard Conditions Exhibit E – Authorizing Resolution Exhibit F – Report Formats and Requirements Exhibit G – Requirements for Data Submittal Exhibit H – State Audit Document Requirements for the Grantee Exhibit I – Local Project Sponsors and Project Locations Exhibit J – Appraisal Specifications Exhibit K – Information Needed for Escrow Processing and Closure Exhibit L – Project Monitoring Plan Guidance Exhibit M – Invoice Guidance for Administrative and Overhead Charges IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Grant Agreement. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES <INSERT GRANTEE NAME> Arthur Hinojosa Chief, Division of Regional Assistance <Grantee Project Representative Name> <Title> Date Date 230 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 12 of 41 EXHIBIT A WORK PLAN (or copy their work plan into this item) PROPOSITION 1 ROUND 2 <REGIONNAME> IRWM IMPLEMENTATION GRANT NOTE: These are instructions – not to be included in final agreement: The Work Plan shall contain the following items: • For each project, a concise description of each task needed to complete the project and the status of each task (including estimated % complete for those tasks already completed or underway prior to the execution of this Agreement). Also include a brief overview of work already completed and work to be performed. • Grant reporting tasks including the submittal of Quarterly Progress Reports, Invoices, and Final Reports. • A Project Performance Monitoring Plan for the project(s). Project Performance Monitoring Plan requirements are discussed below. • A discussion of the status of acquisition of land or rights-of-way. If land and/or easement acquisition is not applicable, state as such. • A listing of all anticipated permits • If environmental compliance efforts have not been completed, include tasks for environmental compliance. Include any environmental mitigation or enhancement actions or tasks necessary to comply with recommended mitigation measures. • Necessary plans and specifications. • The capital P “Project” is used to refer to the full suite of projects and “project” refers to a single project. If the agreement has one Project, then Project should be used throughout the agreement. 231 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 13 of 41 PROJECT 1: Grant Administration IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: <GRANTEE> (Grantee) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Grantee will administer these funds and respond to DWR’s reporting and compliance requirements associated with the grant administration. This Grantee will act in a coordination role: disseminating grant compliance information to the project managers responsible for implementing the projects contained in this agreement, obtaining and retaining evidence of compliance (e.g., CEQA/NEPA documents, reports, monitoring compliance documents, labor requirements, etc.), obtaining data for progress reports from individual project managers, assembling and submitting progress reports to the State, and coordinating all invoicing and payment of invoices. Budget Category (a): Project Administration Task 1: Agreement Administration The Grantee will respond to DWR’s reporting and compliance requirements associated with the grant administration and will coordinate with the project managers responsible for implementing the projects contained in this agreement. Task 2: Invoicing The Grantee will be responsible for compiling invoices for submittal to DWR. This includes collecting invoice documentation from each of the Local Project Sponsors and compiling the information into a DWR Invoice Packet. Deliverables: • Quarterly Invoices and associated backup documentation • Advanced Payment documentation as per Paragraph 9 (if applicable) Task 3: Reporting The Grantee will be responsible for compiling progress reports for submittal to DWR. The Grantee will coordinate with Local Project Sponsor staff to retain consultants as needed to prepare and submit progress reports and final project completion reports for each project, as well as the grant completion report. Reports will meet generally accepted professional standards for technical reporting and the requirements terms of the contract with DWR outlined in Exhibit F of this Agreement. Deliverables: • Quarterly Progress Reports • Grant Completion Report 232 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 14 of 41 PROJECT X: <Awarded Project Name> (as an example purpose only, not specific) IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: <Agency Name / Local Project Sponsor Name> Is this a Disadvantaged Community Project? ☐Yes ☐No DAC/EDA Benefit Level:Choose an item. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: <Brief Description of work that will be done, where, and the quantitative benefits that will be provided.> Budget Category (a): Project Administration (if applicable) Instruction: If not applicable, it should say “Not applicable” Task 1: Project Management Manage Grant Agreement including compliance with grant requirements, and preparation and submission of supporting grant documents and coordination with IRWM regional manager. Prepare invoices including relevant supporting documentation for submittal to DWR via as Grantee. This task also includes administrative responsibilities associated with the project such as coordinating with partnering agencies and managing consultants/contractors. Deliverables: • Invoices and associated backup documentation Task 2: Reporting Prepare progress reports detailing work completed during reporting period as outlined in Exhibit F of this Agreement. Submit reports to DWR. Prepare Project Completion Report and submit to DWR no later than 90 days after project completion for DWR Project Manager’s comment and review. The report shall be prepared and presented in accordance with guidance as outlined in Exhibit F. Deliverables: • Quarterly Project Progress Reports • Project Completion Report • Documentation (e.g., photo) of “Acknowledgment of Credit & Signage” per Standard Condition D.2 Budget Category (b): Land Purchase/Easement (if applicable) Instruction: If not applicable, it should say “Not applicable” Task 3: Land Purchase Approximate area of land to be purchased or easement(s) to be acquired. {Add applicable detail } Deliverables: • Documentation supporting property value (if purchased) • All relevant documentation regarding property ownership transfer or acquisition of easement including final recorded deed, title report, etc. Budget Category (c): Planning/Design/Engineering/Environmental Documentation Instruction: If not applicable, it should say “Not applicable” Task 4: Feasibility Studies 233 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 15 of 41 Project Feasibility Studies were completed as part of the project development process. <Add applicable detail> Deliverables: • Relevant Feasibility Studies Task 5: CEQA Documentation Instruction: Please use the first example if your project has not yet completed CEQA. Please include NEPA compliance in this section, if applicable. Complete environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Prepare all necessary environmental documentation. Prepare letter stating no legal challenges (or addressing legal challenges). Or A <MND/EIR/NOE> was filed for this project with the <enter State Clearinghouse and/or County> in <Month Year>. Prepare letter stating no legal challenges (or addressing legal challenges). Deliverables: • All completed CEQA documents as required • Legal Challenges Letter Task 6: Permitting The following permits have been acquired for this project: <Insert description>. The following permits are anticipated to be acquired for this project:<Insert description> Deliverables: • Permits as required Task 7: Design <Insert description.> Deliverables: • Basis of Design Report • 100% Design Plans and Specifications Task 8: Project Monitoring Plan Develop and submit a Project Monitoring Plan per Paragraph 16 for DWR’s review and approval. Deliverables: • Project Monitoring Plan Budget Category (d): Construction/Implementation Task 9: Contract Services This task must comply with the Standard Condition D.11 – Competitive Bidding and Procurements. Activities necessary (as applicable) to secure a contractor and award the contract, including: develop bid documents, prepare advertisement and contract documents for construction contract bidding, conduct pre-bid meeting, bid 234 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 16 of 41 opening and evaluation, selection of the contractor, award of contract, and issuance of notice to proceed. <Add applicable detail> Deliverables: • Bid Documents • Proof of Advertisement • Award of Contract • Notice to Proceed Task 10: Construction Administration This task includes managing contractor submittal review, answering requests for information, and issuing work directives. A full-time engineering construction observer will be on site for the duration of the project. Construction observer duties include documenting of pre-construction conditions, daily construction diary, preparing change orders, addressing questions of contractors on site, reviewing/ updating project schedule, reviewing contractor log submittals and pay requests, forecasting cash flow, notifying contractor if work is not acceptable. Upon completing the project, the DWR Certificate of Project Completion and record drawings will be provided to DWR. <Add applicable detail> Deliverables: • DWR Certificate of Project Completion • Record Drawings Task 11: Construction Construction activities are outlined below. 11(a): Mobilization and Demobilization <Add applicable detail> 11(b): Site preparation will include <Add applicable detail> 11(c): Install, construct, excavate <Add applicable detail> 11(d): Improve <Add applicable detail> Deliverables: • Photographic Documentation of Progress 235 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 17 of 41 EXHIBIT B BUDGET PROPOSITION 1 ROUND 2 <REGIONNAME> IRWM IMPLEMENTATION GRANT [Budget Tables provide examples as an outline of the format that may be submitted for this grant program. The budget shall be consistent with the work plan and schedule. AGREEMENT BUDGET SUMMARY Minimum Required Cost Share for Agreement: PROJECTS Grant Amount Required Cost Share: Non-State Fund Source Other Cost Share Total Cost Cost Share Wavier Received Grant Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A 1 Project 1: <Title> $0 $0 $0 $0 X Project X: <Title> $0 $0 $0 $0 GRAND TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 <Non-State funds represents the 50% required cost share by Proposition 1 and could be from any non-state source (County, Federal, any other agency share, etc.). Federal funding that passes through the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services is considered from a federal source. Other cost share means the amount that is not required as part of grant/ or proposition Funding for grant administration cannot exceed 10% of the total requested grant amount of the proposal. This 10% limit includes total grant administration costs incurred by the Grantee and each Local Project Sponsor. > 236 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 18 of 41 Grant Administration Implementing Agency: BUDGET CATEGORY Grant Amount Required Cost Share: Non-State Fund Source* Other Cost Share** Total Cost (a) Project Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COSTS $0 $0 $0 $0 NOTES: * List fund source(s). **List sources of Other Cost Share, including other State Fund Sources. PROJECT X: <Project X Name> Implementing Agency: BUDGET CATEGORY Grant Amount Required Cost Share: Non-State Fund Source* Other Cost Share** Total Cost (a) Project Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 (b) Land Purchase / Easement $0 $0 $0 $0 (c) Planning / Design / Engineering / Environmental Documentation $0 $0 $0 $0 (d) Construction / Implementation $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COSTS $0 $0 $0 $0 NOTES: Eligible costs for each Budget Category will only be approved for reimbursement and Cost Share for the work completed within the date ranges listed in Exhibit C. * List fund source(s). **List sources of Other Cost Share, including other State Fund Sources. 237 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 19 of 41 EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE PROPOSITION 1 ROUND 2 <REGION NAME> IRWM IMPLEMENTATION GRANT [Project Schedule Table is an example that provides an outline of the format for a schedule that may be submitted for this grant program. The schedule shall be consistent with the work plan and budget.] PROJECT 1: Grant Administration BUDGET CATEGORY Start Date End Date a Project Administration MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY PROJECT X: <Project X Name> BUDGET CATEGORY Start Date End Date a Project Administration MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY b Land Purchase / Easement MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY c Planning / Design / Engineering / Environmental Documentation MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY d Construction / Implementation MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY <Add footnote if needed to explain any overlap of construction with Category c or d> 238 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 20 of 41 EXHIBIT D STANDARD CONDITIONS D.1. ACCOUNTING AND DEPOSIT OF FUNDING DISBURSEMENT: A. Separate Accounting of Funding Disbursements: Grantee shall account for the money disbursed pursuant to this Grant Agreement separately from all other Grantee funds. Grantee shall maintain audit and accounting procedures that are in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices, consistently applied. Grantee shall keep complete and accurate records of all receipts and disbursements on expenditures of such funds. Grantee shall require its contractors or subcontractors to maintain books, records, and other documents pertinent to their work in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. Records are subject to inspection by State at any and all reasonable times. B. Disposition of Money Disbursed: All money disbursed pursuant to this Grant Agreement shall be deposited in a non-interest bearing account, administered, and accounted for pursuant to the provisions of applicable law. C. Remittance of Unexpended Funds: Grantee shall remit to State any unexpended funds that were disbursed to Grantee under this Grant Agreement and were not used to pay Eligible Project Costs within a period of sixty (60) calendar days from the final disbursement from State to Grantee of funds or, within thirty (30) calendar days of the expiration of the Grant Agreement, whichever comes first. D.2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CREDIT AND SIGNAGE: Grantee shall include appropriate acknowledgement of credit to the State for its support when promoting the Project or using any data and/or information developed under this Grant Agreement. Signage shall be posted in a prominent location at Project site(s) (if applicable) or at the Grantee’s headquarters and shall include the Department of Water Resources color logo and the following disclosure statement: “Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part from the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 and through an agreement with the State Department of Water Resources.” The Grantee shall also include in each of its contracts for work under this Agreement a provision that incorporates the requirements stated within this Paragraph. D.3. AMENDMENT: This Grant Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the Parties, except insofar as any proposed amendments are in any way contrary to applicable law. Requests by the Grantee for amendments must be in writing stating the amendment request and the reason for the request. Requests solely for a time extension must be submitted at least 90 days prior to the work completion date set forth in Paragraph 2. Any other request for an amendment must be submitted at least 180 days prior to the work completion date set forth in Paragraph 2. State shall have no obligation to agree to an amendment. D.4. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: By signing this Grant Agreement, Grantee assures State that it complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA. D.5. AUDITS: State reserves the right to conduct an audit at any time between the execution of this Grant Agreement and the completion of the Project, with the costs of such audit borne by State. After completion of the Project, State may require Grantee to conduct a final audit to State’s specifications, at Grantee’s expense, such audit to be conducted by and a report prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant. Failure or refusal by Grantee to comply with this provision shall be considered a breach of this Grant Agreement, and State may elect to pursue any remedies provided in Paragraph 12 or take any other action it deems necessary to protect its interests. The Grantee agrees it shall return any audit disallowances to the State. 239 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 21 of 41 Pursuant to Government Code section 8546.7, the Grantee shall be subject to the examination and audit by the State for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Grant Agreement with respect of all matters connected with this Grant Agreement, including but not limited to, the cost of administering this Grant Agreement. All records of Grantee or its contractor or subcontractors shall be preserved for this purpose for at least three (3) years after receipt of the final disbursement under this Agreement. If an audit reveals any impropriety, the Bureau of State Audits or the State Controller’s Office may conduct a full audit of any or all of the Grantee’s activities. Code, § 79708, subd. (b) D.6. BUDGET CONTINGENCY: If the Budget Act of the current year covered under this Grant Agreement does not appropriate sufficient funds for this program, this Grant Agreement shall be of no force and effect. This provision shall be construed as a condition precedent to the obligation of State to make any payments under this Grant Agreement. In this event, State shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to Grantee or to furnish any other considerations under this Grant Agreement and Grantee shall not be obligated to perform any provisions of this Grant Agreement. Nothing in this Grant Agreement shall be construed to provide Grantee with a right of priority for payment over any other Grantee. If funding for any fiscal year after the current year covered by this Grant Agreement is reduced or deleted by the Budget Act, by Executive Order, or by order of the Department of Finance, the State shall have the option to either cancel this Grant Agreement with no liability occurring to State, or offer a Grant Agreement amendment to Grantee to reflect the reduced amount. D.7. CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS: Grantee may use the services of the California Conservation Corps or other community conservation corps as defined in Public Resources Code section 14507.5. D.8. CEQA: Activities funded under this Grant Agreement, regardless of funding source, must be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) Any work that is subject to CEQA and funded under this Agreement shall not proceed until documents that satisfy the CEQA process are received by the State’s Project Manager and the State has completed its CEQA compliance. Work funded under this Agreement that is subject to a CEQA document shall not proceed until and unless approved by the Department of Water Resources. Such approval is fully discretionary and shall constitute a condition precedent to any work for which it is required. If CEQA compliance by the Grantee is not complete at the time the State signs this Agreement, once State has considered the environmental documents, it may decide to require changes, alterations, or other mitigation to the Project; or to not fund the Project. Should the State decide to not fund the Project, this Agreement shall be terminated in accordance with Paragraph 12, “Default Provisions.” D.9. CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE ACT: The Grantee acknowledges in accordance with Public Contract Code section 7110, that: A. The Grantee recognizes the importance of child and family support obligations and shall fully comply with all applicable state and federal laws relating to child and family support enforcement, including, but not limited to, disclosure of information and compliance with earnings assignment orders, as provided in Family Code section 5200 et seq.; and B. The Grantee, to the best of its knowledge is fully complying with the earnings assignment orders of all employees and is providing the names of all new employees to the New Hire Registry maintained by the California Employment Development Department. D.10. CLAIMS DISPUTE: Any claim that the Grantee may have regarding performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, claims for additional compensation or extension of time, shall be submitted to the DWR Project Representative, within thirty (30) days of the Grantee’s knowledge of the claim. State and Grantee shall then attempt to negotiate a resolution of such claim and process an amendment to this Agreement to implement the terms of any such resolution. 240 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 22 of 41 D.11. COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND PROCUREMENTS: Grantee’s contracts with other entities for the acquisition of goods and services and construction of public works with funds provided by State under this Grant Agreement must be in writing and shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding the securing of competitive bids and undertaking competitive negotiations. If the Grantee does not have a written policy to award contracts through a competitive bidding or sole source process, the Department of General Services’ State Contracting Manual rules must be followed and are available at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OLS/Resources/Page-Content/Office-of-Legal-Services- Resources-List-Folder/State-Contracting. D.12. COMPUTER SOFTWARE: Grantee certifies that it has appropriate systems and controls in place to ensure that state funds will not be used in the performance of this Grant Agreement for the acquisition, operation, or maintenance of computer software in violation of copyright laws. D.13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: All participants are subject to State and Federal conflict of interest laws. Failure to comply with these laws, including business and financial disclosure provisions, will result in the application being rejected and any subsequent contract being declared void. Other legal action may also be taken. Applicable statutes include, but are not limited to, Government Code section 1090 and Public Contract Code sections 10410 and 10411, for State conflict of interest requirements. A. Current State Employees: No State officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise from which the officer or employee receives compensation or has a financial interest and which is sponsored or funded by any State agency, unless the employment, activity, or enterprise is required as a condition of regular State employment. No State officer or employee shall contract on his or her own behalf as an independent contractor with any State agency to provide goods or services. B. Former State Employees: For the two-year period from the date he or she left State employment, no former State officer or employee may enter into a contract in which he or she engaged in any of the negotiations, transactions, planning, arrangements, or any part of the decision-making process relevant to the contract while employed in any capacity by any State agency. For the twelve-month period from the date he or she left State employment, no former State officer or employee may enter into a contract with any State agency if he or she was employed by that State agency in a policy-making position in the same general subject area as the proposed contract within the twelve-month period prior to his or her leaving State service. C. Employees of the Grantee: Employees of the Grantee shall comply with all applicable provisions of law pertaining to conflicts of interest, including but not limited to any applicable conflict of interest provisions of the California Political Reform Act. (Gov. Code, § 87100 et seq.) D. Employees and Consultants to the Grantee: Individuals working on behalf of a Grantee may be required by the Department to file a Statement of Economic Interests (Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700) if it is determined that an individual is a consultant for Political Reform Act purposes. D.14. DELIVERY OF INFORMATION, REPORTS, AND DATA: Grantee agrees to expeditiously provide throughout the term of this Grant Agreement, such reports, data, information, and certifications as may be reasonably required by State. D.15. DISPOSITION OF EQUIPMENT: Grantee shall provide to State, not less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to submission of the final invoice, an itemized inventory of equipment purchased with funds provided by State. The inventory shall include all items with a current estimated fair market value of more than $5,000.00 per item. Within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of such inventory State shall provide Grantee with a list of the items on the inventory that State will take title to. All other items shall become the property of Grantee. State shall arrange for delivery from Grantee of items that it takes title to. Cost of transportation, if any, shall be borne by State. D.16. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE CERTIFICATION: Certification of Compliance: By signing this Grant Agreement, Grantee, its contractors or subcontractors hereby certify, under penalty of perjury under 241 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 23 of 41 the laws of State of California, compliance with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Gov. Code, § 8350 et seq.) and have or will provide a drug-free workplace by taking the following actions: A. Publish a statement notifying employees, contractors, and subcontractors that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees, contractors, or subcontractors for violations, as required by Government Code section 8355. B. Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program, as required by Government Code section 8355 to inform employees, contractors, or subcontractors about all of the following: i. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace, ii. Grantee’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace, iii. Any available counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs, and iv. Penalties that may be imposed upon employees, contractors, and subcontractors for drug abuse violations. C. Provide, as required by Government Code section 8355, that every employee, contractor, and/or subcontractor who works under this Grant Agreement: i. Will receive a copy of Grantee’s drug-free policy statement, and ii. Will agree to abide by terms of Grantee’s condition of employment, contract or subcontract. D.17. EASEMENTS: Where the Grantee acquires property in fee title or funds improvements to real property using State funds provided through this Grant Agreement, an appropriate easement or other title restriction providing for floodplain preservation and agricultural and/or wildlife habitat conservation for the subject property in perpetuity, approved by the State, shall be conveyed to a regulatory or trustee agency or conservation group acceptable to the State. The easement or other title restriction must be in first position ahead of any recorded mortgage or lien on the property unless this requirement is waived by the State. Where the Grantee acquires an easement under this Agreement, the Grantee agrees to monitor and enforce the terms of the easement, unless the easement is subsequently transferred to another land management or conservation organization or entity with State permission, at which time monitoring and enforcement responsibilities will transfer to the new easement owner. Failure to provide an easement or other title restriction acceptable to the State may result in termination of this Agreement. D.18. FINAL INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATION OF REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL: Upon completion of the Project, Grantee shall provide for a final inspection and certification by a California Registered Professional (i.e., Professional Civil Engineer, Engineering Geologist), that the Project has been completed in accordance with submitted final plans and specifications and any modifications thereto and in accordance with this Grant Agreement. D.19. GRANTEE'S RESPONSIBILITIES: Grantee and its representatives shall: A. Faithfully and expeditiously perform or cause to be performed all project work as described in Exhibit A and in accordance with Exhibits B and C. B. Accept and agree to comply with all terms, provisions, conditions, and written commitments of this Grant Agreement, including all incorporated documents, and to fulfill all assurances, declarations, representations, and statements made by Grantee in the application, documents, amendments, and communications filed in support of its request for funding. C. Comply with all applicable California, federal, and local laws and regulations. D. Implement the Project in accordance with applicable provisions of the law. E. Fulfill its obligations under the Grant Agreement and be responsible for the performance of the Project. F. Obtain any and all permits, licenses, and approvals required for performing any work under this Grant Agreement, including those necessary to perform design, construction, or operation and maintenance of the Project. Grantee shall provide copies of permits and approvals to State. 242 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 24 of 41 G. Be solely responsible for design, construction, and operation and maintenance of projects within the work plan. Review or approval of plans, specifications, bid documents, or other construction documents by State is solely for the purpose of proper administration of funds by State and shall not be deemed to relieve or restrict responsibilities of Grantee under this Agreement. H. Be solely responsible for all work and for persons or entities engaged in work performed pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and providers of services. The Grantee shall be responsible for any and all disputes arising out of its contracts for work on the Project, including but not limited to payment disputes with contractors and subcontractors. The State will not mediate disputes between the Grantee and any other entity concerning responsibility for performance of work. D.20. GOVERNING LAW: This Grant Agreement is governed by and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. D.21. INCOME RESTRICTIONS: The Grantee agrees that any refunds, rebates, credits, or other amounts (including any interest thereon) accruing to or received by the Grantee under this Agreement shall be paid by the Grantee to the State, to the extent that they are properly allocable to costs for which the Grantee has been reimbursed by the State under this Agreement. The Grantee shall also include in each of its contracts for work under this Agreement a provision that incorporates the requirements stated within this Paragraph. D.22. INDEMNIFICATION: Grantee shall indemnify and hold and save the State, its officers, agents, and employees, free and harmless from any and all liabilities for any claims and damages (including inverse condemnation) that may arise out of the Project and this Agreement, including, but not limited to any claims or damages arising from planning, design, construction, maintenance and/or operation of levee rehabilitation measures for this Project and any breach of this Agreement. Grantee shall require its contractors or subcontractors to name the State, its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds on their liability insurance for activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. D.23. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY: Grantee, and the agents and employees of Grantees, in the performance of the Grant Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees, or agents of the State. D.24. INSPECTION OF BOOKS, RECORDS, AND REPORTS: During regular office hours, each of the parties hereto and their duly authorized representatives shall have the right to inspect and to make copies of any books, records, or reports of either party pertaining to this Grant Agreement or matters related hereto. Each of the parties hereto shall maintain and shall make available at all times for such inspection accurate records of all its costs, disbursements, and receipts with respect to its activities under this Grant Agreement. Failure or refusal by Grantee to comply with this provision shall be considered a breach of this Grant Agreement, and State may withhold disbursements to Grantee or take any other action it deems necessary to protect its interests. D.25. INSPECTIONS OF PROJECT BY STATE: State shall have the right to inspect the work being performed at any and all reasonable times during the term of the Grant Agreement. This right shall extend to any subcontracts, and Grantee shall include provisions ensuring such access in all its contracts or subcontracts entered into pursuant to its Grant Agreement with State. D.26. LABOR CODE COMPLIANCE: The Grantee agrees to be bound by all the provisions of the Labor Code regarding prevailing wages and shall monitor all contracts subject to reimbursement from this Agreement to assure that the prevailing wage provisions of the Labor Code are being met. Current Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) requirements may be found at: http://www.dir.ca.gov/ lcp.asp. For more information, please refer to DIR’s Public Works Manual at: https://www.dir.ca.gov/ dlse/PWManualCombined.pdf. The Grantee affirms that it is aware of the provisions of section 3700 of the Labor Code, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ 243 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 25 of 41 compensation or to undertake self-insurance, and the Grantee affirms that it will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work under this Agreement and will make its contractors and subcontractors aware of this provision. D.27. MODIFICATION OF OVERALL WORK PLAN: At the request of the Grantee, the State may at its sole discretion approve non-material changes to the portions of Exhibits A, B, and C which concern the budget and schedule without formally amending this Grant Agreement. Non-material changes with respect to the budget are changes that only result in reallocation of the budget and will not result in an increase in the amount of the State Grant Agreement. Non-material changes with respect to the Project schedule are changes that will not extend the term of this Grant Agreement. Requests for non- material changes to the budget and schedule must be submitted by the Grantee to the State in writing and are not effective unless and until specifically approved by the State’s Program Manager in writing. D.28. NONDISCRIMINATION: During the performance of this Grant Agreement, Grantee and its contractors or subcontractors shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex (gender), sexual orientation, gender identity, race, color, ancestry, religion, creed, national origin (including language use restriction), pregnancy, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (cancer/genetic characteristics), age (over 40), marital/domestic partner status, and denial of medical and family care leave or pregnancy disability leave. Grantee and its contractors or subcontractors shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment. Grantee and its contractors or subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12990.) and the applicable regulations promulgated there under (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11000 et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Grantee and its contractors or subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other Agreement. Grantee shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts to perform work under the Grant Agreement. D.29. OPINIONS AND DETERMINATIONS: Where the terms of this Grant Agreement provide for action to be based upon, judgment, approval, review, or determination of either party hereto, such terms are not intended to be and shall never be construed as permitting such opinion, judgment, approval, review, or determination to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. D.30. PERFORMANCE BOND: Where contractors are used, the Grantee shall not authorize construction to begin until each contractor has furnished a performance bond in favor of the Grantee in the following amounts: faithful performance (100%) of contract value, and labor and materials (100%) of contract value. This requirement shall not apply to any contract for less than $25,000.00. Any bond issued pursuant to this paragraph must be issued by a California-admitted surety. (Pub. Contract Code, § 7103; Code Civ. Proc., § 995.311.) D.31. PRIORITY HIRING CONSIDERATIONS: If this Grant Agreement includes services in excess of $200,000, the Grantee shall give priority consideration in filling vacancies in positions funded by the Grant Agreement to qualified recipients of aid under Welfare and Institutions Code section 11200 in accordance with Public Contract Code section 10353. D.32. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISPOSAL OF PROJECT WITHOUT STATE PERMISSION: The Grantee shall not sell, abandon, lease, transfer, exchange, mortgage, hypothecate, or encumber in any manner whatsoever all or any portion of any real or other property necessarily connected or used in conjunction with the Project, or with Grantee’s service of water, without prior permission of State. Grantee shall not take any action, including but not limited to actions relating to user fees, charges, and assessments that could adversely affect the ability of Grantee meet its obligations under this 244 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 26 of 41 Grant Agreement, without prior written permission of State. State may require that the proceeds from the disposition of any real or personal property be remitted to State. D.33. PROJECT ACCESS: The Grantee shall ensure that the State, the Governor of the State, or any authorized representative of the foregoing, will have safe and suitable access to the Project site at all reasonable times during Project construction and thereafter for the term of this Agreement. D.34. REMAINING BALANCE: In the event the Grantee does not submit invoices requesting all of the funds encumbered under this Grant Agreement, any remaining funds revert to the State. The State will notify the Grantee stating that the Project file is closed and any remaining balance will be disencumbered and unavailable for further use under this Grant Agreement. D.35. REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE: The use by either party of any remedy specified herein for the enforcement of this Grant Agreement is not exclusive and shall not deprive the party using such remedy of, or limit the application of, any other remedy provided by law. D.36. RETENTION: The State shall withhold ten percent (10%) of the funds, for each project, until the project is complete, and a Final Project Report is approved and accepted by DWR. If a project has multiple Components (within a project), at the State's discretion and upon a written request by the Grantee, any retained amount attributable to a single component may be released when that component is complete and the Final Component Completion Report is approved. Upon approval of the Final Project Report and/or Final Component Completion Report, any retained amounts due to the Grantee will be promptly disbursed to the Grantee, without interest. D.37. RIGHTS IN DATA: Grantee agrees that all data, plans, drawings, specifications, reports, computer programs, operating manuals, notes and other written or graphic work produced in the performance of this Grant Agreement shall be made available to the State and shall be in the public domain to the extent to which release of such materials is required under the California Public Records Act. (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) Grantee may disclose, disseminate and use in whole or in part, any final form data and information received, collected and developed under this Grant Agreement, subject to appropriate acknowledgement of credit to State for financial support. Grantee shall not utilize the materials for any profit-making venture or sell or grant rights to a third party who intends to do so. The State shall have the right to use any data described in this paragraph for any public purpose. D.38. SEVERABILITY: Should any portion of this Grant Agreement be determined to be void or unenforceable, such shall be severed from the whole and the Grant Agreement shall continue as modified. D.39. SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS: This Grant Agreement may be subject to suspension of payments or termination, or both if the State determines that: A. Grantee, its contractors, or subcontractors have made a false certification, or B. Grantee, its contractors, or subcontractors violates the certification by failing to carry out the requirements noted in this Grant Agreement. D.40. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: This Grant Agreement and all of its provisions shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties. No assignment or transfer of this Grant Agreement or any part thereof, rights hereunder, or interest herein by the Grantee shall be valid unless and until it is approved by State and made subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as State may impose. D.41. TERMINATION BY GRANTEE: Subject to State approval which may be reasonably withheld, Grantee may terminate this Agreement and be relieved of contractual obligations. In doing so, Grantee must provide a reason(s) for termination. Grantee must submit all progress reports summarizing accomplishments up until termination date. 245 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 27 of 41 D.42. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE: Subject to the right to cure under Paragraph 12, “Default Provisions,” the State may terminate this Grant Agreement and be relieved of any payments should Grantee fail to perform the requirements of this Grant Agreement at the time and in the manner herein, provided including but not limited to reasons of default under Paragraph 12, “Default Provisions.” D.43. TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE: The State may terminate this Agreement without cause on 30 days’ advance written notice. The Grantee shall be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred up to the date of termination. D.44. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES: The parties to this Agreement do not intend to create rights in, or grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement, or any duty, covenant, obligation or understanding established herein. D.45. TIMELINESS: Time is of the essence in this Grant Agreement. D.46. TRAVEL – DAC, EDA, TRIBES PROJECT: Travel is only an eligible reimbursable expense for projects providing at least 75% of benefits to DACs, EDAs, and/or Tribes (based on population or geographic area). Only ground transportation and lodging are eligible for grant reimbursement. Per diem costs will not be eligible for grant reimbursement. Any reimbursement for necessary travel shall be at rates not to exceed those set by the California Department of Human Resources. These rates may be found at: http://www.calhr.ca.gov/employees/Pages/travel-reimbursements.aspx. Reimbursement will be at the State travel amounts that are current as of the date costs are incurred. No travel outside of the IRWM region shall be reimbursed unless prior written authorization is obtained from the State. D.47. UNION ORGANIZING: Grantee, by signing this Grant Agreement, hereby acknowledges the applicability of Government Code sections 16645 through 16649 to this Grant Agreement. Furthermore, Grantee, by signing this Grant Agreement, hereby certifies that: A. No State funds disbursed by this Grant Agreement will be used to assist, promote, or deter union organizing. B. Grantee shall account for State funds disbursed for a specific expenditure by this Grant Agreement to show those funds were allocated to that expenditure. C. Grantee shall, where State funds are not designated as described in (b) above, allocate, on a pro rata basis, all disbursements that support the program. D. If Grantee makes expenditures to assist, promote, or deter union organizing, Grantee will maintain records sufficient to show that no State funds were used for those expenditures and that Grantee shall provide those records to the Attorney General upon request. D.48. VENUE: The State and the Grantee hereby agree that any action arising out of this Agreement shall be filed and maintained in the Superior Court in and for the County of Sacramento, California, or in the United States District Court in and for the Eastern District of California. The Grantee hereby waives any existing sovereign immunity for the purposes of this Agreement. D.49. WAIVER OF RIGHTS: None of the provisions of this Grant Agreement shall be deemed waived unless expressly waived in writing. It is the intention of the parties here to that from time to time either party may waive any of its rights under this Grant Agreement unless contrary to law. Any waiver by either party of rights arising in connection with the Grant Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver with respect to any other rights or matters, and such provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 246 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 28 of 41 EXHIBIT E AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION In addition to the various legal requirements and naming of a designated representative, the resolution should address the applicant’s consent to the use of e-signatures. 247 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 29 of 41 EXHIBIT F REPORT FORMATS AND REQUIREMENTS The following reporting formats should be utilized. Please obtain State approval prior to submitting a report in an alternative format. PROGRESS REPORTS Progress reports shall generally use the following format. This format may be modified as necessary to effectively communicate information. For each project, discuss the following at the task level, as organized in Exhibit A: • Percent complete (by work) • Discussion of work accomplished during the reporting period. • Milestones or deliverables completed/submitted during the reporting period. • Meetings held or attended. • Scheduling concerns and issues encountered that may delay completion of the task. For each project, discuss the following at the project level, as organized in Exhibit A: • Work anticipated for the next reporting period. • Photo documentation, as appropriate. • Budget projections for grant share for the next two quarters • Any schedule or budget modifications approved by DWR during the reporting period. PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT The Project Completion Report (or a Component Completion Report, if a Project has multiple Components) shall generally use the following format provided below for each project after completion. Executive Summary The Executive Summary should include a brief summary of project information and include the following items: • Brief description of work proposed to be done in the original Grant application. • List any official amendments to this Grant Agreement, with a short description of the amendment. Reports and/or Products The following items should be provided, unless already submitted as a deliverable: • A copy of any final technical report or study, produced for or utilized in this Project as described in the Exhibit A • Electronic copies of any data collected, not previously submitted • Discussion of problems that occurred during the work and how those problems were resolved • Final project schedule showing actual progress versus planned progress as shown in Exhibit C Additional information that may be applicable for implementation projects includes the following: • Record drawings • Final geodetic survey information • Project photos 248 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 30 of 41 Cost & Disposition of Funds A list showing: • Summary of Project costs including the following items: o Accounting of the cost of project expenditure; o Include all internal and external costs not previously disclosed (i.e., additional cost share); and o A discussion of factors that positively or negatively affected the project cost and any deviation from the original Project cost estimate. Additional Information • Benefits derived from the Project, with quantification of such benefits provided. • If applicable, Certification from a California Registered Professional (Civil Engineer or Geologist, as appropriate), consistent with Exhibit D, that the project was conducted in accordance with the approved Work Plan in Exhibit A and any approved amendments thereto. • Submittal schedule for the Post-Performance Report. GRANT COMPLETION REPORT The Grant Completion Report shall generally use the following format. This format may be modified as necessary to effectively communicate information on the various projects funded by this Grant Agreement, and includes the following: • Executive Summary: consisting of a maximum of ten (10) pages summarizing information for the grant as well as the individual projects. • Brief discussion of: each project completed and how they achieved IRWM Plan objectives and/or Regional goals and whether the level, type, or magnitude of benefits of the project are comparable to the original project proposal; any remaining work to be completed and mechanism for their implementation; the benefits to DAC and/or EDA as part of this Grant Agreement if a DAC or EDA Cost Share Waiver was approved for a project; and a summary of final funds disbursement for each project. Additional Information: Summary of the submittal schedule for the Post-Performance Reports applicable for the projects in this Grant Agreement. POST-PERFORMANCE REPORT The Post-Performance Report (PPR) should be concise and focus on how each project is performing compared to its expected performance; whether the project is being operated and maintained and providing intended benefits as proposed. A PPR template may be provided by the assigned DWR Grant Manager upon request. The PPR should follow the general format of the template and provide requested information as applicable. The following information, at a minimum, shall be provided: Reports and/or products • Header including the following: o Grantee Name o Implementing Agency (if different from Grantee) o Grant Agreement Number o Project Name o Funding grant source (i.e., 2019 Proposition 1 IRWM Implementation Grant) o Report number 249 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 31 of 41 • Post-Performance Report schedule • Time period of the annual report (e.g., January 2018 through December 2018) • Project Description Summary • Discussion of the project benefits • An assessment of any differences between the expected versus actual project benefits as stated in the original application. Where applicable, the reporting should include quantitative metrics (e.g., new acre- feet of water produced that year, etc.). • Summary of any additional costs and/or benefits deriving from the project since its completion, if applicable. • Any additional information relevant to or generated by the continued operation of the project. 250 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 32 of 41 EXHIBIT G REQUIREMENTS FOR DATA SUBMITTAL Surface and Groundwater Quality Data: Groundwater quality and ambient surface water quality monitoring data that include chemical, physical, or biological data shall be submitted to the State as described below, with a narrative description of data submittal activities included in project reports. Surface water quality monitoring data shall be prepared for submission to the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN). The CEDEN data templates are available on the CEDEN website. Inclusion of additional data elements described on the data templates is desirable. Data ready for submission should be uploaded to your CEDEN Regional Data Center via the CEDEN website. CEDEN website: http://www.ceden.org. If a project’s Work Plan contains a groundwater ambient monitoring element, groundwater quality monitoring data shall be submitted to the State for inclusion in the State Water Resources Control Board’s Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program Information on the GAMA Program can be obtained at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gama/. If further information is required, the Grantee can contact the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GAMA Program. A listing of SWRCB staff involved in the GAMA program can be found at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gama/contact.shtml. Groundwater Level Data For each project that collects groundwater level data, the Grantee will need to submit this data to DWR’s Water Data Library (WDL), with a narrative description of data submittal activities included in project reports, as described in Exhibit F, “Report Formats and Requirements.” Information regarding the WDL and in what format to submit data in can be found at: http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. 251 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 33 of 41 EXHIBIT H STATE AUDIT DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GRANTEE The following provides a list of documents typically required by State Auditors and general guidelines for the Grantee. List of documents pertains to both State funding and the Grantee’s Local Cost Share and details the documents/records that State Auditors would need to review in the event of this Grant Agreement is audited. The Grantee should ensure that such records are maintained for each funded project. State Audit Document Requirements Internal Controls 1. Organization chart (e.g., Agency’s overall organization chart and organization chart for the State funded Program/Project). 2. Written internal procedures and flowcharts for the following: a) Receipts and deposits b) Disbursements c) State reimbursement requests d) Expenditure tracking of State funds e) Guidelines, policy, and procedures on State funded Program/Project 3. Audit reports of the Agency internal control structure and/or financial statements within the last two years. 4. Prior audit reports on the State funded Program/Project. State Funding: 1. Original Grant Agreement, any amendment(s) and budget modification documents. 2. A listing of all bond-funded grants, loans, or subventions received from the State. 3. A listing of all other funding sources for each Program/Project. Contracts: 1. All subcontractor and consultant contracts and related or partners’ documents, if applicable. 2. Contracts between the Agency and member agencies as related to the State funded Program/Project. Invoices: 1. Invoices from vendors and subcontractors for expenditures submitted to the State for payments under the Grant Agreement. 2. Documentation linking subcontractor invoices to State reimbursement, requests and related Grant Agreement budget line items. 3. Reimbursement requests submitted to the State for the Grant Agreement. Cash Documents: 1. Receipts (copies of warrants) showing payments received from the State. 2. Deposit slips (or bank statements) showing deposit of the payments received from the State. 3. Cancelled checks or disbursement documents showing payments made to vendors, subcontractors, consultants, and/or agents under the grants or loans. 4. Bank statements showing the deposit of the receipts. Accounting Records: 1. Ledgers showing entries for funding receipts and cash disbursements. 2. Ledgers showing receipts and cash disbursement entries of other funding sources. 3. Bridging documents that tie the general ledger to requests for Grant Agreement reimbursement. Administration Costs: 1. Supporting documents showing the calculation of administration costs. 252 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 34 of 41 Personnel: 1. List of all contractors and Agency staff that worked on the State funded Program/Project. 2. Payroll records including timesheets for contractor staff and the Agency personnel who provided services charged to the program Project Files: 1. All supporting documentation maintained in the project files. 2. All Grant Agreement related correspondence. 253 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 35 of 41 EXHIBIT I LOCAL PROJECT SPONSORS AND PROJECT LOCATIONS The Grantee has assigned, for each project, a Local Project Sponsor (LPS) according to the roles of the participating agencies identified in the IRWM Plan. LPSs may act on behalf of the Grantee for the purposes of individual project management, oversight, compliance, and operations and maintenance. LPSs are identified for each sponsored Project below: Local Project Sponsor Agency Designation Sponsored Project: Project 1: <Title> Sponsor Agency: Agency Address: Project Location: Town/City, California (38.1234456, -121.123456) Project Locations/Sites/Vicinities Map – Provide a map and/or diagrams depicting the project locations and project features (in adequate detail) with respect to project service area (may represent the area covered by a project); the region/funding area boundary, facilities of the project (if applicable); DACs or EDAs within the project area (if applicable); and any other project features that may apply. Local Project Sponsor Agency Designation Sponsored Project: Project 2: <Title> Sponsor Agency: Agency Address: Project Location: Town/City, California (38.1234456, -121.123456) 254 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 36 of 41 EXHIBIT J APPRAISAL SPECIFICATIONS For implementation projects that include Land Acquisition Only: For property acquisitions funded by this Grant Agreement, the Grantee shall submit an appraisal for review and approval by the Department of General Services or DWR’s Real Estate Branch prior to reimbursement or depositing State funds into an escrow account. This information should be submitted at least 90 days prior to a reimbursement request to account for review time. All appraisal reports, regardless of report format, shall include all applicable Appraisal Specifications below. Appraisals for a total compensation of $150,000 or more shall be reported as a Self-Contained Appraisal Report. Appraisals for a total compensation of less than $150,000 may be reported as a Summary Appraisal Report, which includes all information necessary to arrive at the appraiser’s conclusion. Appraisal Specifications 14, 16, 21, 23-25, and 28 shall be a narrative analysis regardless of the reporting format. 1. Title page with sufficient identification of appraisal assignment. 2. Letter of transmittal summarizing important assumptions and conclusions, value estimate, date of value and date of report. 3. Table of contents. 4. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions, Extraordinary Assumptions, and Hypothetical Conditions as needed. 5. Description of the scope of work, including the extent of data collection and limitations, if any, in obtaining relevant data. 6. Definition of Fair Market Value, as defined by California Code of Civil Procedure, § 1263.320. 7. Photographs of subject property and comparable data, including significant physical features and the interior of structural improvements, if applicable. 8. Copies of Tax Assessor’s plat map with the subject marked along with all contiguous assessor’s parcels that depict the ownership. 9. A legal description of the subject property, if available. 10. For large, remote or inaccessible parcels, provide aerial photographs or topographical maps depicting the subject boundaries. 11. Three (3) year subject property history, including sales, listings, leases, options, zoning, applications for permits, or other documents or facts that might indicate or affect use or value. 12. Discussion of any current Agreement of Sale, option, or listing of subject property. This issue required increased diligence since state agencies often utilize non-profit organizations to quickly acquire sensitive habitat parcels using Option Agreements. However, due to confidentiality clauses, the terms of the Option are often not disclosed to the State. If the appraiser discovers evidence of an Option or the possible existence of an Option, and the terms cannot be disclosed due to a confidentiality clause, then the appraiser is to cease work and contact the client. 13. Regional, area, and neighborhood analyses. This information may be presented in a summary format. 14. Market conditions and trends including identification of the relevant market area, a discussion of supply and demand within the relevant market area, and a discussion of the relevant market factors impacting demand for site acquisition and leasing within the relevant market area. This information may be presented in a summary format. 255 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 37 of 41 15. Discussion of subject land/site characteristics (size, topography, current use, elevations, zoning and land use issues, development entitlements, General Plan designation, utilities, offsite improvements, access, land features such as levees and creeks, offsite improvements, easements and encumbrances, covenants, conditions and restrictions, flood and earthquake information, toxic hazards, water rights, mineral rights, toxic hazards, taxes and assessments, etc.). 16. Description of subject improvements including all structures, square footage, physical age, type of construction, quality of construction, condition of improvements and/or identification of any permanent plantings. Discussion of construction cost methodology, costs included and excluded, accrued depreciation from all causes, remaining economic life, items of deferred maintenance and cost to cure, and incurable items. Construction cost data shall include cost data source, date of estimate or date of publication of cost manual, section and page reference of cost manual, copies of cost estimate if provided from another source, replacement or reproduction cost method used, and supporting calculations including worksheets or spreadsheets. 17. Subject property leasing and operating cost history, including all items of income and expense. 18. Analysis and conclusion of the larger parcel for partial taking appraisals. For partial taking appraisals, Appraisal Specifications generally apply to the larger parcel rather than an ownership where the larger parcel is not the entire ownership. 19. Include a copy of a recent preliminary title report (within the past year) as an appraisal exhibit. Discuss the title exceptions and analyze the effect of title exceptions on fair market value. 20. For appraisals of partial takings or easements, a detailed description of the taking or easement area including surface features and topography, easements, encumbrances or improvements including levees within the subject partial take or easement, and whether the take area is characteristic of the larger parcel. Any characteristics of the taking area, including existing pre-project levees that render the take area different from the larger parcel shall be addressed in the valuation. 21. Opinion of highest and best use for the subject property, based on an in-depth analysis supporting the concluded use which includes the detail required by the complexity of the analysis. Such support typically requires a discussion of the four criteria of tests utilized to determine the highest and best use of a property. If alternative feasible uses exist, explain and support market, development, cash flow, and risk factors leading to an ultimate highest and best use decision. 22. All approaches to market value applicable to the property type and in the subject market. Explain and support the exclusion of any usual approaches to value. 23. Map(s) showing all comparable properties in relation to the subject property. 24. Photographs and plat maps of comparable properties. 25. In-depth discussion of comparable properties, similarities and differences compared to the subject property, adjustments to the comparable data, and discussion of the reliability and credibility of the data as it relates to the indicated subject property value. Improved comparable sales which are used to compare to vacant land subject properties shall include an allocation between land and improvements, using methodology similar to methodology used in item 16 above to estimate improvement value when possible, with an explanation of the methodology used. 26. Comparable data sheets. a. For sales, include information on grantor/Grantee, sale/recordation dates, listed or asking price as of the date of sale, highest and best use, financing, conditions of sale, buyer motivation, sufficient location information (street address, post mile, and/or distance from local landmarks such as bridges, road intersections, structures, etc.), land/site characteristics, improvements, source of any allocation of sale price between land and improvements, and confirming source. 256 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 38 of 41 b. For listings, also include marketing time from list date to effective date of the appraisal, original list price, changes in list price, broker feedback, if available. c. For leases, include significant information such as lessor/lessee, lease date and term, type of lease, rent and escalation, expenses, size of space leased, tenant improvement allowance, concessions, use restrictions, options, and confirming source. When comparing improved sales to a vacant land subject, the contributory value of the improvements shall be segregated from the land value. 27. For appraisals of easements, a before and after analysis of the burden of the easement on the fee, with attention to how the easement affects highest and best use in the after condition. An Easement Valuation Matrix or generalized easement valuation references may be used ONLY as a reference for a secondary basis of value. 28. For partial taking and easement appraisals, valuation of the remainder in the after condition and analysis and identification of any change in highest and best use or other characteristics in the after condition, to establish severance damages to the remainder in the after condition, and a discussion of special and general benefits, and cost to cure damages or construction contract work. 29. There are occasions where properties involve water rights, minerals, or salable timber that require separate valuations. If an appraisal assignment includes water rights, minerals, or merchantable timber that requires separate valuation, the valuation of the water rights, minerals, or merchantable timber shall be completed by a credentialed subject matter specialist. 30. For partial taking and easement appraisals, presentation of the valuation in California partial taking acquisition required format. 31. Implied dedication statement. 32. Reconciliation and final value estimate. Include analysis and comparison of the comparable sales to the subject, and explain and support conclusions reached. 33. Discussion of any departures taken in the development of the appraisal. 34. Signed Certification consistent with the language found in Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 35. If applicable, in addition to the above, appraisals of telecommunication sites shall also provide: a. A discussion of market conditions and trends including identification of the relevant market, a discussion of supply and demand within the relevant market area and a discussion of the relevant market factors impacting demand for site acquisition and leasing within the relevant market area. b. An analysis of other leases comparable to subject property. Factors to be discussed in the analysis include the latitude, longitude, type of tower, tower height, number of rack spaces, number of racks occupied, placement of racks, power source and adequacy, back-up power, vault and site improvements description and location on site, other utilities; access, and road maintenance costs. 257 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 39 of 41 EXHIBIT K INFORMATION NEEDED FOR ESCROW PROCESSING AND CLOSURE For implementation projects that include Land Acquisition Only: The Grantee shall provide the following documents to the State Project Representative during the escrow process. Property acquisition escrow documents shall be submitted within the term of this Grant Agreement and after a qualified appraisal has been approved. • Name and Address of Title Company Handling the Escrow • Escrow Number • Name of Escrow Officer • Escrow Officer’s Phone Number • Dollar Amount Needed to Close Escrow • Legal Description of Property Being Acquired • Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) of Property Being Acquired • Copy of Title Insurance Report • Entity Taking Title as Named Insured on Title Insurance Policy • Copy of Escrow Instructions in Draft Form Prior to Recording for Review Purposes • Copy of Final Escrow Instructions • Verification that all Encumbrances (i.e., Liens, Back Taxes, and Similar Obligations) have been Cleared Prior to Recording the Deed to Transfer Title • Copy of Deed for Review Purposes Prior to Recording • Copy of Deed as Recorded in County Recorder’s Office • Copy of Escrow Closure Notice 258 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 40 of 41 EXHIBIT L PROJECT MONITORING PLAN GUIDANCE Introduction For each project contained in Exhibit A, please include a brief description of the project (maximum ~150 words) including project location, implementation elements, need for the project (what problem will the project address) and responds to the requirements listed below. Project Monitoring Plan Requirements The Project Monitoring Plan shall contain responses to the following questions: • What are the anticipated project physical benefits? • What are the corresponding numeric targets for each project benefit? • How will proposed numeric targets be measured? • What are baseline conditions? • When will the targets be met (e.g., upon project completion, five years after completion)? • How often will monitoring be undertaken (e.g., monthly, yearly). • Where are monitoring point locations (e.g., meter located at…, at stream mile…)? Include relevant maps. • How will the project be maintained (e.g., irrigation, pest management, weed abatement)? • What will be the frequency and duration of maintenance proposed activities? • Are there any special environmental considerations (e.g., resource agency requirements, permit requirements, CEQA/NEPA mitigation measures)? • Who is responsible for collecting the samples (i.e., who is conducting monitoring and/or maintenance)? • How, and to whom, will monitoring results be reported (e.g., paper reports, online databases, public meetings)? • What adaptive management strategies will be employed if problems are encountered during routine monitoring or maintenance? • What is the anticipated life of the project? 259 Grant Agreement No. <46000XXXXX> Page 41 of 41 EXHIBIT M INVOICE GUIDANCE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND OVERHEAD CHARGES The funds provided pursuant to this Agreement may only be used for costs that are directly related to the funded Project. The following provides a list of typical requirements for invoicing, specifically providing guidance on the appropriate methods for invoicing administrative and direct overhead charges. Administration Charges Indirect and General Overhead (i.e., indirect overhead) charges are not an allowable expense for reimbursement. However, administrative expenses that are apportioned directly to the project are eligible for reimbursement. Cost such as rent, office supplies, fringe benefits, etc. can be “Direct Costs” and are eligible expenses as long as: • There is a consistent, articulated method for how the costs are allocated that is submitted and approved by the Grant Manager. The allocation method must be fully documented for auditors. • A “fully-burdened labor rate” can be used to capture allowable administrative costs. • The administrative/overhead costs can never include: o Non-project specific personnel and accounting services performed within the Grantee or an LPS’ organization o Generic markup o Tuition o Conference fees o Building and equipment depreciation or use allowances • Using a general overhead percentage is never allowed Labor Rates The Grantee must provide DWR with supporting documentation for personnel hours (see personnel billing rates letter in example invoice packet). The personnel rate letter should be submitted to the DWR Grant Manager prior to submittal of the first invoice. The supporting documentation must include, at a minimum, employee classifications that will reimbursed by grant funds and the corresponding hourly rate range. These rates should be “burdened”; the burdened rate must be consistent with the Grantee’s/Local Project Sponsors standardized allocation methodology. The supporting documentation should also provide an explanation of what costs make up the burdened rate and how those costs were determined. This information will be used to compare against personnel hours summary table invoice back up documentation. Periodic updates may be needed during the life of the grant which would be handled through a revised billing rate letter. 260 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 1305 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE 2017 GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGION INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. The City Council of Rolling Hills does resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), and other agencies in the Greater Los Angeles County (GLAC) area have long recognized the importance of regional collaboration and integration of single-purpose efforts and now regularly work across jurisdictional boundaries to implement regional projects and programs that address multiple water resource management issues, including local and imported water supplies, sanitation and recycled water, stormwater management, groundwater management, water use efficiency, habitat and open space management, and many others; and WHEREAS, the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) created the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Program to encourage integrated regional strategies for managing water resources and to provide funding for both planning and implementation of projects that support management of water supply, water quality, environmental interests, drought protection, flood protection, and reduction of dependence on imported water, and many others; and WHEREAS, the IRWM Program requires that a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) be formed to establish an IRWM Region; and WHEREAS, DWR recognizes the GLAC IRWM as an official IRWM Region; and WHEREAS, the RWMG for the GLAC IRWM is responsible for the preparation and adoption of an IRWM Plan; and WHEREAS, DWR and State Legislators have established Program Guidelines for the IRWM Program; and WHEREAS, the RWMG for the GLAC IRWM has amended the 2014 Updated GLAC IRWM Plan to address the provisions of the 2016 IRWM Guidelines; and WHEREAS, adopting the 2017 Updated GLAC IRWM Plan will enable participants in the GLAC IRWM to apply for future grant funding under various grant programs, including Proposition 84 grant rounds; and WHEREAS, the 2016 IRWM Guidelines require the governing bodies of member agencies of the RWMGs, the RWMG representatives of the governing bodies, as well as 261 Page 2 of 3 proponents of projects included in IRWM grant funding proposals to adopt an updated IRWM Plan; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS HEREBY ADOPTS THE 2017 GLAC IRWM PLAN ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT “A.” PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day of September, 2022 __________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: _____________________________________ City Manager 262 Page 3 of 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) The foregoing Resolution No.1305 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE 2017 GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGION INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of September, 2022, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ CHRISTIAN HORVATH CITY CLERK 263 Agenda Item No.: 7.M Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO PAY TYLER TECHNOLOGY $3,000 FOR WORK ENGAGED BY PREVIOUS FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: At the January 13, 2020 City Council meeting, staff reported that the City’s old financial software program, Fund Balance, was only able to hold current year data and one previous fiscal year. All data for other years are accessible via paper copies. The previous Finance Director reported that the Fund Balance software was no longer supported by Tyler Technologies and transitioned the city to the cloud based financial accounting software Abila. Staff began entering financial data on July 1, 2019 into Abila. Staff requested a budget for the Finance Department to manually enter five years of financial data (FY2014-2015 to 2018-19) into Abila. This was intended to ensure staff had the ability to access data online and answer historical data questions that the City Council would have, especially regarding vendors and accounts payable items, as well as perform trend analysis. The City Council entered into an agreement with Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott, LLP (RAMS) to manually enter two years of financial data (FY 2017-2018, FY 2018-2019) into Abila. The original staff report from the January 13, 2020 City Council meeting and recorded minutes are attached. DISCUSSION: Since Council's approval in January 2020, RAMS was asked to confirm with Tyler Technologies that financial data could not be extracted electronically from Fund Balance before manual data entry commenced. RAMS corresponded with Tyler Technologies between May and September 2020 and the conversations showed that electronic data extraction was possible. In February 2021, the city received an invoice from Tyler Technologies. Inquiring with RAMS, another invoice was received in March 2021 for $3,000. RAMS was not responsive and did not offer information about the invoice. In September 2021, RAMS was replaced by MV Cheng & Associates to staff the city's Finance Department. Then Finance Director Maida Alcantara contacted Tyler Technologies and RAMS to investigate the invoice. Eventually, RAMS provided the extracted financial data from Tyler Technologies to the city. After Finance Director Alcantara transitioned out and current Finance Director Robert Samario transitioned in, additional inquiries were made to Tyler Technologies on the scope of work 264 commissioned by RAMS. In reviewing the data extracted, Finance Director Samario noted that only General Ledger (GL) and Accounts Payables (AP) are available and asked Tyler Technologies for detailed transaction data. He also asked for evidence that the data extracted was accepted by RAMS to render payment. Tyler Technologies offered verbal recollection of RAMS' acceptance of their work but no written confirmation was available. Additionally, Tyler Technologies said that no additional data extracts would be performed until the outstanding invoice is paid. Since RAMS engaged the data extraction work with Tyler Technologies, it is uncertain of the scope and if the scope of work was met. However, the city does have GL and AP financial data for FY 2017-2018 and FY 2018-2019. In discussing the value of the data, Finance Director Samario advised that having the detailed data for these two fiscal years would capitalize on the summary data on hand. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the payment of the $3,000 for the data extraction performed thus far and allow staff to work with Tyler Technologies on pursuing detailed data for the two fiscal years prior to FY 2019-2020. FISCAL IMPACT: There is budget in the Finance Department, under account 890 Consulting Fee to pay for the data extract fee of $3,000. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: 2020_Jan_13_StaffReport.pdf 2020_Jan13_Minutes_9A.pdf CL_AGN_220926_CC_TylerTechnologyCorrespondences.pdf 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 9/6/22, 12:02 PM Mail - Elaine Jeng - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkAGY2NmQyYmFiLWI1YWMtNDlhOC05ZmVlLWRkN2U0YzQ1MGQ5MwAQAFuiLKidREiGlBejy%2FHS%2Fo8…1/3 RE: City of Rolling Hills Terry Shea <Terry@Ramscpa.net> Wed 9/16/2020 8:09 AM To:Elaine Jeng <ejeng@cityofrh.net> Hello I sent them an email asking if we could get five years of data and what would be the price for that. I received an email back they were in meengs and would get back to me when they can. From: Elaine Jeng [mailto:ejeng@cityofrh.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 3:53 PM To: Terry Shea <Terry@Ramscpa.net> Subject: RE: City of Rolling Hills Terry, Any more movement with Tyler Technology on the addional 3 years we discussed yesterday? Elaine From: Terry Shea <Terry@Ramscpa.net> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 8:38 AM To: Elaine Jeng <ejeng@cityofrh.net> Subject: FW: City of Rolling Hills Hi Elaine We contacted them and they said they would get us a quote and then they indicated they were talking to us, and that Dylan Schwantes is working on this request and has been in touch with the client. We have not been contacted by them and we have not received a quote as of yet. Terry From: Kayla Lozano Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 11:13 AM To: Terry Shea <Terry@Ramscpa.net> Subject: FW: City of Rolling Hills Hi Terry, FYI: Please see the conversaon below regarding Tyler Tech. I contacted them to get a quote to export reports out of Fund Balance. In the email below, it is menon that Dylan was helping the City of Rolling Hills already. I’m not sure who he is talking to over there. I haven’t received any addional emails regarding this and I haven’t responded. Thank you, Kayla Lozano 275 9/6/22, 12:02 PM Mail - Elaine Jeng - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkAGY2NmQyYmFiLWI1YWMtNDlhOC05ZmVlLWRkN2U0YzQ1MGQ5MwAQAFuiLKidREiGlBejy%2FHS%2Fo8…2/3 735 E. Carnegie Dr., Suite 100 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Phone: 909.889.0871 Facsimile: 909.889.5361 www.ramscpa.net From: Keller, Kesheya [mailto:Kesheya.Keller@tylertech.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 8:01 AM To: DeBolt, Lukas <Lukas.DeBolt@tylertech.com>; Dudley, Lori <Lori.Dudley@tylertech.com> Cc: Schwantes, Dylan <Dylan.Schwantes@tylertech.com> Subject: RE: City of Rolling Hills Awesome – thank you, Lukas! Kesheya Keller Administrative Assistant Tyler Technologies, Inc. P: 720.497.8000 ext:758065 www.tylertech.com From: DeBolt, Lukas <Lukas.DeBolt@tylertech.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 8:53 AM To: Keller, Kesheya <Kesheya.Keller@tylertech.com>; Dudley, Lori <Lori.Dudley@tylertech.com> Cc: Schwantes, Dylan <Dylan.Schwantes@tylertech.com> Subject: RE: City of Rolling Hills Hi Kesheya, Dylan Schwantes is working on this request and has been in touch with the client. He is waing for final pricing from management and will be contacng the client as soon as that is received. All the best, Lukas DeBolt Account Representative Tyler Technologies, Inc. P: 800.646.2633 276 9/6/22, 12:02 PM Mail - Elaine Jeng - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkAGY2NmQyYmFiLWI1YWMtNDlhOC05ZmVlLWRkN2U0YzQ1MGQ5MwAQAFuiLKidREiGlBejy%2FHS%2Fo8…3/3 www.tylertech.com From: Keller, Kesheya <Kesheya.Keller@tylertech.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 4:43 PM To: DeBolt, Lukas <Lukas.DeBolt@tylertech.com>; Dudley, Lori <Lori.Dudley@tylertech.com> Cc: klozano@ramscpa.net; bookkeeper@cityofrh.net Subject: City of Rolling Hills Hi Team, Kayla with the City of Rolling Hills, a former Tyler client, was hoping to get a quote for migrating their data from Tyler to their new software program (I have her cc’ed on this thread as well). More specifically, they were hoping there was a way to export the data we have for their city to an Xcel file. She got a hold of Christine Whitney who was supposed to give her a callback, and she hasn’t heard anything quite yet. I reached Joe with software support this evening, and he mentioned that the city will need a maintenance package in order to move forward. Please advise. Would one of you be willing to reach out to her, please? She can also be reached at: (909) 908-9589 Thank you! Kesheya Keller Administrative Assistant Tyler Technologies, Inc. P: 720.497.8000 ext:758065 www.tylertech.com 277 278 279 280 9/6/22, 11:55 AM Mail - Elaine Jeng - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkAGY2NmQyYmFiLWI1YWMtNDlhOC05ZmVlLWRkN2U0YzQ1MGQ5MwAQAG00upsGteFCoXTGu2RH4No%3D 1/2 Fwd: Tyler Tech Account Status for ROLLING HILLS, CA City of 42580 Elaine Jeng <ejeng@cityofrh.net> Wed 3/31/2021 7:31 AM To:T Shea <terry@ramscpa.net> Cc:Sandra Danko <sdanko@ramscpa.net>;Bookkeeper <bookkeeper@cityofrh.net> Terry, What is this invoice for? And City action? Elaine Begin forwarded message: From: "Accounts.Receivable" <Accounts.Receivable@tylertech.com> Date: March 31, 2021 at 6:18:32 AM PDT To: Elaine Jeng <ejeng@cityofrh.net> Subject: Tyler Tech Account Status for ROLLING HILLS, CA City of 42580 March 31, 2021 RE: ROLLING HILLS, CA City of Customer Code: 42580 Dear Elaine, You have received this notification because one or more of the following invoices are past due. The total over due balance is $3,000.00. Please provide payment status. Invoice Invoice Date Due Date PO #Invoiced Amount Balance 025-325596 2/24/21 3/26/21 G4P2Z1 3,000.00 3,000.00 If there is some error, or you are unable to pay the amount immediately, please contact our office without delay so that we can correct the situation or make suitable arrangements for prompt payment of this obligation. If your payment has recently been sent out, please disregard this notice. 281 9/6/22, 11:55 AM Mail - Elaine Jeng - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkAGY2NmQyYmFiLWI1YWMtNDlhOC05ZmVlLWRkN2U0YzQ1MGQ5MwAQAG00upsGteFCoXTGu2RH4No%3D 2/2 We appreciate your ongoing business, and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Allyson Burton Collection Specialist +1 214.593.6659 AR@tylertech.com 282 283 9/6/22, 11:58 AM Mail - Elaine Jeng - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkAGY2NmQyYmFiLWI1YWMtNDlhOC05ZmVlLWRkN2U0YzQ1MGQ5MwAQAIwvE1i1hltDuw2N4%2FqcBBY%3D 1/1 Fw: List of open invoices for ROLLING HILLS, CA City of 42580 Elaine Jeng <ejeng@cityofrh.net> Fri 7/9/2021 2:11 PM To:T Shea <terry@ramscpa.net> Cc:Sandra Danko <sdanko@ramscpa.net>;Bookkeeper <bookkeeper@cityofrh.net>;Meredith Elguira <melguira@cityofrh.net>;Janely Sandoval <jsandoval@cityofrh.net> Terry, FYA From: Accounts.Receivable <Accounts.Receivable@tylertech.com> Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 1:34 PM To: Elaine Jeng <ejeng@cityofrh.net> Subject: List of open invoices for ROLLING HILLS, CA City of 42580 Re: Account Number 42580-STX-AR-MST-L Account Name ROLLING HILLS, CA City of Dear Elaine: The following is a list of ROLLING HILLS, CA City of's open invoices as of July 9, 2021. Invoice Invoice Date Due Date PO #Invoiced Amount Balance 025-325596 2/24/21 3/26/21 G4P2Z1 3,000.00 3,000.00 Please call me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the items on this list. Sincerely, Madison Farrer Collections Specialist +1 207.518.4644 284 285 9/6/22, 12:00 PM Mail - Elaine Jeng - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkAGY2NmQyYmFiLWI1YWMtNDlhOC05ZmVlLWRkN2U0YzQ1MGQ5MwAQAPl9IhJ%2FXEVFmZPEtkF6SuE%…1/1 Re: Data Extract (tyler) Maida Alcantara <malcantara@cityofrh.net> Thu 9/23/2021 8:19 AM To:Ohanian, Leslie <leslie.ohanian@tylertech.com> Good Morning, Leslie, Thank you for the informaon and assistance. We are checking where the data is? I was planning to call ABILA (our current soware) if the upload was successful, may I know who Arlene is? I understand that you uploaded the data to our portal with Arlene, just checking whose portal, the City or Rams? Do you think you are able to send us the data, is it a csv file or excel? I regret for all this need of clarificaon but we are trying the jusfy payment and to evaluate the success and compleon of the project. Maida Alcantara Finance Director City of Rolling Hills From: Ohanian, Leslie <leslie.ohanian@tylertech.com> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 7:50 AM To: Maida Alcantra <malcantra@cityofrh.net> Subject: Data Extract Hi Maida, I did extract and returned the data to Terry Shea in 2/16/21 I worked with Arlene to upload the requested extracts to your portal. If you have any questions please let me know. Leslie Ohanian, HDI-CSR Supervisory Team Lead Tyler Technologies, Inc. P: 800.457.3863 www.tylertech.com 286 287 From:Robert Samario To:Accounts.Receivable Cc:Elaine Jeng Subject:RE: Contract-ROLLING HILLS, CA City of 42580 Date:Wednesday, September 21, 2022 10:15:11 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Good morning, We are taking this item to our Council for their approval to pay. I understand that additional extracts would be an added service and that would not be provided until after the invoice is paid. In the meantime, however, I just wanted to know if additional extracts were even possible. Thanks, Robert Robert Samario Finance Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274 c: 805.451.0620 | f: 310.377.7288 e: rsamario@cityofrh.net From: Accounts.Receivable <Accounts.Receivable@tylertech.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 9:58 AM To: Robert Samario <RSamario@cityofrh.net> Cc: Elaine Jeng <ejeng@cityofrh.net> Subject: RE: Contract-ROLLING HILLS, CA City of 42580 Hello We do not have written confirmation of acceptance. I have been told that no additional extracts will be performed until this invoice is paid and a new contract is initiated. 288 Thank you Theresa A. Brown Collection Advocate 207.405.6232 From: rsamario@cityofrh.net Sent: September 8, 2022 To: accounts.receivable@corp.tylertechnologies.com;accounts.receivable@tylertech.com Cc: ejeng@cityofrh.net Subject: RE: Contract-ROLLING HILLS, CA City of 42580 Can you please provide us with the communication with Terry you’ve referred to that indicates he was pleased with what was delivered and that he “signed off” on what was delivered? Keep in mind that Terry was a contractor and left in the spring of 2021 and it was after he left that the City Manager, Elaine began questioning the value of what was delivered. In any case, if you can show that he indeed “accepted’ the work, then we will pay the $3,000. Having said that, since in the end what was delivered does not include the transaction detail, is this something that can still be produced? Thanks for your understanding and patience. Robert Robert Samario Finance Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274 c: 805.451.0620 | f: 310.377.7288 e: rsamario@cityofrh.net From: Accounts.Receivable <Accounts.Receivable@tylertech.com> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 12:36 PM To: Robert Samario <RSamario@cityofrh.net> Cc: Elaine Jeng <ejeng@cityofrh.net> Subject: RE: Contract-ROLLING HILLS, CA City of 42580 289 Hello I have received further details of the work done. Please refer to below: Leslie and I originally worked with Terry Shea in late 2020 to get Rolling Hills their Data Extract for GL and AP. From looking back through communication, it was very smooth, and Terry was very pleased with what we delivered and signed off on what we delivered. Also Terry had confirmed how far back the wanted the extract to extend (I think it was about 5 years) Then, in early 2021 we worked with an Elaine Jeng, who was looking to close out some invoices, and made a similar request for historical data. Leslie confirmed the data pull took place and Terry was the contact. Paul Willems stated, “the extract was not billed. We need to have them current on Maintenance to provide services.” Leslie and I stated the original request and work was completed when they were still active with us, and it looks like we invoiced on 2/24/21. Theresa A. Brown Collection Advocate 207.405.6232 From: rsamario@cityofrh.net Sent: September 8, 2022 To: accounts.receivable@corp.tylertechnologies.com;accounts.receivable@tylertech.com Cc: ejeng@cityofrh.net Subject: RE: Contract-ROLLING HILLS, CA City of 42580 HI Teresa, The agreement/proposal you provided only speaks of data extract from the GL and AP components. It does not mention it’s only for summary data. The presumption is that ALL data would be transferred, including detailed transaction data. As we spoke, summary information is only marginally beneficial since we can refer to our audited financial statements and combining worksheets to get virtually the same information. We would be happy to pay the $3,000 but the value for just summary data is not there. Please advise. Thanks, 290 Robert Robert Samario Finance Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274 c: 805.451.0620 | f: 310.377.7288 e: rsamario@cityofrh.net From: Accounts.Receivable <Accounts.Receivable@tylertech.com> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:15 AM To: Robert Samario <RSamario@cityofrh.net> Subject: Contract-ROLLING HILLS, CA City of 42580 Re: Account Number 42580-MST-LGD2 Account Name ROLLING HILLS, CA City of Dear Robert: The information that we previously sent was approved by the gentleman that signed the contract. Any additional work would require a new contract. Invoice Invoice Date Due Date PO #Invoiced Amount Balance 025-325596 2/24/21 3/26/21 G4P2Z1 3,000.00 3,000.00 Please call me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the items on this list. Sincerely, Theresa Brown 291 Collections Advocate +1 207.405.6232 292 Agenda Item No.: 10.A Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 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 AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1309 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING THE 2021- 2029 ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: State law requires all cities and counties in California to adopt a Housing Element as part of their General Plans. The Housing Element must be updated every eight years and certified by the State. Through the Housing Element, each jurisdiction must demonstrate that it is accommodating its fair share of the region’s housing needs and taking proactive measures to accommodate housing of all types for persons of all incomes. All cities and counties are subject to this requirement, regardless of their size, physical constraints, or real estate market characteristics. The current Housing Element cycle (referred to as the “6th Cycle”) extends from October 15, 2021 through October 15, 2029. To comply with State law, Rolling Hills must show that it has the capacity to add 45 housing units during this period, including 29 that are affordable to low- and very low-income households. The City is not required to build 45 housing units; rather, it must demonstrate that it has created the opportunity for the private and non-profit sectors to do so. The City’s housing strategy is to meet its 45-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) through a combination of an affordable housing overlay zone on the Rancho Del Mar School site (16 units) and the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs—at a rate of roughly five units a year.) There are numerous other Housing Element requirements, including a mandate to affirmatively further fair housing, programs to remove government constraints to housing development, and 293 requirements to allow specific housing types (such as emergency shelters) in every jurisdiction. Many of these requirements are addressed in Chapter 6 of the Housing Element, which is an “action plan” for the next eight years. The City published its Draft 6th Cycle Element on December 3, 2021 and circulated this draft for a State-mandated 30-day review period. The Planning Commission convened a hearing on December 16, 2021 to discuss the Draft and provide an opportunity for public comment during the 30-day period. On January 10, 2022, the Rolling Hills City Council directed staff to submit a working draft of the 2021-2029 Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their review. All California cities are required to have their documents reviewed by HCD before adopting them. Once HCD receives the Draft, it has 90 days to issue a “findings” letter indicating the revisions to the document that are needed to receive State certification. Rolling Hills submitted its draft on January 11, 2022 and received its State comments on April 11, 2022. The State indicated that the City had met many of the statutory requirements but indicated the Element required revision before it could be certified. Their findings letter requested 34 changes, some of which were specific and others that were more generalized. On April 22, 2022 City staff and its Housing Element consultant met with the HCD reviewer by Zoom to go over the State’s comments. The reviewer provided guidance on how the City could respond to some of the comments. The City then prepared written responses to each of the 34 HCD comments. It also prepared a “tracked change” and “clean” copy version of the Housing Element, making it easier for City officials, the public, and State reviewers to see the changes between the two documents. The new version of the document was referred to as the “Adoption Draft” (the prior version was referred to as the “HCD Draft).” The Adoption Draft was presented to the Planning Commission on May 17, 2022. It was subsequently presented to the City Council on May 23, 2022. The document was resubmitted to the State on May 24, 2022. Under State law, HCD had up to 60 days to review the updated draft. Their comments were received on July 21, 2022. The July 21 letter was generally positive and indicated a much smaller list of objections. Whereas the initial (April 11) letter had 34 comments, the July 21 letter had only five comments. City staff and its Housing Element consultant met with HCD via Zoom on August 5, 2022 to review their comments. HCD provided further guidance on the comments and ideas for the City to consider in developing its response. The project team revised the Adoption Draft in late August and early September. Concurrently, the City completed the required environmental review of the Housing Element, including publication of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project (see CEQA discussion below). 294 The revised Housing Element (Attachment B to this staff report) was published and posted to the City’s website on September 15, 2022. On September 13, City staff requested an informal (“technical assistance”) review of the proposed Housing Element revisions by HCD. The City’s submittal to HCD included written responses to their five comments, and a tracked change version of Chapters 5 and 6. On September 18, the City received an email from HCD indicating the revised document had satisfactorily responded to HCD’s comments and could now be certified. HCD staff indicated the City could proceed with adoption and then submit the document for a formal compliance finding and letter. On September 20, the Rolling Hills Planning Commission convened a public hearing on the Housing Element. The Commission unanimously approved Resolution 2022-15, recommending that the City Council adopt the IS/MND and adopt the 2021-2029 Rolling Hills Housing Element as presented. DISCUSSION: HCD’s comments on the May 2022 Adoption Draft (Attachment C) are summarized as follows: 1. Metrics: Some of the Housing programs in Chapter 6 require quantifiable metrics. In a subsequent Zoom meeting, HCD indicated that Programs 4, 5, 7, 12-15, and 20-22 required numerical objectives (number of households that will benefit, etc.). 2. Housing Mobility: The City needs to more pro-actively promote “housing mobility” – in other words, opportunities for non-Rolling Hills residents of all incomes to live in Rolling Hills. HCD suggested the City could do this through home sharing and “affirmative marketing” 3. Affordability: The City needs to implement specific programs to support affordability. In a subsequent Zoom meeting, their review team specifically suggested strengthening Program 15 to offer minor home repair grants to lower-income Rolling Hills residents. 4. Supportive Housing : The City must amend its Municipal Code to allow supportive housing in multi-family and mixed use zones (e.g., the “Rancho Del Mar Affordable Housing Overlay Zone”). 5. Timing: The Element must discuss the time delay between when a project is entitled and when it receives building permits. Attachment D indicates how the City has edited the document to respond to each comment. The text below provides a short summary: 1. Metrics have been added to Programs 5, 7, 12-15, and 20-22. 2. “Affirmative marketing” measures have been added to Program 21 (a home sharing program had already been included) 3. Program 15 has been modified to be more pro-active. As the program notes, the City’s ability to implement this program is contingent on funding. 4. This action was completed in August 2022 when the City amended its code. This has been documented in the Draft document. No further action is required. 295 5. Several paragraphs were added to Chapter 5 on this topic. The City has also expanded Program 11 to work with the LA County Building and Safety Division to receive more current and regular data on active building permits in Rolling Hills. A redlined version of Chapters 5 and 6 is attached showing how these changes have been incorporated (Attachment E). NEXT STEPS: In the event the City Council adopts the Housing Element on September 26, it will be submitted to HCD on September 27 with a request for a compliance determination. Staff expects the finding of compliance will be received shortly after submittal, although legally the State has 60 days to make their findings (November 26). The compliance determination protects the City from potential fines, penalties and litigation, and makes Rolling Hills eligible for State grants for a variety of purposes. As in all California cities, the City is required to provide an “annual progress report” to the State indicating its progress in implementing Housing Element actions. While the City is not required to implement all programs in its Housing Element, it must make a good faith effort to do so and provide a rationale (such as lack of funding) in the event programs are not carried out. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA): Amendment of the Housing Element is considered a Project under CEQA. A mitigated negative declaration (MND) was prepared to consider potentially significant effects of the Housing Element and mitigation measures have been included to reduce potentially significant effects to a level that is less than significant. The MND was circulated for a 30-day public review period that started on August 8, 2022 and ended on September 7, 2022. The City received one comment letter from SCAG which is included in the final MND. No changes to the mitigation measures were made. FISCAL IMPACT: The Housing Element is a planning document that establishes policies for the City of Rolling Hills and will not have a direct fiscal impact on the City. The MND is a required document that looks at potentially significant impacts of the Housing Element (Attachments F1-F4). Certification of the Element and adoption of the MND provides an indirect positive fiscal impact by reducing legal risks and qualifying the City for State planning grants. The City was awarded $65,000 from HCD through the Local Early Action Planning Grants Program (LEAP) to help fund the Housing Element. Remaining costs are paid through the General Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 1309 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2021-2029 Rolling Hills Housing Element. 296 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - ResolutionNo1309_HousingElementAdoption.pdf Attachment B - Exhibit "A" 2021-2029 Housing Element 0922.pdf Attachment C - HCDComments7212022.pdf Attachment D - ResponsestoHCDComments.pdf Attachment E - RedlinedChapters5-6.pdf Attachment F1 - FinalMND_0922_Part1.pdf Attachment F2 - FinalMND_0922_Part2.pdf Attachment F3 - FinalMND_0922_Part3.pdf Attachment F4 - FinalMND_0922_Part4.pdf Attachment G - 2022-15_PC_Resolution_HousingElementUpdate_E.pdf 297 -1- RESOLUTION NO. 1309 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING THE 2021-2029 ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals A. On January 4, 1957, the City of Rolling Hills was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. B. On June 25, 1990, the City of Rolling Hills adopted its current General Plan. The General Plan establishes goals, objectives, and strategies to achieve the community’s vision for its future. The Housing Element is part of the General Plan and was initially adopted in 1991 and amended in 2001, 2009, 2014, and 2021. C. Housing Elements are subject to certification by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). On July 7, 2021, HCD certified the City’s Fifth Cycle Housing Element for the 2014-2021 period. D. Housing Elements are updated approximately every eight years, in accordance with a schedule established by the State of California. In 2021, cities and counties in the Los Angeles region were required to update their Housing Elements to cover the Sixth Cycle from 2021-2029. E. Following certification of the 2014-2021 Housing Element, the City of Rolling Hills initiated the State-mandated update of the document for 2021-2029. F. The City completed the required components of the Housing Element, including an evaluation of its prior Element, a needs assessment, a sites inventory, a constraints analysis, a fair housing analysis, and the development of policies and programs between August 2021 and November 2021. The City conducted community outreach and engagement at this time, including newsletter articles and notices to residents and housing organizations. The Planning Commission hosted a community meeting on the Housing Element on October 19, 2021. G. On December 3, 2021, the City published a Working Draft of its 2021-2029 Housing Element for public review. Notice of the document’s availability was sent to a mailing list of housing-related organizations, posted in the Daily Breeze, and announced 298 -2- to Rolling Hills residents on the City’s newsletter. The document was made available on the City’s website. The formal public comment period ended on January 4, 2022. H. On December 16, 2021, the Planning Commission convened a duly noticed public hearing on the Working Draft Element. At that meeting, the Commission recommended that the City Council submit the Working Draft to HCD for their initial review. I. On January 10, 2022, the City Council convened a duly noticed public hearing on the Working Draft Element. At that meeting, the Council authorized submittal of the Working Draft to HCD for their initial review. The document was formally submitted on January 11, 2022. J. On April 22, 2022, the City received its first comment letter from HCD, identifying the revisions required for a compliance determination. The City met with the HCD reviewers and prepared responses and proposed edits based on the comments. A Revised Draft Housing Element (“Revised Draft”) was published on May 9, 2022. K. On May 16, 2022, the Planning Commission convened a duly noticed public hearing on the Revised Draft. At that meeting, the Commission recommended that the City Council submit the Revised Draft to HCD for a second review. L. On May 23, 2022, the City Council convened a duly noticed public hearing on the Revised Draft. At that meeting, the Council authorized submittal of the Revised Draft to HCD for a second review. The document was formally submitted on May 24, 2022. M. On July 21, 2022, HCD sent a second comment letter to the City identifying the revisions required for a compliance determination. The City met with the HCD reviewers and prepared responses and proposed edits based on the comments. A Final Draft of the Housing Element was published on September 15, 2022. N. The City has worked diligently to implement programs in its Housing Element. It amended its Municipal Code in August 2022 to incorporate current State requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units; density bonuses; and provisions for a variety of housing types, including transitional and supportive housing. It previously amended the Municipal Code to create an affordable housing overlay zone, creating the capacity to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. O. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq., and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Initial Study on the Draft Housing Element. The Initial Study disclosed that all potential impacts from the Project would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, and there was no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. 299 -3- P. On the basis of the Initial Study, City staff determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be prepared for the Project. The MND was prepared pursuant to CEQA Statute and Guidelines and was made available for review and comment by the general public and public agencies for a 30-day review period commencing on August 8, 2022 and ending on September 7, 2022. Q. On August 8, 2022, the City published a Notice of Intent to Adopt the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) in the local paper and posted a copy of the notice and IS-MND document as required. One comment letter was received from the Southern California Association of Governments. No comments were received from the public or from other government agencies. R. On September 20, 2022 the Planning Commission convened a duly noticed public hearing on the 2021-2029 Rolling Hills Housing Element and recommended that the City Council approve the Rolling Hills Housing Element. (Planning Commission Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit B) S. The City has reviewed and considered the comments and prepared a Final IS/MND, including the mitigation measures identified in the Draft. Section 2. Findings. Based upon the facts contained in this Resolution, those contained in the staff report and other components of the legislative record, the IS-MND for the 2021-2029 Housing Element, and direction from HCD, the City Council finds that: A. The IS-MND contains complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. B. The City Council has reviewed the proposed changes to the Housing Element and the July 21, 2022 comment letter from HCD, including HCD’s findings that the proposed changes will bring the Element into compliance with State Housing Element law. C. The Draft Housing Element substantially complies with the requirements of Government Code Sections 65580-65589.8. The document demonstrates the capacity of the Rolling Hills to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Cycles, and further demonstrate that topographic, geologic, infrastructure, fire safety and land use constraints preclude further rezoning of property or increases in the development capacity of the city. D. The 2021-2029 Housing Element is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan because the Element uses the land use designations of the Land Use Element and those designations in turn are reflective of, and consistent with, the policies and provisions of the remaining elements of the General Plan. 300 -4- E. The housing goals, objectives, and policies stated in the 2021-2029 Housing Element are appropriate for the City of Rolling Hills and will contribute to the attainment of State housing goals. The Housing Element will aid the City’s efforts to assist in the development of housing for all members of the community and is in the public interest. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills hereby adopts the IS-MND and adopts the 2021-2029 Housing Element (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”) based on the preceding findings. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022. __________________________ Dr. James Black Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK 301 -5- 302 For City Council Adoption Published September 15, 2022 Rolling Hills General Plan2021-2029 Housing Element 303 Initial Release:December 3, 2021 Submittal to HCD:January 11, 2022 Second Release:May 9, 2022 Submittal to HCD:May 22, 2022 Third Release:September 15, 2022 Adoption:September 26, 2022 Compliance Determination: TBD 304 ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029 CONTACT: City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Contact: John Signo, AICP jsigno@cityofrh.net Published December 3, 2021 Revised May 9, 2022 Revised September 15, 2022 305 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Rolling Hills City Council James Black, M.D., Mayor Bea Dieringer, Councilmember Leah Mirsch, Councilmember Jeff Pieper, Councilmember Patrick Wilson, Councilmember Rolling Hills Planning Commission Brad Chelf, Chair Greg Kirkpatrick, Vice-Chair Sean Cardenas, Commissioner Jana Cooley, Commissioner Abby Douglass, Commissioner City Staff Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager John Signo, Planning and Community Services Director Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Consultants Barry Miller, Barry Miller Consulting 306 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. 307 ii Rolling Hills Housing Element 2021-2029 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page FOREWORD .................................................................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. ii 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Community Overview ............................................................................................ 1-2 1.3 Legislative Requirements ...................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements.................................................... 1-5 1.5 Relationship to Private Land Use Restrictions ................................................... 1-6 1.6 Public Participation and Project Timeline ........................................................... 1-6 1.7 Data Sources .......................................................................................................... 1-9 2. EVALUATION OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT ............................................... 2-1 2.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 2014-2021 RHNA and Actual Housing Production ........................................... 2-1 2.3 Review of Prior Housing Element Goals and Policies ....................................... 2-2 2.4 Implementation Status of Prior Housing Element Programs ........................... 2-5 3. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Population Characteristics .................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Household Characteristics ................................................................................... 3-9 3.4 Populations with Special Needs......................................................................... 3-17 3.5 Housing Stock Characteristics ........................................................................... 3-26 3.6 Future Housing Needs ........................................................................................ 3-33 308 iii Section Page 4. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES ............................................. 4-1 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Approved or Pending Development .................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Vacant Sites ............................................................................................................ 4-2 4.4 Lot Splits ................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.5 Non-Vacant Sites ................................................................................................... 4-6 4.6 Accessory Dwellings ........................................................................................... 4-12 4.7 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA .................................................................... 4-15 4.8 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ............................................................ 4-16 4.9 Financial Resources ............................................................................................ 4-18 5 CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING PRODUCTION ................................................ 5-1 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Governmental Constraints .................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Non-Governmental Constraints ......................................................................... 5-23 6 HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, OBJECTIVES, AND PROGRAMS ................... 6-1 6.1 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Housing Implementation Plan, 2021-2029 ......................................................... 6-4 6.3 Summary of 2021-2029 Quantified Objectives ............................................... 6-22 APPENDIX A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Analysis ........................................................ A-1 Overview ........................................................................................................................ A-1 Duty of All Agencies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing .................................... A-3 Integration and Segregation ....................................................................................... A-5 Access to Opportunity ............................................................................................... A-22 Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................. A-29 Other Relevant Factors .............................................................................................. A-41 Local Data and Knowledge ....................................................................................... A-42 Distribution of Proposed Housing Sites .................................................................. A-43 Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors ........................................ A-44 Summary of Fair Housing Issues and Additional Fair Housing Concerns .......... A-48 APPENDIX B: Analysis of Palos Verdes Unified School District (PVUSD) Site ......................................... B-1 APPENDIX C: Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey Findings ............................................................................. C-1 309 iv Figures Page 1.1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 1-2 4.1 Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites ............................................................................... 4-5 4.2 Non-Vacant Sites Evaluated ....................................................................................... 4-8 5.1 Slope Setbacks on PVUSD Site ................................................................................. 5-9 5.2 Landslide Hazard Areas in Rolling Hills ................................................................... 5-32 5.3 Earthquake Faults in the Rolling Hills Vicinity ......................................................... 5-33 5.4 CalFIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone ....................................................... 5-34 A-1 AFFH Percentage of Residents who are Non-White ............................................... A-8 A-2 AFFH Diversity Index ................................................................................................... A-9 A-3 AFFH Percentage of Residents with a Disability .................................................... A-10 A-4 Familial Status ............................................................................................................. A-15 A-5 Low Moderate Income (LMI) Areas ......................................................................... A-16 A-6 Median Income by Census Tract Block Group ...................................................... A-17 A-7 Regional Income by Census Tract in Greater Los Angeles ................................. A-18 A-8 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) ...................... A-19 A-9 Environmental Outcomes .......................................................................................... A-25 A-10 Economic Outcomes .................................................................................................. A-26 A-11 Education Outcomes .................................................................................................. A-27 A-12 Composite Opportunity Map..................................................................................... A-28 A-13 Cost-Burdened Homeowners ................................................................................... A-34 A-14 Cost-Burdened Renters ............................................................................................. A-35 A-15 Incidence of Overcrowding ....................................................................................... A-36 A-16 Percent of Households with One or More Severe Housing Problems ............... A-37 A-17 Sensitive Communities .............................................................................................. A-38 A-18 Density of Homeless Population in 2020 in Los Angeles County ........................ A-40 Charts 3.1 Age Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020....................................... 3-4 3.2 Racial Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020 ................................... 3-4 3.3 Household Type in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County, 2021 ............................ 3-10 3.4 Household Size in Rolling Hills and Other Jurisdictions, 2010 and 2021 .............. 3-11 3.5 Total Number of Housing Units in Rolling Hills, 1990-2020 ..................................... 3-26 3.6 Year of Construction for Rolling Hills Homes ............................................................ 3-27 3.7 Percent of Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Rolling Hills and LA County 3-29 3.8 Home Prices in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and LA County ............................... 3-31 A-1 Summary of AB 686 Requirements .............................................................................. A-2 310 v Tables Page 2.1 Implementation Status of 2014-2021 Housing Element Programs .......................... 2-5 3.1 Rolling Hills Population, 1970-2021 .............................................................................. 3-2 3.2 Comparison of Rolling Hills Growth with Nearby Cities and Region ........................ 3-3 3.3 Race and Ethnicity in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, LA County, and State .......... 3-5 3.4 Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Occupation ....................................................... 3-8 3.5 Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Industry.............................................................. 3-8 3.6 Income Limits for Los Angeles County, 2021 ............................................................ 3-13 3.7 Affordable Monthly Housing Costs Based on 2021 Income Limits ........................ 3-13 3.8 Rolling Hills Households by HUD Income Category ................................................. 3-14 3.9 Household Income in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and LA County .................... 3-15 3.10 Percent of Income Spent on Housing in Rolling Hills and LA County .................... 3-16 3.11 Overpayment among Lower Income Households in Rolling Hills ........................... 3-17 3.12 Older Adults in Rolling Hills and Nearby Jurisdictions ............................................. 3-18 3.13 Percent of Rolling Hills Residents with a Disability ................................................... 3-20 3.14 Number of Persons in Family and Non-Family Household ...................................... 3-23 3.15 Homes for Sale in Rolling Hills, July 2021 .................................................................. 3-32 3.16 RHNA by City and Comparison to Fifth Cycle ........................................................... 3-33 3.17 Comparison of 6th Cycle RHNA by Income Category ............................................... 3-34 4.1 Committed Development for the 2021-2029 RHNA Period ....................................... 4-1 4.2 Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites .................................................................................. 4-3 4.3 Summary of Housing Opportunities, 2021-2029 ...................................................... 4-15 5.1 Summary of Rolling Hills Zoning Standards ................................................................ 5-4 5.2 City of Rolling Hills Major Development Fees ............................................................ 5-19 6.1 Quantified Objectives by Income Group for Rolling Hills, 2021-2029 .................... 6-23 6.2 Housing Element Action Plan Summary..................................................................... 6-24 A-1 Population Share by Race and Ethnicity, Rolling Hills and LA County .................... A-5 A-2 Percentage of Residents with a Disability, Rolling Hills and LA County .................. A-7 A-3 Population by Familial Status, Rolling Hills and LA County ..................................... A-11 A-4 Household Share by Income, Rolling Hills and LA County ...................................... A-13 A-5 Housing Units by Type, Rolling Hills and LA County ................................................ A-20 A-6 Housing Tenure in Rolling Hills and LA County ........................................................ A-29 A-7 Percentage of Cost-Burdened Households, Rolling Hills and LA County ............. A-31 A-8 Overcrowded Households, Rolling Hills and LA County .......................................... A-32 A-9 Rolling Hills Home Ownership Rates by Race and Ethnicity ................................... A-41 A-10 Fair Housing Priorities, Issues, Contributing Factors and Strategies ..................... A-47 311 vi 312 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. 313 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 314 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. 315 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 316 Introduction Page 1-5 development standards that support housing at a variety of densities, providing technical assistance and infrastructure, and adopting policies that encourage housing production, conservation, and assistance to persons with special needs. In Rolling Hills, the RHNA for 2021-2029 is 45 units. This includes 20 very low income units, 9 low income units, 11 moderate income units, and 5 above moderate income units.1 The 2021- 2029 Housing Element demonstrates that the City has the capacity to accommodate this assignment. 1.3.3 HCD Review Authority and Compliance Requirements Once the Housing Element is adopted, it is submitted to HCD to determine whether, in HCD’s view, the Housing Element “substantially complies” with state Housing Element Law. HCD’s compliance determination is based in part on a detailed checklist corresponding to specific requirements set forth by the Government Code. Once certified, HCD still has the authority to find a city out of compliance if it finds that city is taking actions that are inconsistent with its Housing Element or failing to implement the programs listed in its Element. Localities without an HCD-certified Housing Element are subject to a growing number of penalties and potential risks. This includes litigation from housing organizations, developers, and HCD itself. In addition to legal costs, potential consequences include suspension of local control of building matters and court approval of housing development. Courts can also levy costly fines on local governments and mandate streamlined and less rigorous approvals. Cities also become ineligible for numerous state local funding programs, including those supporting infrastructure and roads, as well as housing and planning. 1.4 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements The Government Code requires internal consistency among the various elements of a General Plan. Section 65300.5 of the Government Code states that “the General Plan and the parts and elements thereof shall comprise an integrated and an internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.” The Rolling Hills General Plan contains the following six elements: 1) Land Use; 2) Housing; 3) Circulation; 4) Open Space and Conservation; 5) Safety; and 6) Noise. The General Plan is internally consistent, meaning that the policies in different elements complement and support one another. The Housing Element reflects the policy direction provided by the other General Plan elements. For example, it references the residential densities established in the Land Use Element and the natural constraints identified in the Safety Element. The City amended its Land Use Element in early 2021 to maintain consistency with its new Housing Plan. It adopted a revised Safety Element in March 2022 to comply with new provisions of the Government Code. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65400, the City will annually review its progress in implementing this Housing Element. This review will help ensure consistency between this Element and the other General Plan Elements. 1 See Section 3.2.5 of this document for a definition of these income categories 317 Introduction Page 1-6 1.5 Relationship to Private Land Use Restrictions Most of the developable property in Rolling Hills is subject to covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) adopted by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), a non-profit California Corporation and homeowners association. RHCA is governed by elected Rolling Hills residents and oversees and enforces implementation of the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs run with each property in perpetuity and cover all properties in the City except those listed below: 1. City Hall Complex 2. Tennis Court Facility 3. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District property 4. Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center CC&Rs represent private contractual obligations between homeowners and are usually established at the time a subdivision or community is built. Development in Rolling Hills has been governed by CC&Rs since the community was planned in the 1930s. The RHCA and the CC&Rs were in force prior to the City’s incorporation, which occurred in 1957. The City of Rolling Hills has no jurisdiction over the RHCA or the content or implementation of the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs limit the density on most parcels in Rolling Hills to one residence per one-acre or two-acre lot. In addition, any construction, remodel, or grading for a building, fence or structure is required under the CC&Rs to adhere to traditional or California ranch and equestrian architectural styles and aesthetics. The uses and purposes of all perimeter easements around each property are required to be dedicated to the RHCA and maintained for the purposes of ingress, egress, construction, and maintenance of all infrastructure constructed as roadways, bridle trials, storm drains, utility access and drainage. In some instances, State law may supersede the authority of CC&Rs. For example, AB 670 (Cal Civil Code 4751—effective January 1, 2020) limits CC&Rs from placing unreasonable limitations on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). To the greatest extent feasible, the programs in this Housing Element reflect the requirements of State law while maintaining the integrity of the CC&Rs. CC&Rs that directly conflict with State or Federal law are not enforceable. 1.6 Public Participation and Project Timeline The City of Rolling Hills has made a diligent effort to engage the community in the Housing Element update. The process was structured as a continuation of the previous (2014-2021) Housing Element update, which included an initial phase in 2013-14 when the Element was adopted and a second phase in 2020-2021 when the adopted Element was amended and resubmitted to the State for a compliance determination. The 2020-2021 amendments coincided with the Sixth Cycle engagement processes that were underway throughout Southern California cities at that time. Although the focus of the 2020-2021 effort was on Fifth Cycle compliance, the process provided an opportunity to engage the community in a broader conversation about housing, the RHNA process, and new State requirements. 318 Introduction Page 1-7 SCAG began the RHNA process for the Sixth Cycle in Fall 2019, exploring different methodologies for allocating the regional need to individual cities and counties. As other cities began work on their Sixth Cycle Elements, Rolling Hills was required to first amend its Fifth Cycle Element to accommodate both the current (Fifth) cycle and the prior (Fourth) cycle RHNA allocations due to its non-compliant status. The combined RHNA for the two cycles was 28 units. Accommodating this need meant that Rolling Hills was also required to amend its General Plan and zoning to create additional housing capacity. The City held a public hearing on the Housing Element on November 25, 2019. The meeting focused on potential sites for rezoning and related development impacts. The meeting was widely noticed through advertisements in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, an announcement in the City newsletter, posting at City Hall, and an email to the City’s interested parties list. The Draft RHNA numbers were published in March 2020. Rolling Hills did not appeal its allocation, instead focusing its efforts on continued outreach and engagement to certify the Fifth Cycle Element and lay the groundwork for the Sixth Cycle. This outreach included nine public hearings related to the Housing Element on the following dates: • October 20, 2020 (Planning Commission) • November 9, 2020 (City Council) • December 22, 2020 (Planning Commission) • January 25, 2021 (City Council) • February 5, 2021 (Planning Commission) • February 8, 2021 (City Council) • February 22, 2021 (City Council) • March 8, 2021 (City Council) • March 16, 2021 (Planning Commission) The outcome of these meetings included adoption of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, new provisions for by-right affordable multi-family housing and emergency shelter, amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and various changes to the Municipal Code to facilitate housing production. On June 1, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the amended Fifth Cycle Housing Element. The Council took action on June 14, 2021. The Element was submitted to HCD and found to be in compliance on July 7, 2021. As a result of the compliance determination, the City does not have to carry over its prior allocation and may plan only for the 45 units identified in the Sixth Cycle RHNA. In addition to the public hearings described above, staff conducted direct outreach to Rolling Hills residents in 2020 and 2021 through newsletters, including a survey on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) administered to every household in the city. More than 30 percent of the city’s households completed the survey, and a report on the findings was prepared (it is included as Appendix C to this Element). The City continued its public outreach efforts after adoption of the revised Element in July 2021. A special session of the Planning Commission was convened on October 19, 2021 to provide an overview of the Sixth Cycle Element and solicit input from the entire community. In addition, public hearings on the HCD Draft Element were convened by the Planning Commission on December 16, 2021 and by the City Council on January 10, 2022. In March 2022, the City 319 Introduction Page 1-8 convened a public meeting on its Annual Progress Report, providing another opportunity for public input on housing issues as well as an opportunity to evaluate progress in Housing Element implementation. Additional public hearings were held on May 17 (Planning Commission) and May 23 (City Council) after the document was revised. A revised version of the Housing Element, incorporating responses to HCD’s initial comments, was submitted to the State on May 24, 2022. Staff received HCD’s comments on July 22. The number of comments was much smaller at this point, and staff worked collaboratively with HCD in August and September 2022 to prepare revisions. On September 20, 2022, the Planning Commission convened a public hearing on the Housing Element and recommended Council approval of the Plan and related environmental document. The City Council took action on September 26, 2022, adopting the Element at that meeting. The City has endeavored to solicit input from all economic segments of the community, including local renters as well as homeowners. It has also incorporated this input in the Housing Element. In surveys and public hearings, the community generally supported the Rancho Del Mar site as the preferred location for accommodating denser housing, and also supported meeting the RHNA primarily through accessory dwelling units (ADU). Both of these concepts are reflected in this document. Housing advocacy groups also provided letters to the City encouraging ADU development, which helped shape Housing Element programs. In addition, the community was especially concerned about the housing needs of older adults. Thus, policies relating to special needs populations and lower income households focus on the needs of seniors, particularly those who may need assistance with the maintenance of their homes and properties, or adaptive changes to facilitate aging in place. City staff has also engaged service providers, the development community, and partner agencies such as the School District in the process. As a small community, most residents rely on the City newsletter for information on local government affairs. The City has featured the Housing Element in newsletter articles and encouraged residents to share their views on proposed housing policies. Publication of the “HCD Review Draft” was announced in the City’s newsletter during the first week of December 2021. More than 30 stakeholder organizations on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and in the South Bay, Los Angeles, and Long Beach regions were notified of the document’s availability for 30-day review and comment. These agencies were also notified when the document was brought back to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption. In addition, as required by SB 1087, the City sent an electronic copy of its Housing Element to the appropriate water and sewer providers immediately after adoption. The document was accompanied by a letter reminding these agencies they must have adopted written policies and procedures that grant a priority for service hook-ups to developments that help meet the community’s share of the regional need for lower-income housing. 320 Introduction Page 1-9 1.7 Data Sources The Housing Element is a data-driven document, with policies and programs that are based on analyses of demographics, housing conditions, resource constraints, and forecasts. The primary data sources consulted were: • Rolling Hills General Plan, as amended • Rolling Hills Municipal Code • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, adopted March 4, 2021 • SCAG “pre-approved” Housing Element data set for Rolling Hills, 2020 • City of Rolling Hills Planning Department records (building permits, etc.) • American Community Survey, 2015-2019 • US Census (1990, 2000, 2010) • US Census August 12, 2021 data release from the 2020 Census • Department of Finance Table E-5, population and housing estimates, 2010-2021 • California Economic Development Department (EDD) Labor Force Data • Rolling Hills Local Hazard Mitigation Plan • County of Los Angeles (data on homelessness) 321 Introduction Page 1-10 322 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. 323 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. 324 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 325 Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-4 City works with on such investigations. Additional policies on fair housing related to economic inclusion and opportunities for lower income households should be considered. 2.3.5 Cumulative Evaluation of Effectiveness of Prior Element in Addressing Special Housing Needs The State Department of Housing and Community Development has requested that the City include an “a cumulative evaluation of the effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness).” As a small city with only 640 households and a staff of six full-time employees, the City’s capacity for providing services to special needs populations is limited. The greatest emphasis has been on seniors, who are present in 56 percent of the city’s households and represent one- third of the population. The City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element included a goal addressing the needs of seniors but it did not include a more generalized goal addressing special needs populations. This has been addressed in the 6th Cycle Element by broadening the goal to address other special needs categories. As noted on P. 2-3, Rolling Hills has worked effectively to meet the needs of seniors through its partnerships with the Rolling Hills Community Association (and their Senior Committee), its support for shared housing and ADU programs, and its code provisions allowing live-in care providers throughout the city. Many older Rolling Hills residents have been able to age in place, retrofit their homes, and continue living in the city as a result of these policies and programs. The 2014-2021 Element also included a policy related to unhoused residents (Policy 1.6) and a policy related to persons with disabilities (Policy 6.2). As noted in Chapter 3, there are no unhoused residents in the city according to the annual “point in time” count, but Rolling Hills continues to participate in intergovernmental meetings, forums, and councils of government activities that recognize the regional nature of homelessness and the importance of regional solutions. The City has also amended its codes to allow emergency shelter by right in at least one zoning district. The City also has adopted a Reasonable Accommodation ordinance for persons with disabilities and supports home improvements to facilitate aging in place and access for residents with disabilities. On a cumulative basis, these measures have contributed to the health, safety, and welfare of all Rolling Hills residents and to the quality of life and condition of housing in the city. Both the 2014-2021 Needs Assessment and the 2021-2029 Needs Assessment determined that there were not significant housing needs associated with large households, female-headed households, or farmworkers in the city. 326 Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-5 2.4 Implementation Status of Prior Housing Element Programs The 2014-2021 Housing Element included 24 implementation programs. Table 2-1 below indicates the status of each program as of October 2021. The table indicates whether the program has been accomplished or should be carried forward, revised, or deleted. Table 2-1: Implementation Status of 2014-2021 Housing Element Programs Prog. Description Status 1 Prepare an annual housing progress report CARRY FORWARD. The City filed its annual Housing Progress Report for 2021 on March 29, 2022 and should continue to do so in future years. 2 Amend the Land Use Element to permit a variety of housing types ACCOMPLISHED. This program may be removed from the Housing Element, as it was accomplished in March 2021. The City amended its General Plan to permit by right multi-family development, emergency shelter, and single room occupancy housing in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone. 3 Create an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) ACCOMPLISHED. This program may be removed from the Housing Element or merged with the program to periodically evaluate the Overlay Zone and determine if changes are needed (See Program 13). The City adopted a 31-acre Overlay in February 2021 (known as the Rancho Del Mar Overlay zone), allowing for by-right development of up to 16 units of affordable multi-family housing (20 units per acre) on the Rancho Del Mar site on Crest Road West. 4 Determine next steps for PVUSD housing opportunity CARRY FORWARD. The City Manager meets with the PVUSD Superintendent regularly to discuss issues of concern, including the future of the PVUSD property. Other aspects of Program 4, including meeting with developers and providing input to parties interested in this site, should be retained and implemented on an ongoing basis. 5 Adopt zoning for emergency shelter. ACCOMPLISHED. This action was completed in February 2021. The City permits emergency shelter up to 12 beds by right in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zoning district. A replacement program should be included, identifying ongoing measures the City will take to address the needs of unhoused residents. 327 Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-6 Prog. Description Status 6 Adopt zoning for single room occupancy (SRO) units. ACCOMPLISHED. This action was completed in February 2021. The City permits SROs of 6-8 units as a conditional use in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zoning district, subject to objective operational and performance standards. 7 Adopt a Reasonable Accommodation Policy ACCOMPLISHED. The City of Rolling Hills adopted a Reasonable Accommodation policy in October 2020. The policy establishes a formal procedure through a which a person with disabilities may request reasonable accommodation in order to have equal access to housing. This program may be replaced with other actions to assist residents with disabilities . 8 Add definitions of Transitional/ Supportive Housing and Employee Housing to Municipal Code CARRY FORWARD. This program has not yet been implemented. The 2014-2021 Housing Element clarifies that supportive and transitional housing may not be subject to requirements or standards other than those that apply to similar dwelling unit types in the same zones. However, the program must still be codified through a Municipal Code amendment. 9 Adopt density bonus requirements CARRY FORWARD. This program has not yet been implemented. Any project including units eligible for a density bonus would be subject to State density bonus rules. The City should amend its Municipal Code for consistency with these rules, and expressly identify opportunities and rules for density bonuses. 10 Adopt and periodically update accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations REVISE. The City adopted ADU regulations in 2018 and amended these regulations in January 2020 to incorporate new State laws. This action should be replaced with one or more new actions related to ADUs, including incentives to promote their use as affordable housing. 11 Implement ADU education, outreach, and community engagement measures REVISE. The City has provided information on ADUs to the community since 2018 and should continue to do so in the future. Newsletter articles and web-based information have been provided and a citywide survey on ADUs was administered in 2020. Potential outreach measures are listed in the 2014-2021 Element and should be carried forward. Staff time should be allocated to these activities to ensure they are implemented. This includes coordination with Rolling Hills Community Association to ensure that design review practices do not constrain ADU production or add to their cost. Future activities could include proto- type floor plans and designs, FAQs, community workshops, and tenant matching services. 328 Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-7 Prog. Description Status 12 Develop incentives to encourage ADU production REVISE. This program suggested reaching out to at least five cities and two non-profits to develop a suite of best practices for incentivizing ADUs. Based on the findings, the program recommended incentives such as fee reductions, streamlined permitting, and funding for septic system expansion to make it easier and more affordable to add ADUs. The City has begun implementing this program by participating in a South Bay Cities Council of Governments collaborative that helps residents calculate cost and revenue for adding an ADU (see https://southbaycities.aducalculator.org/). Additional measures will be considered in the future. 13 Monitor the effectiveness of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) and consider future multi- family housing opportunities REVISE. There are two parts to this program. The first is monitoring the effectiveness of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone to determine if it is achieving its intended purpose. This should be retained. The second part of the program is to evaluate other multi-family housing opportunities. This is occurring through preparation of the Sixth Cycle Element and should continue through 2029. 14 Assist Extremely Low Income (ELI) households CARRY FORWARD. This program is implemented by facilitating housing for family members, caregivers and domestic employees, and by assisting elder Rolling Hills homeowners on fixed incomes with home maintenance, home sharing, ADU construction, and other actions that reduce housing cost burdens. The program should be carried forward. 15 Facilitate communication with affordable housing service providers, developers, and advocates CARRY FORWARD. The program recommends coordinating with affordable housing organizations to facilitate housing assistance and production for lower income households. The City implements this program on an on-going basis and should continue to do so in the future. 16 Provide public information on home sharing programs CARRY FORWARD. This program references a number of home sharing programs in Los Angeles County and suggests that Rolling Hills provide information about these programs on its website and at City Hall. This is a relatively low-cost measure that can help seniors, young adults, and local employees find housing options in the city. It should be retained. 329 Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-8 Prog. Description Status 17 Provide information about reverse mortgages DELETE. While reverse mortgages may be helpful for some households, there may also be downsides associated with high closing costs, fees, and unfavorable repayment terms. There is also a risk of fraud. The City may not wish to take an advocacy position promoting reverse mortgages due to the risks involved. Local homeowners may still consider this option should they choose to do so. The program could also be revised to focus on consumer protection issues related to reverse mortgages. 18 Undertake sewer feasibility and design studies REVISE. This program should be updated to reflect the current status of sewer feasibility and design studies. A feasibility study was initiated in 2020 and design plans are nearing completion. The updated Housing Element program should reflect the findings of these studies, as well as Council direction. 19 Implement Best Management Practices to improve stormwater REVISE. The City has continued to implement municipal storm water management measures to reduce urban runoff pollution. It will continue to do so in the future as conditions and requirements change. This program could potentially be deleted or combined with Program 18. 20 Maintain code enforcement procedures REVISE. This program called for hiring a full-time Code Enforcement Officer, which was accomplished in 2019. There is an ongoing need for enforcement of planning and building codes in order to conserve housing quality and correct structural deficiencies. Violations have been consistently abated in order to maintain public safety and community standards. The program should be updated and retained. 21 Encourage energy conservation CARRY FORWARD. This program continues to be relevant and informs City actions relating to weatherization, solar installations, and other steps to reduce home energy costs and promote clean energy. The program references various links on the City’s website to energy conservation programs, and financial assistance for home energy costs. It should be carried forward. 22 Facilitate new construction and remodels CARRY FORWARD. This is a general program that encourages the City to work with applicants, builders, property owners, and others to produce new market rate housing and to facilitate permits for home improvements. It supports permit streamlining and efficiency, and transparency in the planning and building processes. It should be carried forward. 330 Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-9 Prog. Description Status 23 Explore solutions to ground stability and landslide problems CARRY FORWARD. The City implements this program on an ongoing basis through requirements for soils and geology reports, as well as grading standards and grading permit requirements. It continues to allow and support repair work on landslide damaged homes and unstable hillsides. Given past damage caused by landslides and the vulnerability of parts of the city to future damage, this program should be retained. Reference could also be made to programs that reduce wildfire risk and promote defensible space. 24 Make Fair Housing information available to the public REVISE. This program reflects the City’s ongoing commitment to making fair housing information available to the public. Given HCD’s guidelines for implementing AB 686 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing), additional fair housing programs should be developed. 331 Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-10 332 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. 333 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. 334 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. 335 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 336 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 337 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. 338 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 339 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) 340 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. 341 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 342 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 343 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. 344 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-13 Table 3.6: Income Limits for Los Angeles County, 20215 Income Category Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremely Low Income $24,850 $28,400 $31,950 $35,450 $38,300 $41,150 $44,000 $46,800 Very Low Income $41,400 $47,300 $53,200 $59,100 $63,850 $68,600 $73,300 $78,050 Low Income $66,250 $75,700 $85,150 $94,600 $102,200 $109,750 $117,350 $124,900 Moderate Income $67,200 $76,800 $86,400 $96,000 $103,700 $111,350 $119,050 $126,700 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021 Table 3.7 indicates the monthly housing cost that would be considered “affordable” for households of different sizes in each income category. Using the state’s definition of affordability, a low income household of four would be able to afford a monthly housing cost of $2,365. A very low income household of four could afford a monthly housing cost of $1,478. If these households are pay in excess of this amount, they are considered to be “cost-burdened.” In a high-priced market like the Palos Verdes Peninsula, many low income households pay significantly more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent or mortgages. Those employed in low-wage professions in the area may commute long distances from areas with more affordable housing. Table 3.7: Affordable Monthly Housing Costs Based on 2021 Income Limits Income Category Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremely Low Income $621 $710 $799 $886 $958 $1,029 $1,100 $1,170 Very Low Income $1,035 $1,183 $1,330 $1,478 $1,596 $1,715 $1,833 $1,951 Low Income $1,656 $1,893 $2,129 $2,365 $2,555 $2,744 $2,934 $3,123 Moderate Income $1,680 $1,920 $2,160 $2,400 $2,593 $2,784 $2,976 $3,168 Source: Barry Miller Consulting, 2021. Based on 30% of monthly income for each household Market-rate ownership housing in the Los Angeles area is generally not affordable to households who are moderate income or below. With an income of $100,000, a household of four could potentially spend $2,500 a month on their housing cost without experiencing a cost- burden. Assuming a 10 percent down-payment and 3 percent interest rate, an “affordable” home would be about $360,000. While there are a few condominiums at this price point in the region’s larger cities (Long Beach, Los Angeles, etc.), there is no housing on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in this range. Consequently, “below market” housing programs typically focus on rental housing for low and very low income households, and a mix of subsidized ownership housing and rental housing for moderate income households. 5 Income limits for low, very low, and extremely low income are set by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. However, income limits for moderate income households are set by HCD based on mathematical averages of County income. Consequently, the moderate income numbers are only marginally different from the low income numbers in Los Angeles County. This is not the case in all counties. 345 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. 346 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. 347 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. 348 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-17 For homeowners with mortgages, monthly costs are substantially higher. ACS data shows that 89.9 percent of the city’s homeowners with mortgages spend over $3,000 a month on housing, with a median well above $4,000 a month (the maximum reported by the Census). This compares to 34.2 percent in Los Angeles County, with monthly median of $2,498. Data on the City’s renter households indicates that a majority are above moderate income households spending more than $3,000 a month on housing. However, the ACS indicates seven renter households paying $1,000 to $1,499 a month, which indicates that at least a few renters in the city occupy guest houses or unregistered accessory dwelling units. Table 3.11 shows the incidence of overpayment among owners and renters in Rolling Hills who are lower income. Among lower income homeowners, 78 out of 90 are considered cost- burdened, while among the city’s 10 lower income renters, eight are considered cost-burdened. About two-thirds of the city’s lower income owners are severely cost-burdened, paying more than half of their incomes on housing. While the income data does not fully account for savings and accrued wealth, it does suggest that some of these households might benefit from assistance with home maintenance and monthly housing expenses (for example, through home sharing and ADUs). Table 3.11: Overpayment among Lower Income Households in Rolling Hills Total Households Number Paying More than 30% of Income on Housing Number Paying More than 50% of Income on Housing Homeowners Income Under 80% of Areawide Median 90 78 60 Income Under 30% of Areawide Median 25 19 15 Renters Income Under 80% of Areawide Median 10 8 4 Income Under 30% of Areawide Median 0 0 0 Source: HUD User CHAS data, 2014-2018 3.4 Populations with Special Needs The California Government Code recognizes that some segments of the population have more difficulty finding decent, affordable housing than others due to their circumstances. Populations with special needs include older adults, persons with disabilities, large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and persons experiencing (or at risk of) homelessness. These groups are more likely than the population at large to spend a disproportionate amount of their incomes on housing. They are also more likely to face discrimination based on their specific needs or circumstances. 349 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-18 3.4.1 Older Adults The special needs of older households result from limited income, higher rates of physical disability and health care costs, and changing life circumstances which may require assistance from others. This is the single largest special needs group in Rolling Hills, and it is growing rapidly as the population ages. Table 3.12 compares the number of older adults in Rolling Hills with the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, along with Los Angeles County. Table 3.12: Older Adults in Rolling Hills and Nearby Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Percent of all Residents over 65 Percent of all Residents over 75 Percent of households with at least one member over 65 Rolling Hills 32.9% 18.4% 56.0% Rolling Hills Estates 25.2% 13.9% 46.5% Palos Verdes Estates 27.0% 13.3% 46.8% Rancho Palos Verdes 15.5% 13.6% 44.7% Los Angeles County 13.3% 5.7% 29.7% California 14.0% 5.9% 30.8% Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019) The percentage of residents over 65 in Rolling Hills was 22 percent in 2000, 28 percent in 2010, and 33 percent in 2020. Moreover, 56 percent of the households in Rolling Hills include at least one person who is 65 years or older. This is almost double the rate for Los Angeles County as a whole. The percentage of Rolling Hills residents over 85 has doubled in the last 20 years, with this cohort representing 4.7 percent of the population in 2020. The percentage of older residents is likely to continue increasing in the next decade. Nearly one in five Rolling Hills residents is in the 55-64 age cohort (compared to one in nine countywide), and most of this cohort will reach retirement age during the timeframe of this Housing Element. Some of these residents, as well as those already over 65, may seek to “downsize” or adapt their homes to meet changing mobility needs and financial resources. Older adults in Rolling Hills are more likely to live alone, have one or more disabilities, and be cost-burned by housing than the population at large. Census data indicates that there are 68 households, representing roughly 10 percent of all households in Rolling Hills, comprised of a person over 65 living alone. About 70 percent are female-headed households and 30 percent are male-headed. There may be opportunities among these households for home sharing and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development. This can provide financial benefits, social benefits, and an added sense of security, as well as housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income workers or other retirees in the community. At the same time, the City should anticipate an increase in homeowners seeking to adapt their homes to facilitate aging in place. This would include addition of ramps, handrails, kitchen and bath retrofits, and interior changes that improve access for wheelchairs and walkers. The Rolling Hills housing stock is well suited for these improvements, as it is limited to single story 350 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-19 construction. Demand for on-site caregiver quarters, and living space for other domestic employees, will likely increase. At the same time, the substantial cost and demand associated with maintaining a large home and property may compel some residents to seek living arrangements that are not currently available in Rolling Hills, such as condominiums and townhomes. Some of these residents will relocate out of Rolling Hills due to diminished mobility (capacity to drive) or the need for higher levels of care. Because of resource limitations and the city’s small size, the City of Rolling Hills does not provide direct services to seniors. It works with other agencies, non-profits, and the private sector to address the housing needs of local seniors, and to connect residents with service providers. This includes maintaining a comprehensive list of facilities and service providers at City Hall, and a dedicated page on the City’s website listing available services for seniors. Rolling Hills has partnered with other Peninsula cities and local non-profits to produce a Senior Resources Guide for the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Nearby local services include: • Palos Verdes Peninsula Village, located in Rolling Hills Estates, provides social and educational activities, transportation, and advocacy for seniors in the vicinity. They provide trained volunteers to assist with routine home maintenance activities, computer troubleshooting and set-up, and other day to day activities. • PV Peninsula Transit Authority Dial-A-Ride, which provides services for persons 62 or older on the Peninsula, and free taxis for medical appointments in the South Bay area. • Peninsula Seniors, a non-profit 501(c)(3) that has served the four cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (including Rolling Hills) since 1982. They primarily provide social activities, health and wellness programs, special events, and educational programs. • Volunteer block captains within Rolling Hills, providing wellness checks for seniors as well as emergency preparedness and response. • Homeshare South Bay matches seniors and others in the community with local housing opportunities. Homeshare South Bay is a project of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, which includes Rolling Hills. • HELP (Health Care and Elder Law Programs) is a Torrance-based organization that provides counseling to area seniors on elder care, finance, law, and consumer protection. The organization is dedicated to empowering older adults and their families. • Palos Verdes Peninsula Library District and the Peninsula Center Library (in Rolling Hills Estates) provides programs and resources for seniors. • There are senior centers in the nearby communities of Torrance, Carson, Wilmington, Harbor City, San Pedro, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hawthorne, and El Segundo. 351 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-20 In addition, the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) created a “Needs of Seniors” Committee in 2014 to address the needs of aging Rolling Hills residents. The Committee collects information and makes recommendations to the RHCA Board. Their recent efforts have focused on transportation, health and wellness, home improvement and maintenance, and social events. 3.4.2 Persons with Disabilities The number of disabled residents is increasing nationwide due to increased longevity and the aging of the population. Physical and mental disabilities can hinder access to housing as well as the income needed to pay for housing. Those with disabilities often have special housing needs related to their limited earning capacity, higher health care costs, mobility or self-care limitations, or need for supportive services. The Census recognizes six disability types in its data tabulation: hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living. These categories are not mutually exclusive and disabled residents may have more than one of these conditions. Current ACS data (2015-2019) for Rolling Hills indicates that 10.6 percent of the City’s population has one or more disabilities. This compares to 8.1 percent in the 2000 Census, with the increase attributable to the greater number of older adults. Rolling Hills has a slightly higher percentage of disabled residents than the county as a whole, with the ACS reporting that 9.9 percent of Los Angeles County’s residents were disabled in 2020. The city’s older residents are more likely to be disabled than its younger residents. ACS data shows 23 percent of all residents over 65 have one or more disabilities, whereas only 5.5 percent of those aged 18-64 have one or more disabilities and only 1.4 percent of those under 18 have disabilities. The “over 75” population has the greatest incidence of disability, with 33.8 percent affected. Table 3.13 shows the incidence of disabilities among persons in different age groups in Rolling Hills. The most common disabilities are ambulatory (movement), with older adults most impacted. There were 103 residents reporting an ambulatory difficulty, 66 of whom were over 75. There were 56 residents reporting a hearing difficulty, 46 of whom were over 75. Cognitive difficulties were more likely to affect the younger population (particularly 18-34). This was the only category where rates among older adults were lower than among younger age cohorts. Table 3.13: Percent of Rolling Hills’ Residents with a Disability Disability Type Under 18 18-64 Over 65 Total Hearing Difficulty 0 1.0% 10.0% 3.7% Vision Difficulty 0 1.0% 2.6% 1.3% Cognitive Difficulty 1.5% 2.3% 2.0% 2.1% Ambulatory Difficulty 0 2.9% 16.5% 6.9% Self-care Difficulty 0 0.5% 6.0% 2.3% Independent Living Difficulty N/A 2.3% 8.8% 5.0% Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019) 352 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-21 There were 61 residents, including 34 residents over 75 and another 11 aged 65-74, who indicated an independent living difficulty. This represents roughly 5 percent of the City’s population and is comparable to the countywide average of 5.4 percent. These residents may require daily assistance from caregivers or family members. There is an ongoing need to adapt housing to meet the needs of those with disabilities, and to design new homes so they are accessible for all people. This may require widened doorways and hallways, access ramps, larger bathrooms, lowered countertops, grab bars, walk-in baths and showers, and other design changes. It is important that planning and building codes support such changes, and accommodate the needs of those who are disabled or become disabled while living in the homes they currently occupy. Barrier free design is particularly important in any multi-family housing that may be constructed in the future. In 2020, the City of Rolling Hills amended its municipal code to provide “reasonable accommodation” for persons with disabilities. This complies with state and federal laws and enables those with disabilities to request modifications from standard practices or codes to meet their housing needs. 3.4.3 Persons with Developmental Disabilities SB 812 requires that each jurisdiction’s housing element include an analysis of housing needs for persons with developmental disabilities. This is defined by federal law as a “severe, chronic disability” that: • Is attributable to a mental of physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments • Is manifested before the individual attains age 18 • Is likely to continue indefinitely • Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: o Self-care o Receptive and expressive language o Learning o Mobility o Self-direction o Capacity of independent living o Economic self-sufficiency • Reflects the need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, of generic services, individualized support, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated. Examples of developmental disabilities include cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently. More severely disabled individuals may require a group living environment with training and supportive services. The most severely disabled individuals may require an institutional environment where medical services and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist in childhood, the transition from living with one’s family to living independently is an important consideration in meeting local housing needs. 353 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-22 Data on the number of persons with developmental disabilities is maintained by the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS). DDS coordinates the efforts of a network of 21 non-profit regional centers around the state and provides funding for a variety of programs and services. Rolling Hills is served by the Harbor Regional Center, which is located in Torrance. The Harbor Center serves over 15,000 people with developmental disabilities, with a service area that includes Long Beach, the South Bay, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and other parts of southern Los Angeles County. About half are children and half are adults. Data from the DDS is provided by ZIP code. Rolling Hills city represents 7.4 percent of the 25,061 residents in ZIP code 90274. The last available report posted by DDS on their website (June 2017) indicates 154 clients served in 90274, including 65 under age 18 and 89 over age 18. If Rolling Hills’ share of the total is pro-rated, this would be equivalent to 12 clients, including five children and seven adults. ZIP code data is also disaggregated by the type of housing occupied by clients. The data indicates that 149 clients in ZIP Code 90274 live with their families or guardians and “fewer than 11” clients live in supported living, care facility, or foster home environments. Overall, about 87 percent of the Harbor Center’s clients live with their families. The Harbor Regional Center is an important resource for those with developmental disabilities, and their families. It provides health assessments, advocacy, family support and training, individual case management and support, early intervention and prevention services, and assistance in finding stable and secure independent living arrangements. Additional resources in the area include the Disability Community Resource Center in Torrance and Southern California Resources Services for Independent Living. 3.4.4 Female-Headed Households with Children Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of their greater needs for day care, health care, and other facilities. In particular, female-headed households with children tend to have lower incomes, thus limiting housing affordability for this group. In most communities, female-headed households are considered to be at greater risk of displacement, poverty, and housing overpayment. The 2019 ACS indicates that there were five single parent female households with children in Rolling Hills, representing less than one percent of the City’s households. The comparable figure for Los Angeles County was 5.1 percent, as the composition of households is substantially more diverse at the countywide level. ACS data for the small number of female-headed households with children in Rolling Hills may not be entirely reliable due to the small sample size. Nonetheless, the data indicate that these households were above the poverty level, and did not receive supplemental security income, SNAP/food stamps, or other public assistance income in the past 12 months. Because the very small number of female-headed households in Rolling Hills, as well as their income characteristics, they are not expected to have special housing needs that require City programs. 354 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-23 3.4.5 Large Households Large households are defined as those with five or more members. Such households are identified in State housing law as a group with special housing needs based on the limited availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units. In instances where large households have lower incomes, they may be more likely to live in overcrowded dwelling units or in units that are substandard. The problem is more acute for large households who are renters, who may face the added risk of eviction or displacement. Table 3.14 shows data on household size in Rolling Hills. The data is broken down for family and non-family households. About 12.3 percent of all households in Rolling Hills have five or more members, including 2.6 percent with seven or more members. All of these households are families. Countywide, 14.3 precent of all households have five or more members and 2.8 percent have seven or more members. The average number of rooms per unit in a Rolling Hills home is 8.3, compared to 4.6 for Los Angeles County. ACS data indicates the median annual income for large households in Rolling Hills exceeds $250,000. Given the large home sizes in Rolling Hills, the low incidence of overcrowding, and the relatively small percentage of large households, this is not a priority special needs group within the city. Larger households will continue to be housed in the city’s larger single family homes. Table 3.14: Number of Persons in Family and Non-Family Households Household Size Family Percentage Non- Family Percentage Total Percentage 1 N/A N/A 94 87.0% 94 16.3% 2 287 61.2% 14 13.0% 301 52.2% 3 59 12.6% 0 0 59 10.2% 4 52 11.1% 0 0 52 9.0% 5 51 10.9% 0 0 51 8.8% 6 8 1.7% 0 0 8 1.4% 7 or more 12 2.6% 0 0 12 2.1% Total 469 100.0% 108 100.0% 577 100.0% Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019) 355 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. 356 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. 357 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 358 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-27 Chart 3.6: Year of Construction for Rolling Hills Homes 3.5.2 Age and Condition of Housing Stock Chart 3.6 shows the age of the housing stock in Rolling Hills. About half of the housing stock in the community is more than 60 years old. About 35 percent was built in the 1960s and 70s and the remainder has been built in the last 40 years. About 8 percent of the city’s housing stock is less than 20 years old—however, most of these homes are “replacements” and were built on previously developed lots. The older housing stock in the city is in excellent condition. Census data indicates there are no units in the city without plumbing or kitchen facilities. The City strongly encourages reinvestment in the existing housing stock, and homeowners take pride in their homes and properties. Common repairs include new roofs, new siding, plaster and stucco repair, upgraded electrical systems, and plumbing improvements. Home additions, kitchen and bathroom upgrades, and solar energy installations are also common. No significant code enforcement or housing problems have been observed in the city. The city has a Code Enforcement Officer who makes complaint-based site visits. In the event a violation is identified, the City works with the property owner to resolve the issue. The City estimates that five units, or 0.8 percent of its housing stock, is in need of rehabilitation or replacement. These properties include:7 • A home that has been red tagged and in need of foundation repair • A home in a landslide area with a stop work order due to work being done without permits 7 Addresses can be provided to HCD upon request but are not disclosed here. Before 1950 11% 1950s 36% 1960s 21% 1970s 14% 1980s 7% 1990s 3%Post 2000 8% Source: American Community Survey 2021 359 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-28 • An older home where the owner is seeking approval to demolish and rebuild • A home with an approved application to demolish and rebuild • A home with an approval for a major remodel and addition In any given year, the City also receives “tear down and rebuild” applications for one to two older homes as well as dozens of applications to modernize, expand and update older homes. In almost all cases, these homes are habitable, but they are outdated and do not provide the amenities expected in high-end construction. 3.5.3 Housing Type Rolling Hills is comprised entirely of single family homes. The 2021 ACS indicates there are no multi-family units in the city. ACS data further indicates seven units that are “single family attached” which presumably are accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or other separate living quarters that are ancillary to a primary residence. Census data does not typically classify “guest houses” as dwelling units unless they have been legally permitted as separate residences. Rolling Hills classifies guest houses differently than ADUs; the latter are permitted by right to be independent dwellings provided they meet certain adopted zoning standards. By contrast, occupancy of guest houses is limited to persons employed on the premises, the family of the occupants of the main residence, or the temporary guests of the occupants of the main residence. Guest houses may not be used as rental housing, but an owner may apply for a permit to convert a guest house to an ADU, which can then be rented. 3.5.4 House Size Homes in Rolling Hills are large. Chart 3.7 below shows the distribution by number of bedrooms. About 74 percent of the homes in the city have four or more bedrooms. Another 21 percent have three bedrooms and only five percent have two bedrooms or fewer. By contrast, among homes in Los Angeles County as a whole, 16 percent of all housing units have four or more bedrooms and 56 percent have two bedrooms or fewer. Data for total house size shows a similar difference between Rolling Hills and the County as a whole. Countywide, the median number of rooms per home is 4.5. It Rolling Hills, it is 8.3. Only 4.7 percent of the homes in Los Angeles County have nine or more rooms. In Rolling Hills, 46 percent of the homes have nine or more rooms. 360 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-29 Chart 3.7: Percent of Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County Source: American Community Survey 2021 (for 2015-2019) 0.0%0.8% 4.4% 20.7% 39.8% 34.3% 7.1% 19.7% 29.4%28.3% 12.3% 3.3% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% No bedrooms 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5 or more bedrooms Rolling Hills Los Angeles County 361 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-30 3.5.5 Vacancy Characteristics The August 12, 2021 data release from the US Census indicates that 63 of the city’s 702 homes were vacant at the time of the 2020 Census. This is a nine percent vacancy rate. By contrast, 2020 Census data indicates that the vacancy rate for the Palos Verdes Peninsula as a whole was about five percent. Countywide, ACS data indicates that six percent of the housing stock in Los Angeles County is vacant. ACS data provides an indication of the characteristics of vacant units in Rolling Hills. The ACS reports that 30 percent of the vacant units in the city were for sale, 26 percent were used seasonally (and were not occupied at the time of the census), and five percent were for rent. The remainder were classified as “other.” ACS data further indicates that the vacancy rate among for-rent units was three times higher than the vacancy rate among for-sale units, although the sample size is very small. In 2010, the Census reported that 5 percent of the homes in the city were vacant, indicating a significant increase between 2010 and 2020. The higher vacancy may be a result of changes in the housing market, including significantly higher home prices, and an increase in the number of homes that are used seasonally. The city’s housing market serves a unique market niche. 3.5.6 Home Values and Prices A variety of sources were used to analyze housing market prices and trends in Rolling Hills, including on-line real estate data vendors, current real estate listings, and the US Census. According to on-line real estate service Zillow.com, the median value of a home in Rolling Hills is $3,733,468. Rolling Hills home values have gone up 19.7% over the past year. Chart 3.8 compares the local median home value with values in the three other Palos Verdes Peninsula cities and with Los Angeles County as a whole. Homes in Rolling Hills are valued at 50 percent higher than those in Palos Verdes Estates ($2.45 M), 126 percent higher than those in Rancho Palos Verdes ($1.65M), and over four times higher than the countywide median ($790,000). The ACS 2021 data indicates that 95 percent of all homes in Rolling Hills have a value of over $1,000,000. The Census-reported median is over $2 million, which is the highest interval on the Census scale. The ACS shows the median in Los Angeles County at $583,200. This is substantially lower than the Zillow data, which is only based on homes recently sold. The website realtor.com indicates that the average time on the market for a home in Rolling Hills in July 2021 was 120 days. However, the sample size is small, and similar data for earlier in the year indicates a median sale time of 45 days (December 2020 and January 2021). Realtor.com indicates that homes in the city sold for 4.98 percent below asking price in July 2021. This figure is highly variable depending on market listings at any given time. 362 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-31 In July 2021, there were 14 homes for sale in Rolling Hills (including properties with pending offers). These ranged in size from a 1,467 square foot home to a 13,000 square foot home. Prices ranged from $2,499,000 to $15,975,000. The median price was $5.02 million and the mean was $6.15 million. This is substantially higher than the average for surrounding cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and in Los Angeles County. The higher priced homes were typically new construction, while the two lowest priced homes were built in 1954 and 1957. Data on rentals in the city is more difficult to characterize because the number of available properties is so small. In July 2021, there was only one home being advertised for rent in the city. The asking monthly rent was $16,000. The property has five bedrooms, seven bathrooms, and is 5,035 square feet. Zillow also reported a 2-bedroom, 1-bath detached 1,000 square foot accessory dwelling unit for rent for $3,950. In addition, two ADUs were being advertised on Craigslist (listed as Rolling Hills but likely in Rolling Hills Estates or Rancho Palos Verdes). One was a 500 square foot studio for $1,250 and the other was a 400 square foot guest house for $1,800. The Census indicates that seven of the renter households in the City pay less than $1,500 a month in rent, and the remainder pay more than $3,000 a month. Chart 3.8: Home Prices in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and Los Angeles County, 2012-2021 Source: Zillow.com, 2021 363 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-32 Table 3.15: Homes for Sale in Rolling Hills, July 2021 Asking Price Square Footage Cost per Square Foot Year Constructed $15,975,000 7,136 $ 2,239 2016 $11,100,000 13,000 $ 854 2007 $8,765,000 5,100 $ 1,719 1951 $7,750,000 4,000 $ 1,938 1968 $7,499,000 8,000 $ 937 2002 $5,800,000 4,453 $ 1,302 1986 $5,795,000 5,884 $ 985 1956 $4,250,000 4,101 $ 1,036 1941 $4,200,000 3,527 $ 1,191 1940 $3,950,000 5,560 $ 710 1989 $3,495,000 3,414 $ 1,024 1947 $2,630,000 3,444 $ 764 1974 $2,500,000 1,467 $ 1,704 1957 $2,499,000 1,752 $ 1,426 1954 MEAN: $6,150,000 $1,273 MEDIAN: $5,020,000 $1,030 Source: Realtor.com, Trulia, Zillow, 2021 Table 3.15 indicates the cost per square foot of those homes currently for sale in Rolling Hills, along with the asking price, square footage and year of construction. The median cost per square foot is $1,030, which is substantially higher than the statewide median of $438 per square foot. Cost per square foot ranged from $710 to $2,239. 3.5.7 Units at Risk of Conversion from Affordable to Market Rate State law requires the City to identify, analyze and propose programs to preserve any deed- restricted lower-income housing that could be lost as these deed restrictions expire. However, there are presently no low-income or income-restricted units in Rolling Hills. As a result, there is no housing at risk of losing its subsidized status. 364 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-33 3.6 Future Housing Needs 3.6.1 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The eight-year housing need for the six-county Southern California region is calculated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This need was determined to be 1,341,827 units for the 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle planning period. The total regional need represents a 225 percent increase over the need calculated for the 2013-2021 Fifth Cycle. The total regional need is disaggregated to the six counties and 191 cities in the region by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) through a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). About 60 percent of the regional need was assigned to Los Angeles County, which had 53 percent of the region’s population in 2020. Concentrating the RHNA in Los Angeles County is a response to the greater availability of transit, urban services, and housing need within the core of the region. If the 1.3 million unit need was fully constructed, it would represent a 20 percent increase in the region’s housing unit count in eight years. The City of Rolling Hills was allocated 45 units of the countywide total, or about .006 percent. Allocations for nearby cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula were 191 for Rolling Hills Estates, 199 for Palos Verdes Estates, and 639 for Rancho Palos Verdes. As shown in Table 3.16, these allocations are significantly higher than they were in the Fifth Cycle, particularly when compared to the county and region. This represents a shift in the methodology used to allocate units, with less consideration given to growth potential as defined by local governments and more consideration given to population, proximity to job centers, and equity factors. Despite the large increases compared to the last cycle, the RHNA targets for the four Peninsula cities combined represent one-tenth of one percent of the countywide allocation. The RHNA for each of the four cities is equal to between four and six percent of each city’s existing housing stock, compared to 20 percent for the region. Table 3.16: RHNA by City and Comparison to Fifth Cycle Jurisdiction 5th Cycle RHNA 6th Cycle RHNA Percent Increase, 5th to 6th Cycle Existing (2021) Housing Units 6th cycle RHNA as percentage of existing inventory Rolling Hills 6(*) 45 650% 702 6% Rolling Hills Estates 5 191 3720% 3,157 6% Palos Verdes Estates 16 199 1144% 5,303 4% Rancho Palos Verdes 31 639 1961% 16,340 4% Los Angeles County 179,881 812,060 351% 3,614,809 22% SCAG Region 412,137 1,341,827 226% 6,679,283 20% Source: SCAG 2012 and 2021, plus DOF Table E-5 and US Census 2020 (*) In addition to planning for its 5th Cycle allocation, the 2015-2023 Rolling Hills Housing Element includes the 4th Cycle allocation of 22 units, which was carried over. The 45- unit assignment is a 60 percent increase over the prior 28 unit two-cycle total. 365 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-34 The 6th Cycle allocation by income group is shown in Table 3.17. In Rolling Hills, about 64 percent of the RHNA is for low and very low income households. The figure is comparable to the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (ranging from 62 to 65 percent). In Los Angeles County, only 42 percent of the assigned need is for low and very low income households, and regionally, it is 41 percent. The greater allocation of lower income housing to the Peninsula cities reflects the statewide and regional focus on encouraging fair housing and discouraging economic segregation. Table 3.17: Comparison of 6th Cycle RHNA by Income Category Jurisdiction Very Low % of total Low % of total Moderate % of total Above Moderate % of total Rolling Hills 44% 20% 24% 11% Rolling Hills Estates 43% 22% 20% 15% Palos Verdes Estates 41% 22% 24% 13% Rancho Palos Verdes 40% 22% 20% 19% Los Angeles County 27% 15% 16% 42% SCAG Region 26% 15% 17% 42% Source: SCAG, 2020 The City’s “very low” income housing allocation for 2021-2029 is 20 units. The State Government Code requires that this total be further allocated between “extremely low” income households (earning less than 30% of areawide median income) and other “very low” income households (earning 30-50% of areawide median income). This distribution may be based on Census income data showing the current percentages of households in these two categories. According to the most recent HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data, there are 65 very low income households in Rolling Hills. CHAS indicates 25 are extremely low income and 40 are very low income. Applied to the 20 unit RHNA, these proportions equal roughly 7 extremely low income units and 13 other very low income units. 3.6.2 Growth Forecasts As the regional planning agency for the Los Angeles region, SCAG is responsible for preparing jurisdiction-level forecasts for each city and county in the region. The latest forecasts were adopted in September 2020 and describe conditions in a base year (2016) and forecast year (2045). The six-county region as a whole is expected to grow from 6.012 million households (2016) to 7.633 million households (2045), an increase of over 1.3 million households in the 29- year period. Average household size is projected to decline from 3.1 to 2.9 during this period. SCAG forecasts indicate that Rolling Hills growth will be flat during through 2045. The latest published forecasts (Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast, September 2020) show 700 households in 2016 and 700 households in 2045. However, the numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and it is likely that some marginal change will occur. Population over the equivalent period is shown as increasing from 1,900 to 2,000, a growth rate of about 5 percent 366 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-35 over 29 years. As noted on page 3.1, the 2020 Census indicates the City lost over 100 residents between 2010 and 2020, so the SCAG forecasts will need to be adjusted in the future. An increase of 100 residents would bring the City closer to its 2010 total of 1,860 residents. 3.6.3 Locally Identified Needs While Rolling Hills is obligated by the Government Code to identify capacity for 29 low and very low income units and to develop programs to meet this need, the City also has an opportunity to tailor its housing programs to meet local needs. Based on the Assessment in this chapter, some of the key findings regarding local needs are: • The City has a large and growing population of seniors. Some of these residents are on fixed or limited incomes and face relative high housing costs, including home maintenance, property taxes, HOA dues, utilities, etc. These residents could benefit from more senior housing options, ranging from fully independent to assisted living. • Although there are very few people who list Rolling Hills as their permanent place of employment, the City supports a relatively large population of service workers, including caregivers, domestic employees, child care workers and au pairs, landscapers and gardeners, and others in construction and home maintenance. In addition, there are public sector workers, firefighters, and teachers/counselors (at Rancho Del Mar) employed within the city, with incomes that are far below what would be required to buy a home in Rolling Hills. A limited number of affordable rental units serving these workers could reduce commute lengths and vehicle miles traveled. • Adult children of Rolling Hills residents (particularly those in the 18-30 age range) have limited housing options in the city, other than remaining at home. ADUs could provide additional options. • The City’s housing stock is well suited to ADUs and home sharing. More than two-thirds of the non-vacant housing units in the city have only one or two occupants, despite homes that are substantially larger than the regional average. There are also 300 fewer residents in Rolling Hills today than there were 50 years ago, despite larger homes and more square feet of living space. Additional residents would have a lower impact on infrastructure, services, and the environment if accommodated in the footprint of existing homes as opposed to new construction. • Creating an ADU or deciding to share one’s home is a personal choice and is entirely at the discretion of the homeowner. However, the City can create incentives that make it easier and more affordable for homeowners to consider this option. 367 Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-36 368 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-1 4.0 Housing Opportunities and Resources 4.1 Introduction This section of the Housing Element evaluates potential opportunities to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). It includes an inventory of potential housing sites in the city and an evaluation of Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Junior ADU potential. The analysis in this section demonstrates that Rolling Hills has the capacity to accommodate its RHNA assignment of 45 additional housing units, including 29 units that are affordable to low and very income households. Two other topic areas are covered in this chapter. As required by State law, this chapter discusses opportunities for energy conservation in the city. Reducing energy costs can reduce overall housing costs, contributing to affordability. This chapter also identifies potential financial resources to support the provision of affordable housing and the maintenance of existing housing in the city. 4.2 Approved or Pending Development There are 12 housing units in the city that are approved or pending and not yet constructed. All of these units are expected to become available for occupancy during the 2021-2029 period and therefore count toward meeting the RHNA. These units include three market-rate single family homes and nine ADUs. These units are listed in Table 4.1 below, including an assignment of each unit by income category. Table 4.1: Committed Development for the 2021-2029 RHNA period ID Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Address Description Income Category A 7567-011-020 23 Crest Road E New SF home on vacant lot Above Moderate B 7567-001-018 1 Poppy Trail New SF home on vacant lot Above Moderate C 7569-020-004 8 Middleridge Ln S. New SF home on vacant lot Above Moderate D 7567-011-020 23 Crest Road E ADU (1000 SF) Above Moderate E 7569-001-031 2950 Palos Verdes N ADU (1000 SF) Above Moderate F 7569-026-008 13 Buggy Whip Dr. ADU (997 SF) Above Moderate G 7569-023-006 33 Crest Road W ADU (946 SF) Above Moderate H 7569-026-012 27 Buggy Whip Dr. ADU (800 SF) Moderate I 7567-006-036 23 Chuckwagon ADU (800 SF) Moderate J 7567-005-028 79 Eastfield Dr. ADU (799 SF) Moderate K 7567-014-022 23 Georgeff Road ADU (620 SF) Low L 7567-008-009 63 Crest Rd E ADU (580 SF) Low Sources: US Decennial Census, 1970-2010. California Dept. of Finance, 1/1/21 estimate, 2020 Census (8/12/21 release) 369 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-2 The assignment of the ADUs by income category is based on the size of the unit. Units larger than 800 SF are presumed to be “above moderate”; units 650-800 SF are presumed to be “moderate”; units 500-650 SF are presumed to be “low”; and units smaller than 500 SF are presumed to be “very low.” This is based on local rental data for comparably sized ADUs (see Section 4.6 and the footnote below).1 4.3 Vacant Sites Table 4.2 identifies vacant residentially zoned sites in Rolling Hills. These sites are shown graphically on Figure 4.1. For each site, the table indicates the theoretical number of units permitted by zoning (based on acreage and minimum lot size requirements) and the “realistic” number of units based on lot configuration, access, and terrain.2 Some of the vacant parcels are characterized by physical constraints that preclude their development, including steep or unstable slopes or landslide hazards. A few are landlocked and have no access. The acreage data for each site is based on assessor parcel maps and subtracts out unbuildable easements such as flood hazard areas and roads. There are 34 parcels identified totaling, 124.8 acres. All of these parcels are in private ownership. Twenty are estimated to be developable and 14 are severely constrained and presumed undevelopable for the 2021-2029 planning period. The constrained parcels include five lots that are landlocked with no street frontage and nine that are in the Flying Triangle Landslide Hazard Overlay area. Several of the lots in the landslide area had homes that were destroyed by earth movement in the 1980s and early 1990s. For the 20 remaining vacant lots, Table 4.2 indicates the “realistic” potential for 20 single family homes. This excludes accessory dwelling units, which are addressed later in this chapter. 1 The City is presuming that the two smallest ADUs listed in Table 4-1 will be affordable “by design” to lower income households. ADU permits were issued for these two units on October 27, 2020 and May 20, 2021 respectively. Both of these projects involve converting existing two-story stables (located on two separate parcels about a mile apart) into ADUs of approximately 600 square feet each. Neither of these units has a finaled building permit yet. Given the eight year timeframe of the Housing Element, both units are expected to be completed before 2029. These are market rate units. The assumption that they will be affordable to low-income households is based on the size of the units and the fact that they are being created by repurposing existing space rather than building new space, which presumably would cost more. Current HCD income limits for Los Angeles County indicate that the upper end of the low-income range for a two-person household is $75,700. At 30 percent of household income, monthly housing costs would need to be $1,892 to be considered affordable. The City’s survey of comparable properties in 2021 found that ADUs of 400 to 600 square feet in the Palos Verdes Peninsula sub -market were renting for $1,800 per month or less. The two new ADUs are presumed to rent at comparable rates. Moreover, SCAG’s ADU survey for Los Angeles County found that 60% of all ADUs in the region could be presumed affordable to lower income households. As these two ADUs are the smallest of the nine that are listed in the Housing Element (see Table 4-1), it is reasonable to presume they would fall in this range. 2 Excludes additional units that could be permitted under SB 9. 370 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-3 Table 4.2: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites (sorted by APN) (see note at end of table) Site APN Address or Location Zoning General Plan Acres (*) Theoretical Unit Yield Realistic Yield, excl. ADUs Comments 1 7567-006-001 15 Chuckwagon Road RAS-1 LDR 2.27 2 1 2 7567-006-014 Behind 6 Chesterfield RAS-1 LDR 1.22 1 0 Landlocked (no road access) 3 7567-009-007 5 Southfield Drive RAS-1 LDR 1.61 1 1 4 7567-010-013 East of 3 Packsaddle Rd W RAS-1 LDR 1.24 1 1 5 7567-010-015 North of 3 Packsaddle Rd W RAS-1 LDR 1.49 1 0 Landlocked (no road access) 6 7567-011-017 54 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 2.67 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 7 7567-012-019 SW of 56 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 VLDR 0.96 1 0 In landslide hazard area 8 7567-012-020 53 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.46 1 0 In landslide hazard area 9 7567-012-026 4 Wrangler Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.82 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 10 7567-012-035 66 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.64 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 11 7567-012-036 64 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.71 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 12 7567-012-038 62 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.84 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 13 7567-013-005 End of Portuguese Bend Rd RAS-2 VLDR 19.81 1 0 Flying Triangle Landslide 14 7567-013-007 2 Running Brand RAS-2 VLDR 7.09 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 15 7567-014-005 West of 5 El Concho Ln RAS-1 LDR 2.12 2 0 Landlocked (no road access)/ canyon 16 7567-014-011 West of 24 Georgeff Rd RAS-1 LDR 1.66 1 0 Landlocked (no road access)/ canyon 17 7567-014-013 North of 27 Georgeff Rd RAS-2 VLDR 3.79 1 0 Landlocked (no road access)/ canyon 18 7567-014-031 Access b/w 1 and 3 Poppy Tr. RAS-2 VLDR 6.85 3 1 Rear of 8 Reata Lane 19 7567-015-036 North of 1 Georgeff RAS-2 VLDR 4.56 2 1 20 7567-017-017 Between 4 and 5 Ranchero RAS-2 VLDR 3.52 2 1 Access at end of Ranchero cul-de-sac 371 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-4 Table 4.2, continued Site APN Address or Location Zoning General Plan Acres (*) Theoretical Unit Yield Realistic Yield, excl. ADUs Comments 21 7567-017-045 17 Cinchring Rd RAS-1 VLDR 1.52 1 1 Driveway access b/w 15 and 20 Cinchring 22 7569-001-020 B/w 2954 and 2958 PV Dr N RAS-1 LDR 1.03 1 1 23 7569-001-036 B/w 6 and 14 Roadrunner RAS-1 LDR 1.00 1 1 24 7569-004-026 B/w 35 and 45 Saddleback RAS-1 LDR 3.39 3 1 25 7569-005-008 80 Saddleback RAS-1 LDR 6.52 6 1 This parcel is currently for sale 26 7569-012-022 W of 25 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 VLDR 2.30 1 1 27 7569-012-025 N of 25 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 VLDR 3.51 1 1 28 7569-013-017 North of 10 Pine Tree Lane RAS-2 VLDR 2.41 1 1 One of three adj. vacant lots 29 7569-013-018 South of 18 Pine Tree Lane RAS-2 VLDR 2.20 1 1 One of three adj. vacant lots 30 7569-013-020 18 Pine Tree Lane RAS-2 VLDR 2.13 1 1 One of three adj. vacant lots 31 7570-024-019 Storm Hill Lane, Parcel 1 RAS-2 VLDR 6.04 3 1 7.6 ac parcel with 1.6 acres of easements 32 7570-024-020 Storm Hill Lane, Parcel 2 RAS-2 VLDR 11.64 5 1 34.7 ac parcel with 23 acres of easements 33 7570-024-021 Storm Hill Lane, Parcel 3 RAS-2 VLDR 10.10 5 1 17.3 ac parcel with 7.2 acres of easements 34 7570-025-022 N/ end of Johns Canyon Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.68 1 1 TOTAL 124.8 57 20 Sources: Barry Miller Consulting, 2021; LA County GIS Portal, 2021 (*) Acreages generally exclude unbuildable easements Note: This is a roster of existing vacant residentially zoned land in Rolling Hills. No changes to the zoning of these parcels is proposed, and no specific projects are proposed on these sites. Future development applications on these properties would be subject to environmental review or applicable exemptions, consistent with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act. 372 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-5 Figure 4.1: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites 373 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-6 Several of the sites, such as those on Storm Hill Lane, are quite large and could potentially be subdivided. However, the “realistic” estimates are intended to be conservative and do not presume subdivision of any of the sites. These estimates also reflect the absence of sewer services on these sites, their very steep topography, and the severe risk of wildfire. The vacant lots have the potential to completely meet the regional need for above moderate income units assigned to Rolling Hills. As noted, this need is five units for the 6th Cycle. Since three new single family homes are already in the pipeline (see Sec 4.2), the remaining need is two units. Several of the vacant sites are currently for sale, making it likely that the City will exceed its above moderate income allocation for 2021-2029. Table 4.2 indicates the General Plan and zoning designations for each vacant site. Of the developable parcels, eight are in the RAS-1 zone (one acre minimum) and 12 are in the RAS-2 zone (two-acre minimum). No zoning changes are proposed or required to meet the above moderate income or moderate income allocations. 4.4 Lot Splits There are a number of parcels in Rolling Hills with lot sizes that are more than double the minimum acreage required by zoning. Some of these parcels could theoretically be subdivided into two or more lots. Moreover, SB 9 (effective January 1, 2022) includes provisions to allow single family lots to be divided to allow new homes. The potential for lot splits in Rolling Hills is very limited due to the configuration of the lots as well as environmental hazards, evacuation constraints, and the lack of a sewer system. Many of the city’s larger lots have limited street frontage and irregular dimensions that would make it difficult to divide them. Moreover, the platting pattern responds to topography, and the larger lots are often steep and geologically constrained, making them difficult to subdivide. Their division could result in lots with no buildable area, street frontage, or access. Although a limited number of new homes could conceivably occur as a result of future lot splits, a capacity estimate has not been made due to the constraints inherent in the community’s topography and hazards. In addition, the reliance on septic tanks makes subdivision infeasible from a public health perspective, even on many larger lots. The supply of vacant lots is sufficient to meet the above moderate income RHNA without relying on lot splits. 4.5 Non-Vacant Sites While Rolling Hills’ above moderate income (or “market rate”) RHNA can be met on vacant residentially-zoned land, the City’s moderate, low, and very low income RHNA will need to be accommodated through a combination of development on non-vacant sites and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The text below addresses non-vacant sites. ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) are discussed in Section 4.6. 374 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-7 The sites described below provide the potential for 16 units of low- and very low-income housing. This potential is associated with the 31-acre Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) site, where an overlay zone was created in 2021 to facilitate affordable housing. Other non-vacant properties addressed here are the City Hall complex, the Tennis Court Facilities, the Los Angeles County Fire Station, and the Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center parking lot. These properties have been determined to not be viable as potential housing sites. Non-vacant housing sites are shown in Figure 4.2. 4.5.1 PVPUSD Site/ Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone (APN 7569-022-900) In March 2021, the City of Rolling Hills adopted the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone on the 31- acre Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) property located at 38 Crest Road. Although the site is technically non-vacant, roughly three-quarters of the property (23 acres) is open space. The remaining areas are underutilized and could be repurposed. Appendix B of this Housing Element provides a detailed evaluation of the site, demonstrating that it is the most suitable location for multi-family housing in Rolling Hills. The site also provides the City’s best opportunity to meet its requirements for low- and very low-income units. It is located outside the jurisdiction of the Rolling Hills Community Association, outside the Rolling Hills security gates, and is one of the largest properties in the city. It includes multiple areas that are vacant and underutilized, relatively flat, and well buffered from adjacent uses. The site is also one of the only properties in Rolling Hills that is served by a public sewer system. This substantially reduces multi-family development costs and addresses an infrastructure constraint that makes affordable housing cost-prohibitive in almost all of the city. The site is also ½ mile from the corner of Crenshaw and Crest Roads in Palos Verdes Estates, which is served by four bus lines. Existing uses on the PVPUSD site include Rancho Del Mar Continuation High School and a maintenance facility leased to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA). Each of these activities is discussed below. Rancho Del Mar School was initially developed as an elementary school in 1960. The school closed in 1980 and was repurposed as a continuation school in 1986. The continuation school was initially intended as a temporary use but has been in place for 35 years. The possibility of residential development on the site has been considered in the past. Enrollment at Rancho Del Mar has been steadily declining and was just 32 students in the 2020-2021 school year (California Department of Education, DataQuest). Enrollment has declined every year since 2014 and is now less than half of what it was just five years ago.3 The Beach Cities Learning (BCL) Center uses four classrooms in the school building. BCL serves students aged 11-22 with emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities that cannot be addressed in public school settings. Students participate in individual and group counseling run by licensed therapists on-site. Total enrollment in 2019-20 was 17 students, with two teachers on-site (School Accountability Report Card, 2021). 3 California Department of Education indicates the following enrollment figures: 2020-21 (32 students); 2019-20 (46 students); 2018-19 (47 students); 2017-18 (58 students); 2016-17 (69 students); 2015-16 (72 students); 2014-15 (79 students) 375 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-8 Figure 4.2: Non-Vacant Sites Evaluated 376 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-9 The school building is adjoined by a lawn, playing fields, and school parking lot. The complex serves only a fraction of the number of students for which it was designed. Moreover it occupies just 1.9 percent of the 31-acre site. Sale of the school property could generate significant revenue for the School District. The only other active use on the property is the PVPTA maintenance facility, which occupies 4.5 acres. The PVPTA facilities include maintenance buildings and administrative offices and are self-contained in the west central part of the site. While PVPTA has no immediate plans to relocate, the site could be sold in the future or repurposed by the School District. In any event, the facilities occupy only 15 percent of the 31-acre site and have co-existed with the nearby school and adjacent residential uses for many years. Roughly 75 percent of the PVUSD site is vacant, and at least five developable areas have been identified on the campus. These include the school itself (in the event it is closed), the ballfield east of the school, the large lawn adjacent to the school, a vacant area between the school and the PVPTA facility, and the undeveloped area west of the PVPTA facility. Each of these areas is at least one acre in size. The area west of the PVTPA facility is the largest of the five areas and the one deemed most viable as a multi-family housing site. It is the closest location to Crest Road and could easily be developed without affecting activities at either the school or the transit facility. Accordingly, the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone identifies this area as the location for future affordable housing. The entire Rancho Del Mar site has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and an underlying zoning designation of RAS-2. The designation permits 16 units on the site, based on the site area of 31 acres and the density of one unit per two acres (31/2 = 15.5, rounded up to 16). However, the General Plan (as amended in 2021) requires that the allowable density for this site be transferred to a single location on the property where a density standard of 20-24 units per acre applies. This is reinforced and codified by the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone (RDMO). The RDMO effectively takes the 16 units of housing and transfers it to a single location on the west side of the parcel. The RDMO further mandates that any housing built on the site be 100% affordable to very low and/or low income households. Such development is permitted by right, provided that the development complies with the objective development and design standards contained in the RDMO. The RDMO also provides opportunities for emergency shelter and single room occupancy (SRO) hotels. Emergency shelter is permitted by right, subject to objective development standards that have been adopted by the City. SROs require a conditional use permit and are also subject to objective design standards. These provisions create opportunities for extremely low income households as well as low and very low income households. Creation of the RDMO occurred collaboratively with the School District. District staff confirmed that there are no prohibitions on the application of this zoning overlay or the use of the property for affordable housing. Moreover, the District has expressed interest in developing housing for teachers in the past; such units would likely meet income criteria for lower income housing. Programs in this Housing Element support active communication with the School District regarding the disposition of the area west of the PVPTA for affordable housing. 377 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-10 The PVUSD site also meets the “carry-over” criteria established by the State for sites that were counted in the prior cycle Element. It is zoned with a minimum density of 20 units per acre and permits “by right” development of affordable housing, subject to objective design and development standards. The current zoning was put in place just six months before the end of the Fifth Cycle planning period and was principally intended to provide a housing opportunity for the Sixth Cycle. For the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the capacity figure of 16 lower income units is being used for the site. Under State Density Bonus law, a 100% affordable project would be eligible for an 80 percent density bonus. This could potentially result in 29 units of lower income housing, which is equal to the total number of units assigned to the City under the Sixth Cycle RHNA. However, State law precludes the City from counting potential density bonus units when determining its RHNA capacity. As explained in Section 4.6, the remaining 13 units will be met through Accessory Dwelling Units. As indicated in Appendix B, the PVUSD site is large enough to accommodate multi-family housing, emergency shelter, and an SRO on the same property, either in the same sub-area or independently in different parts of the site. Neither the shelter beds nor the SRO rooms would be counted as independent “dwelling units” so they could be accommodated under existing General Plan densities. Moreover, all three of these uses are permitted by right, provided they meet the Municipal Code objective standards (which were previously reviewed by HCD in 2020). As noted above, the preferred location for the multi-family housing is in the western part of the property, near the access drive and closest to public transit and other urban services (see Figure 4 on Page B-8 in the Housing Element Appendix—this is labeled Area 5). This area is four acres. Only about one acre would be required for multi-family housing, leaving three vacant acres for the SRO and/or emergency shelter if all three uses are located in this area. An SRO or emergency shelter could also locate in areas 1, 2, 3, or 4, as shown in Figure 4 in Appendix B, page B-8. As the map and text indicate, Area 1 is a 1.6-acre site that is flat and vacant. Area 2 is a 1.0-acre site that is flat and vacant. Area 3 is a 1.75-acre former school building that is mostly vacant and underutilized. Portions of this building could be easily be converted to group residential uses. Area 4 includes a ballfield and parking lot which collectively occupy 2.5 acres. There are no limitations in the housing overlay ordinance that limit where shelters or SROs can locate within the 31 acres. Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 all have adequate space for these uses. 4.5.2 Rolling Hills City Hall (APN 7569-003-904) This site is located at the southeast corner of Palos Verdes Drive North and Portuguese Bend Road. Palos Verdes Drive North is a major thoroughfare and provides access from Rolling Hills to surrounding communities and the regional roadway network. Portuguese Bend Drive is a local street but the primary north-south route through the city, connecting to Crest Drive. This is one of the only sites in Rolling Hills that is located outside the security gates, and adjacent to a transit line. An elementary school and park are nearby in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The property is 1.22 acres and is roughly rectangular in shape. It has a General Plan designation of Civic Center and a zoning designation of Public Facilities (PF). Neither of these 378 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-11 designations permits housing, so a General Plan amendment would be required to enable its development. The site is owned by the City of Rolling Hills. The parcel currently contains three structures: City Hall, the Rolling Hills Community Association Administration Building, and an accessory structure that houses an emergency generator. The site is relatively flat, although it is adjoined by a steep canyon to the east. There is a single family residence located to the south. To the west, there is a guardhouse in the median of Portuguese Bend Road, and a public tennis court on the west side of the road. Site ingress and egress is from Portuguese Bend Road. Direct access to Palos Verdes Drive North is not feasible due to high speeds and volumes and the existing traffic signal at the corner of Portuguese Bend. Given the existing uses on the site and its function as the only civic building in Rolling Hills, the site is not a practical location for multi-family housing. Its rezoning is not recommended at this time. 4.5.3 Rolling Hills Tennis Court Facility (APN 7569-015-900) This site is located immediately west of City Hall on the southwest corner of Palos Verdes Drive North and Portuguese Bend Road. It is adjoined by a residence and horse stables on the west and south and by street frontage on the north and east. The site is 0.86 acres and is one of the few properties located outside the City security gates. It is currently in use as a community tennis facility, with three tennis courts in total. Like City Hall, the property has a General Plan designation of Civic Center and a zoning designation of Public Facilities (PF). Neither of these designations permits housing, so a General Plan amendment would be required to facilitate residential development. The site is owned by the City of Rolling Hills. Parking for the tennis courts is provided on the City Hall property to the east. The site could potentially be converted to housing. At a density of 20 units per acre, it would yield 17 units. However, the community would lose parkland, which is already in short supply, as well as a well-used recreational amenity and gathering place. As a result, no rezoning is recommended. 4.5.4 Los Angeles County Fire Station (APN 7567-017-900) This is a 2.2-acre site owned by the County of Los Angeles located at 12 Crest Road East. It is currently developed with Battalion 14 Fire Station 56, which provides fire and rescue services for Rolling Hills and nearby communities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. While much of the parcel is open space, it occupies a steep downslope and would require costly grading and construction. Moreover, the Fire Station is an essential community asset and long-term use. This site is also located in an area that is far from services and amenities, not served by transit, and under the oversight of the Rolling Hills Community Association. Rezoning to allow housing is not recommended. 379 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-12 4.5.5 Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center (APN 7569-022-006) The parcel is located on the western edge of the City, immediately west of the Rancho Del Mar (PVPUSD) site. It is outside the western City gatehouse at 5300 Crest Road and forms part of the 8-acre Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center, which straddles the border between Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes. The Retreat Center consists of two parcels—a 5.95-acre parcel located entirely in Rancho Palos Verdes that contains the buildings, gardens, and a portion of the parking lot, and a 1.96-acre parcel located entirely in Rolling Hills that contains parking, landscaping, and unimproved property. The parcel has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and is zoned RAS-2. These designations would allow a single dwelling unit on the site. A General Plan Amendment and rezoning could be considered to allow multi-family housing on the property, or on a portion of the property. The unimproved portion of the site is about 0.67 acres, which could hypo- thetically support 13 units if developed at a density of 20 units per acre. This area has a 15-30 percent slope and would require grading to support multi-family construction. The flatter portion of the site (i.e., the parking lot) is larger and would be easier to develop but is currently in active use. The City has had prior conversations with the Retreat owners regarding the possibility of housing on this site. While there are no plans to redevelop the property, it remains a potential long-term opportunity. 4.5.6 Conclusions Based on the analysis above, only the Rancho Del Mar site is considered a viable housing site at this time. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning amendments completed in 2021, the site is viable for 16 units of low/very income housing. 4.6 Accessory Dwellings The City of Rolling Hills has estimated the potential for 40 ADUs and JADUs over the eight-year planning period, or approximately five (5) ADUs per year. This projection is based on the permitting of nine ADUs in 2021 alone, and the implementation of Housing Element program that encourage ADUs in the coming years. It is further based on a citywide survey conducted in October 2020 (with a 30 percent response rate) indicating that: • 25 percent of the survey respondents indicated they had a secondary building on their property with a kitchen, bath, and sleeping area. Another 25 percent indicated their home had two kitchens or an area that could be “easily converted” into an ADU. • 24 percent of the survey respondents indicated they would consider developing an ADU on their property now, with another 15 percent indicating they would consider this at some point in the future. • 8 percent of the survey respondents indicated they would rent their ADU to a tenant while 24 percent said they would use it for a caregiver or employee and 31 percent said they would use it for a family member. 380 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-13 Extrapolating these results to the citywide total of 639 households, the results suggest that:4 • An estimated 153 households might be interested in developing an ADU on their properties, with another 95 potentially interested at some future date. • An estimated 51 households would rent their ADU to a tenant, 153 would be interested in using their ADUs for a caregiver or domestic employee, and 198 would consider using an ADU for a family member. The survey, combined with physical characteristics of the City’s large lots and building stock, indicate significant potential for ADU development. ADUs could be created through new construction, conversion of existing guest houses and barns, and reconfiguration of interior spaces in primary residences. The latter category includes Junior ADUs (JADUs), which are often affordable to very low income tenants “by design” given their small size. A majority of the 2020 survey respondents indicated they would use their ADU for a family member, caregiver, or other domestic employee. A substantial number of these households would likely pay reduced rent, or no rent at all. Some would likely meet HCD criteria for extremely low income households. In order to demonstrate the suitability of ADUs and JADUs to satisfy the RHNA, the City must estimate the affordability of ADUs by income category. This requires data on occupancy and rents. The 2020 ADU survey conducted by the City identified 12 ADU tenants, including two extremely low income, two very low income, one low income, and seven who were moderate or above moderate income (see Appendix C). This is based on data provided by survey respondents and the HUD income categories by household size for Los Angeles County. The City’s 2020 ADU survey produced only two data points for rents—one unit renting for $950 and another for $1,500. Both of these were market-rate units with no deed restrictions. In addition, weekly scans of Craigslist ads in 2021 identified two ADUs in Rolling Hills and two in Rolling Hills Estates, with rents of $895 for a “basement apartment”, $1,200 (for a JADU at an unidentified address), $1,800 (for a one-bedroom one bath “guest house”), and $3,950 for a two-bedroom one bath, 1,000 square foot guest house. Assuming a household size of two, the rents for these six units correspond to two very low-income units, three low income units, and one above moderate income unit. This is a limited sample size, however, and it excludes units that may be occupied “rent free” or without advertising. In 2020, the Southern California Association of Governments conducted a survey of ADU rents in multiple jurisdictions across the region. The stated purpose of the survey was to “provide local governments with assumptions for ADU affordability that can be used to assign ADUs to income categories for the purpose of Sixth Cycle Housing Elements.”5 The SCAG study was organized by geographic sub-area, including one sub-area corresponding to Coastal Los Angeles County. The survey included an estimate of the percentage of ADUs that would be affordable to “Extremely Low Income” households, which included units that were available for 4 The numbers in the three bullets below this sentence have been developed by applying the percentages from the survey to the total citywide housing stock. This assumes that the 192 households who responded are representative of the 639 households that live in Rolling Hills. 5 SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, published by SCAG in 2020 381 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-14 little or no rent and were not advertised (for instance, a detached in-law unit occupied by the elder parents of the homeowner). The distribution identified in the SCAG survey (for Coastal LA County) was as follows: Extremely Low: 15% Very Low: 2% Low: 43% Moderate: 6% Above Moderate: 34% This distribution is roughly consistent with the sample taken by the City of Rolling Hills and the survey data collected in 2020. Applied to the City’s projection of 40 units, the allocation using SCAG’s methodology would be: Extremely Low: 6 units Very Low: 1 unit Low: 17 units Moderate: 2 units Above Moderate: 14 units This is equivalent to 24 lower income units and 16 moderate and above moderate units. All of the ADUs permitted to date have been “full” ADUs, meaning they are at least 500 square feet in size. Among the City’s Housing Element programs is an initiative to create at least five JADUs. Given the small size of these units and the fact that they are created by repurposing existing space, they are more likely to be affordable to very low income households, thus shifting the distribution shown above so that more “very low” income units are produced. In addition, based on actual production of ADUs in 2021, the City anticipates a smaller share of “Low” income units and a larger share of “Moderate” income units. Moderate income units represented one-third of the production in 2021, which suggests something closer to the following distribution for 2022-2029: Extremely Low: 7 units (occupied rent-free or at minimal charge) Very Low: 5 units Low: 6 units Moderate: 8 units Above Moderate: 14 units Housing Element programs have been developed to ensure that the City reaches its very low/ extremely low income ADU targets. 382 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-15 4.7 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA As shown in Table 4.3 below, the combination of recently approved housing units (expected to be occupied in 2022), future affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs can accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories. The table illustrates a surplus capacity of seven lower income units based on projected ADU production over the planning period. Table 4.3: Summary of Housing Opportunities, 2021-2029 Income Category TOTAL Extremely Low/ Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Approved Development -- 2 3 7(*) 12 Vacant Residential Lots -- -- -- 20 20 Rancho Del Mar site (**) 8 8 -- -- 16 Accessory Dwelling Units 12 6 8 14 40 TOTALS 20 16 11 41 88 RHNA 20 9 11 5 45 Surplus/ Deficit 0 +7 0 +36 +43 Adequate Sites? YES YES YES YES YES Source: Barry Miller Consulting, 2021 (*) includes 3 new homes and 4 large ADUs, see Table 4.1. 383 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-16 4.8 Opportunities for Energy Conservation Home energy costs, including electric and natural gas utility bills, are considered part of monthly housing expenses. The large floor area of many Rolling Hills homes suggests that this may be an important consideration in the city. Home energy bills can be substantial, particularly for senior households on fixed incomes. Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of opportunities for residential energy conservation and reduced energy costs. The US Department of Health and Human Services provides funding for a program known as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). In California, the program is administered by the Department of Community Services and Development. LIHEAP is aimed at assisting low-income households that pay a high portion of their incomes to meet their energy needs. This is achieved through one-time financial assistance grants covering the utility bills of eligible households, an energy crisis intervention program to help low-income households in danger of having their utilities turned off, free weatherization and energy efficiency upgrades to qualifying households, and energy education and budget counseling. Low income customers are also eligible for reduced rates through the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) and Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) programs. Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company offer energy conservation and assistance programs. These include home energy audits, rebates on energy- efficient appliances, and weatherization assistance to qualified low-income companies. SCE has an energy management assistance program for qualifying households. While the measures above are aimed at meeting day to day utility bills, there are also more systemic long-term ways to reduce home energy costs. Nearly half of the homes in Rolling Hills were built before 1960, many without consideration given to the cost and availability of energy. Weatherization and insulation can provide significant reductions in home energy use and reduce monthly utility bills. Replacement of older appliances can likewise provide significant long-term savings. A variety of rebates and other financial incentives are available for homeowners. In addition, all new construction in California is subject to State building code and energy standards, including Title 24. These requirements apply to most remodeling projects, creating opportunities to retrofit older homes. The standards are periodically updated to reflect new technology and targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The latest standards incorporate the California Green Building Code, including energy-saving design standards for walls, ceilings, and floor installations, as well as heating and cooling equipment and systems, gas cooling devices, window glazing, and the use of renewable energy sources such as solar energy. These standards are incorporated in Title 15 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (the Building Code). The City also encourages the use of solar panels to maximize energy efficiency, as well as the application of passive solar design principles that reduce heating and cooling costs. These measures include home orientation and siting, landscaping to reduce direct sunlight, placement of windows to support home heating and cooling, the use of skylights, and incorporation of overhangs and shade structures. In addition, home energy costs can be reduced by incorporating some or all of the measures listed below: 384 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-17 • Solar heating for swimming pools • Flow restrictors on hot water faucets and showerheads (to reduce natural gas use) • Tankless water heaters • Attic ventilation systems that reduce attic temperatures during summer months. • Insulation, caulking, and weatherstripping to guard against heat gain in the summer and prevent heat loss in the winter. These measures can reduce energy use for air-conditioning up to 55 percent and for heating as much as 40 percent. • Proper maintenance and use of stoves, ovens, clothes dryers, washing machines, dishwashers, and refrigerators. • Purchase of air-conditioning units and refrigerators on the basis of efficiency ratings (the State prepares a list of air-conditioning and refrigerator models that detail the energy efficiency ratings of the product) Indoor and outdoor lighting also impacts home energy costs. The City has adopted standards for outdoor lighting through its Municipal Code (Section 17.16.190(E)). Energy efficient lighting is required in most cases, and outdoor lighting is prohibited in many instances to retain dark skies and the community’s rural character. For interior spaces, the costs of lighting can be reduced through purchase of light bulbs which produce the most lumens per watt, avoidance of multi-bulb mixtures, and use of long-life bulbs and clock timers. As a member of SCAG, the City also participates in the Regional Comprehensive Plan to achieve a sustainable future. The City also has joined ICLEI, which is a membership association of local governments committed to advancing climate protection and sustainable development. Rolling Hills also is a participant in the South Bay Cities Council of Governments Environmental Services Center. The Center serves as a clearinghouse for information on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainability. It assists residents, businesses, and public agencies with incorporating energy-saving practices in their daily lives and operations. Water conservation provides another opportunity to reduce home utility costs. The City has adopted a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 13.18 of the Municipal Code), and encourages the use of low-flow plumbing fixtures and products to reduce water use. 385 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-18 4.9 Financial Resources This section of the Housing Element summarizes financial resources for affordable housing in Rolling Hills. An overview of federal and State programs, as well as tax credit programs, is provided below. 4.9.1 Federal Programs A major source of housing assistance in many communities is the Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) program (including the Los Angeles County Urban County CDBG program, which provides federal funds to about 50 participating small cities). Rolling Hil ls no longer participates in this program, as the cost of its administration made it infeasible. When the City did participate, it received approximately $6,000 per year. The City transferred these funds to Rancho Palos Verdes, an adjacent city which has a population roughly 25 times larger than Rolling Hills. Opportunities for funding through other federal programs is limited. For example, the federal Home Investment Partnership (HOME) program is designed to increase home ownership and affordable housing opportunities for low and very low-income Americans. The funds are distributed to jurisdictions based on need. They support programs such as loans to assist low- income families with down payments to purchase homes, tenant-based rental assistance, rehabilitation of affordable housing, and relocation assistance for low-income tenants. The high cost of land and construction, limited opportunities for home ownership, absence of a sewer system, and very high incomes in Rolling Hills, make the City non-competitive for these applications. Likewise, HUD’s Section 202 program provides funding for construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of structures for supportive housing for very low-income seniors. It offers interest- free capital advances, as well as rental assistance funds. The funds are provided to private and non-profit organizations and consumer cooperatives and are highly competitive. Use of these funds in Rolling Hills is constrained by the community’s natural hazards, lack of infrastructure, and high land costs. The use of project-based federal Section 8 funding for new affordable housing and substantial rehabilitation of existing housing is infeasible in Rolling Hills for these same reasons. The federal government also operates the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. This program assists very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled in securing housing in the private market. Participants may choose any housing that meet the requirements of the program. A housing subsidy is paid directly to the property owner, and the tenant pays the difference between the actual rent charged and the amount subsidized by the program. Housing choice vouchers could potentially be used on ADUs, but this is rarely done in practice. HUD also operates the Section 203(k) program, which facilitates the rehabilitation and repair of single-family residential properties by insuring homeowner loans for purchase or refinancing. It can enable homebuyers to purchase homes that need significant repairs and can also be used for a variety of other improvements. These funds can also be used to enhance accessibility for people with disabilities, and to eliminate health and safety hazards. Eligibility for this program in Rolling Hills is limited due to the factors cited earlier. 386 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-19 Other HUD programs include Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (interest-free capital advances, operating subsidies, and/or project rental assistance for eligible projects developing affordable housing for persons with disabilities) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Affordable Housing Program (AHP). These programs are most viable in areas with lower land and development costs, as well as available infrastructure and services. 4.9.2 State Programs The State of California provides resources for affordable housing construction, rehabilitation, and assistance. Many of these programs are oriented toward populations in need of assistance or housing stock requiring repair or rehabilitation. The absence of these populations, coupled with the cost of land and construction in Rolling Hills and the excellent quality of the Cit y’s housing stock, render the City ineligible for many types of assistance. The only site where State financial resources could likely be feasible is the PVUSD site, given that it is publicly owned and has infrastructure and public street access. In 2017, the State approved SB 2, which established a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable homes in California. The State subsequently established the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant program which provides funding for local planning activities aimed at supporting housing production. In 2020, the City of Rolling Hills received a $65,000 LEAP grant, which was used to fund preparation of the Housing Element. The City may be eligible for future planning grants and other SB 2 funds that facilitate housing affordability and promote projects and programs to implement the Housing Element. The California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) provides loans for construction of affordable housing projects and could be a source of revenue for future affordable housing development in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone. The State provides a pre-development loan program for low- income housing projects, and low-interest long-term deferred payment loans through the Multi- Family Housing Program. These sources could potentially be used on the PVPUSD site. CHFA also provides financing for rehabilitation of housing by low- and moderate-income households, which would generally not be viable in Rolling Hills due to housing conditions, costs, and local income levels. The State Department of Housing and Community Development provides funding for a variety of programs to prevent homelessness and assist those who are unhoused. These programs can fund construction of shelters and provide direct subsidies to individuals. HCD programs also help support supportive and transitional housing. 4.9.3 Resources for the Private and Non -Profit Sectors The primary affordable housing financing resources for the private and non -profit sectors are tax credits and mortgage revenue bonds. Developers can also take advantage of various state regulatory tools, such as density bonuses and reduced parking requirements for projects incorporating affordable units. The federal Low Income Housing Ta x Credit (LIHTC) Program was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to provide an alternate method of funding affordable housing. Each state receives 387 Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-20 a tax credit based on its population—that credit is then used to leverage private capital into new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation projects. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) competitively administers credits to projects based on priorities they set each year. Once constructed, a specific percentage of the units must remain rent-restricted, and occupancy of those units is limited to people meeting specific income criteria. The California Public Finance Agency administers an Affordable Housing Bond program, which provides developers with access to tax -exempt bonds to finance lower-income multi- family and senior projects. A qualified developer can finance a project at a lower interest rate because the interest paid to bond holders is exempt from federal income tax. This program is often done in tandem with tax credits. Individual home buyers may also be eligible for Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC), working through a lender and the Los Angeles County Development Authority. This program provides a federal tax credit for income -qualified homebuyers equivalent to 15 percent of annual mortgage interest. Generally , the tax savings are calculated as income to help buyers qualify to purchase a home. Buyers in Rolling Hills would generally be ineligible due to the very high income required to purchase a home in the city. 4.9.4 Summary of Prospective Financing Sources Due to the City’s small population, low density, very high fire hazards, and lack of infrastructure, government resources for housing are extremely limited. The City’s residents are generally ineligible for State and federal housing assistance based on income and home ownership status. The City does not have a housing department, and has no regular local, state, or federal revenue source for housing. The use of traditional approaches to financing affordable housing are also limited by the relatively small number of units that would be contained in an individual development project in the city. Despite these constraints, the City is amenable to exploring future funding sources and supporting applications that would facilitate housing rehabilitation and development. Given the absence of a sewer system in the city, one of the most important financial resources potentially available to the City is State and federal funding for sanitary sewer and storm drainage improvements. The City is continuing to pursue grants to extend sewer service and improve water quality; this could potentially create future housing opportunities on sites that are not viable today. Low-income housing tax credits could be considered to facilitate housing on the PVPUSD site. Eligible projects on this site could also use State density bonus provisions, thereby increasing the potential number of units. Other programs that could be considered include those that assist lower income seniors with energy conservation, septic system improvements, and minor home repair. 388 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 389 Housing Constraints Page 5-2 the city. Four categories are shown: Very Low Density Residential (2 acres per unit), Low Density Residential (1 acre per unit), Civic Center, and Publicly-owned Open Space. Prior to 2020, the City did not allow development at densities greater than one unit per acre and had no General Plan provisions for multi-family housing. As part of 5th Cycle Housing Element implementation, the City amended its Land Use Element to add the Rancho Del Mar Housing Opportunity Overlay designation to the Map (corresponding to the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar school site). At the same time, the City adopted new Land Use Element standards and policies allowing multi-family housing in the Overlay area, along with policies allowing a diverse mix of housing units, as required by state law. The Land Use Element recognizes Rolling Hills’ heritage as an equestrian community comprised of large lots on steep terrain. Its policies call for buffering between uses, preservation of views, and minimizing exposure to landslides, wildfires, and other hazards. These policies remain appropriate given the safety hazards in the community. The Element specifically discusses the 150-acre Flying Triangle landslide hazard area, noting that the area is subject to a moratorium due to unstable geologic conditions. It also notes that many existing parcels are constrained by steep slopes and have only small areas that are suitable for building pads and construction. Recent amendments to the Safety Element further emphasize environmental hazards in the city, as well as constraints associated with evacuation, water supply, and emergency vehicle access. These constraints make most of Rolling Hills poorly suited for additional development or zoning changes that would result in increased density and population. As it currently stands, the General Plan is not a development constraint. 5.2.2 Zoning Standards The Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code) implements the General Plan and provides objective development standards for all parcels in the City. There are three zoning districts in the City: • Residential Agricultural Suburban 1 (RAS-1), which has a one-acre minimum lot size • Residential Agricultural Suburban 2 (RAS-2), which has a two-acre minimum lot size • Public Facilities (PF) The RAS-1 zone roughly corresponds to the “Low Density Residential” General Plan designation The RAS-2 zone roughly corresponds to the “Very Low Density Residential” General Plan designation.1 The PF zone corresponds to the “Civic Center” General Plan designation. Parcels with a General Plan designation of “Publicly-owned Open Space” are zoned RAS-1 or RAS-2, whichever is prevalent on private parcels in the vicinity. There are also two overlay districts. Overlays are mapped “on top” of one of the three base zones listed above and apply additional regulations specific to subareas of the city. The first overlay district (OZD-1) provides more lenient setback standards in an area of the city 1 Parcels along Spur Lane and Cinchring Road have a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential but a zoning designation of RAS-1. 390 Housing Constraints Page 5-3 characterized by smaller lots. Roughly 70 lots along Middleridge Lane, Williamsburg Lane, Chesterfield Road and Chuckwagon Road, are covered. The second overlay district (RDMO) is the Rancho Del Mar Overlay, which is mapped on the Rancho Del Mar School site in the RAS-2 district. The RDMO requires the transfer of General Plan density for the property as a whole (which yields 16 units) to a single location in order to facilitate the production of multi-family housing. This overlay also includes objective standards for multi-family housing and emergency shelter, which are permitted by right. The zoning ordinance includes definitions of terms (Chapter 17.12). At this time there are no definitions of transitional and supportive housing, both of which must be permitted in every residential district under state law. An action program in this Element has been included to make that Code amendment. The definitions expressly acknowledge manufactured and mobile homes as being the same as detached single family dwellings, provided they are located on a foundation. The zoning regulations indicate permitted and prohibited uses in each zoning district. Single family residences and accessory dwelling units are permitted “by right” in RAS-1 and RAS-2. The only expressly prohibited uses are short-term rentals (less than 30 days), commercial cannabis activities and cannabis dispensaries. Numerous types of accessory structures are permitted by right, including stables, pools, sheds, and small (under 200 SF) cabanas, guest houses, pool houses, garages, greenhouses, and similar structures. Such structures generally require conditional use permits when they exceed 200 SF (accessory dwelling units are excluded from this requirement). Other conditional uses include schools, fire stations, and similar public buildings and utilities. Site plans are required when development is proposed. Table 5.1 summarizes the development standards in the RAS-1 and RAS-2 zones, starting with the minimum lot size requirements of one acre and two acres. The Code states that existing parcels of record that are smaller than the minimum lot size requirements are considered to be conforming. Minimum dimensional standards are established for new lots, including the ratio of width to depth and a requirement for a minimum width of 150 feet. There are also standards for minimum street frontage, keeping in mind that most streets are private and contained within easements. These standards are more flexible on cul-de-sacs, depending on turning radius. As indicated in Table 5.1, building coverage is limited to 20 percent of the net lot area in both the RAS-1 and RAS-2 zones. Total impervious surface coverage (structures and hardscape) is limited to 35 percent of the net lot area; maximum disturbed area is limited to 40 percent of the net lot area; and building height is restricted to one story. The code identifies 2:1 (50%) as the maximum buildable slope. A minimum dwelling size of 1,300 square feet is established for the primary unit on the site. The Code includes setback standards of 50’ for front and rear yards, and 20’ for side yards in RAS-1 and 35’ for side yards in RAS-2. Lower standards apply in the OZD-1 overlay zone and exceptions are provided for lots along street easements.2 The zoning code affirms the one-story construction requirement established by the Rolling Hills Community Association (the RDM Overlay area is subject to a two-story requirement). The finished floor of structures must be no more than five feet above grade. Basements are 2 The City is currently developing standards to implement SB 9, which allows the division of existing lots into two parcels and the construction of two dwellings on each parcel, subject to specific objective standards and other considerations. 391 Housing Constraints Page 5-4 permitted and storage areas may be located above or below a story. The code also provides standards for graded building pads and requirements for stables and corral sites. Table 5.1: Summary of Rolling Hills Zoning Standards(1) RAS-1 RAS-2 OZD overlay Minimum Lot Size 1 acre 2 acres N/A Setbacks Front 50’ from front easement line (2) 30 feet from front roadway easement Side 35 feet (3) 20 feet (3) 20 feet, reduced to 10’ for street side yards Rear 50 feet Structure Coverage (4) 20% Impervious Surface Coverage 35% Building Pad Coverage 30% Maximum Disturbed Area 40% of net lot area (excl. easements) Maximum Height One-story (1) Standards for the RDM Overlay Zone and standards for ADUs are addressed in Section 5.3.2 of the Housing Element. (2) Most property is Rolling Hills is subject to easements varying in width around each property boundary and road easements, granted by the property owner to the RHCA, a private corporation, or another person or entity for the purpose of construction and/or maintenance and use of streets, driveways, trails, utility lines, drainage facilities, open space, and/or a combination of these uses. The RHCA requires that all easement s must be kept free of buildings, fences, plantings or other obstructions. (3) Reduced to 20’ in RAS-2 and 10’ in RAS-1 and OZD if there is a private street along the side property line. (4) The percentage figures in Table 5.1 apply to the “net lot area” on each parcel, which excludes these easements. Additional standards in the Zoning Code prohibit reflective outdoor siding, limit outdoor lighting (to maintain dark skies), and require Class “A” roofing. Conditions are established for specific accessory uses, such as greenhouses, pools, and playgrounds. This includes a requirement that guest houses (which are different from ADUs) may not exceed 800 square feet. Whereas guest houses may not be rented and typically require a conditional use permit, ADUs are permitted by right and subject to different standards (see P. 5-5). A minimum of two garage parking spaces are required for each single family dwelling unit. An additional space is required for homes with guest houses (as noted above, guest houses are treated differently than ADUs). Homes are also required to have driveways, which are generally limited to 20 feet in width and one per lot, though exceptions apply. The parking requirement is not a development constraint and is appropriate given the size of parcels, the high number of automobiles per household3, and the fact that the streets lack sidewalks and are too narrow to permit on-street parking. There is also no public transit service in the city. 3 The 2015-2019 US Census American Community Survey indicates that 63% of all households in Rolling Hills own three or more vehicles. 392 Housing Constraints Page 5-5 The development standards in Table 5.1 do not present constraints to the construction of single family homes. Even a “small” substandard lot of 200’ x 200’ (40,000) square feet would be allowed 16,000 square feet of buildable area after required setbacks are subtracted. The allowable structure coverage on such a lot would be 8,000 square feet, providing more than enough space for a residence and detached accessory structures. The requirement for single- story construction has not constrained single family construction, given the ample building footprint accommodated on each site. In fact, single-story construction has enabled many older adults in Rolling Hills to age in place. State law also requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory. No such requests have been received in Rolling Hills, as development typically occurs on existing lots rather than through subdivision or multi-unit construction. 5.2.3 Standards for Different Housing Types Section 65583 and 65583.2 of the Government Code require cities to plan for a “variety of types of housing, including multi-family rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.” Accordingly, the Rolling Hills Housing Element includes provisions for each of these housing types in the city, with the exception of housing explicitly reserved for agricultural employees, since this was not identified as being a need in the city. Accessory Dwelling Units4 An Accessory Dwelling Unit—or ADU—is an attached or detached dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. ADUs are commonly known as in-law units, second units, or granny flats. A “Junior” Accessory Dwelling Unit (or JADU) is an ADU that it is no more than 500 square feet in size, contained entirely within the footprint of an existing or proposed single family dwelling, and has an efficiency kitchen. JADUs often have their own bathrooms but they may also share bathrooms with the primary residence. State law now requires that all cities and counties permit ADUs and JADUs meeting certain standards “by right”—in other words, without a public hearing or discretionary approval. Prior to 2018, ADUs and JADUs were not permitted in Rolling Hills. However, the zoning regulations allowed the construction of non-rentable guest houses for family members, visitors, and domestic employees on all residential properties. The large size and high value of properties in Rolling Hills has supported the development of guest houses in the past, resulting in a large inventory of structures that could potentially be converted from guest houses to ADUs in the future. The city also has a large number of accessory structures such as barns, pool cabanas, studios and workshops that could be converted to ADUs. Because of the single story 4 This text was prepared in December 2021. Subsequent to its initial publication, the City coordinated with HCD to adopt amendments to its ADU ordinance to ensure that it is fully compliant with State law. These amendments were approved in August 2022. 393 Housing Constraints Page 5-6 construction requirement, there are also a substantial number of homes with floor plans conducive to Junior ADUs, as many homes have wings, additions, or rooms that could easily be partitioned as independent living units. In January 2018, the City Amended Chapter 17.28 of the Municipal Code to allow for the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs and JADUs). Consistent with State law (Government Code 65852.2 and 65852.22), the City allows ADUs and JADUs ministerially (e.g., without a discretionary public hearing) provided the units meet specific standards and design criteria established in the zoning code. The City has also created a discretionary review path for projects that do not meet these standards. Chapter 17.28 establishes that an ADU and JADU may be allowed with a simple building permit if it is within the space of an existing single family dwelling or accessory structure, including an allowance for up to 150 additional square feet for ingress and egress. The unit must also have exterior access independent of the single family dwelling and side and rear setbacks that meet building and fire codes. In addition, detached ADUs are permitted with a building permit (and no additional permit) if they are 800 square feet or less, no more than 16 feet tall, and have side and rear setbacks of at least four feet. A second permitting path has been created for units that are between 800 and 1,000 square feet. Such units require an ADU Permit, which like the building permit is issued ministerially, with no discretionary review. These units are subject to a size limit of 850 square feet for a studio or one bedroom and 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit. If attached to the primary dwelling, the unit is subject to a requirement that it may not exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling. The ADU may not cause the lot coverage on the property to exceed 50 percent or cause the FAR to exceed 0.45. Setback standards also apply. The City’s ADU ordinance incorporates State standards for parking, which waive parking requirements for JADUs and units created by converting habitable accessory structures. Parking is also waived for units near public transit stops or car-share vehicles. This is generally not applicable in Rolling Hills, since the community is not served by transit or car-share services. Per State law, the Code allows for carports and garages to be converted to ADUs without replacement parking. Where this situation does not apply, one space is required for each ADU, and tandem parking is permitted. ADUs are subject to general requirements, such as fire sprinklers (if the unit is in the primary residence) and a prohibition on short-term rentals (less than 30 days). They are also subject to permit streamlining requirements, including a requirement to act on the application within 60 days after it is deemed complete. This time period may be extended at the applicant’s request, or if the ADU is located within a new single family dwelling on the lot. The City allows both the ADU and the primary residence to be rented, although there are limitations on renting JADUs if the primary residence is not owner occupied.5 The City’s Ordinance also prohibits the sale of an ADU separately from the lot and primary dwelling. ADUs are also subject to basic architectural standards, including compatibility with the design of the primary dwelling. This is objectively quantified, for instance by specifying that the roof pitch 5 JADUs (units created within the floorplan of an existing home) are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement unless the property is owned by a government agency, land trust, or housing organization. 394 Housing Constraints Page 5-7 must match the primary dwelling, and that the entry be on the side or rear elevation. The ADU is also subject to a minimum length and width standard of 10 feet, and a minimum ceiling height of seven feet. Landscape screening requirements apply to units that are near adjacent parcels. If the ADU changes the building exterior or involves a new structure, it is subject to design review by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee (see next section for further discussion). ADUs smaller than 750 square feet are exempt from all impact fees. Units larger than 750 square feet may only be charged impact fees that are proportionally related to the square footage of the unit. The Code also includes waivers for utility connection fees for most ADUs, thereby reducing construction and operating costs. Moreover, the Code provides the option for a conditional use permit for ADUs that do not conform to the basic development standards of Chapter 17.28. Overall, these requirements do not constrain or inhibit ADU or JADU construction. The regulations reflect State regulations and create ample opportunities for homeowners to earn extra income while providing a new dwelling unit for a tenant, employee, caregiver or family member. Given the large lot sizes in the city, the setback standards, FAR standards, and lot coverage limits still allow for generous ADU footprints. Likewise, the single story requirement is consistent with the requirement for single family homes. The “bonus” 150 square feet for JADU ingress/egress creates an incentive for such units. The requirement to provide a parking space is consistent with State law, since there is no transit in Rolling Hills—and is not a constraint given the large lot sizes and substantial driveway space available on most lots. While no constraints have been identified, there are opportunities to provide incentives for ADUs that have yet to be realized. Because of recent changes to State law, there are opportunities for ADUs to be conveyed separately or operated by non-profits and/or affordable housing providers. As noted in Chapter 6, the City will pursue future programs to encourage ADU construction, including ADUs for very low and low income households. This includes creating a roster of ADUs and an inventory of units that meet “extremely low income” needs by providing housing for family members, domestic employees, or other long-term occupants. Additionally, State law for ADUs was amended in 2020 and 2021. Several provisions in the City’s regulations must be updated for consistency. This includes eliminating the prohibition on ADUs with more than two bedrooms, and adding a provision that completed applications be deemed approved if they are not acted upon within 60 days. The City will work with the State Housing and Community Development Department to determine if there are other provisions of the ordinance that require updating. Program 6.10 in Chapter 6 identifies this as a high priority action, to be completed by October 15, 2022.6 Multi-Family Housing In February 2021, the City amended its General Plan and zoning regulations to allow multi-family housing within the City limits. This was a key implementation measure in the Fifth Cycle Housing Element. New policies in the General Plan Land Use Element expressly support a range of housing types in the city, including multi-family housing. Chapter 17.19 of the 6 These changes were made and this action was completed in August 2022. 395 Housing Constraints Page 5-8 Municipal Code creates the Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Opportunity Overlay Zone, which has the following objectives: • Create “by right” opportunities for multi-family housing • Implement state laws that require cities to demonstrate available land capacity and zoning to accommodate the City’s current and projected need for housing • Facilitate well-designed development projects • Encourage development that provides attractive features that integrate the public realm with development on adjacent private property. The zone is mapped on the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar school site, which as noted in Chapter 4 and Appendix B, is the most viable location for multi-family housing in Rolling Hills. The zone allows 16 units of multi-family housing on the site (excluding potential density bonus units), with a requirement that this housing be constructed at a density of 20 to 24 units per acre. The 20 unit per acre minimum density requirement corresponds to the “default density” under AB 2348, while the 16-unit requirement is based on the number of units permitted by the underlying General Plan and RAS-2 zoning designations. It is also a threshold used by HCD to identify viable housing sites. Affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right in this zone, provided it is affordable to low and very low-income households and meets objective design standards that are included in the zoning code. These include minimum dwelling unit sizes of 250 square feet for a studio, 400 square feet for a one-bedroom, 650 square feet for a two-bedroom, and 900 square feet for a three-bedroom. Higher minimums had been proposed initially but were lowered to the adopted standards based on direction from HCD that the above figures would not constrain development. As noted above, the allowable density range for the Zone is 20-24 units per acre. Numerous projects—both market-rate and affordable—have been developed in this density range in Los Angeles County in recent years. The range can accommodate apartments, condominiums, townhomes, row houses, clustered units, manufactured homes, and small detached cottages. All of these housing types would be permitted under the regulations prescribed by the Overlay Zone. Development standards for multi-family housing within the Overlay Zone are conducive to higher density construction. These standards require 5-foot front and side setbacks and a 10-foot rear setback. Encroachments such as decks, balconies, awnings, porches, and stairways may extend into the setback areas, and architectural features such as eaves and cornices are also permitted in the setbacks. There are no lot coverage standards or Floor Area Ratio limits. A 28’ height applies, allowing two-story construction. This is the only place in Rolling Hills where two- story construction is permitted. Development is subject to a requirement that 100 square feet of common open space be provided for each dwelling unit. Thus a 16-unit project would be required to set aside 1,600 square feet of shared open space, which is equivalent to about 5 percent of the development site (assuming a density of 20 units per acre). When drafting the Ordinance, the City initially proposed a common open space standard of 150 square feet per unit, but this was reduced to 100 square feet during HCD’s review of the draft to eliminate the potential for a constraint. 396 Housing Constraints Page 5-9 One parking space per unit is required, plus one guest parking space for every 10 units. For senior housing, one space per unit is required for the first 10 units, and 0.5 spaces per unit are required for any additional units. The RDMO zone allows surface parking, with no requirements for garages or carports. At 180 square feet per parking space, the total area dedicated to parking in a 20 unit per acre project would be 3,240 square feet, or about nine percent of the site. Even with driveway lanes, the total area of the site required for parking would be small. Moreover, the ordinance includes provisions for reduced parking where certain conditions exist (shared parking agreements with nearby uses, available street parking, etc.). No parking is permitted in the 20’ front setback area (at the driveway location). This would not be a constraint given the large size of any parcel that would be created in the future to accommodate multi-family development. Moreover, the front yard setback for structures is only five feet, which creates more space for the building envelope and encourages parking to be placed to the rear or side of the parcel, potentially within the setback. The development standards require that multi-family housing be located at least 50 feet from the toe of the slope associated with a hillside area within the Overlay District. Figure 5.1 shows the sloped area and indicates that the linear distance between the toe of the slope and the access road serving the multi-family development site is 337 feet. Thus the area where structures are acceptable extends 287 linear feet back from the access road (minus a 5-foot front setback). While the rear 50 feet may not include structures, it could include open space and other amenities, including parking and driveways. The 50’ setback does not affect parcel width (i.e., the east-west dimension), and still leaves room for a substantial development site on the property. Figure 5.1: Slope Setbacks on PVUSD Site 397 Housing Constraints Page 5-10 Because affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right in the Overlay Zone, the City has adopted objective design standards to ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent uses. These address residential frontages (facades, etc.), usable open space standards, public space amenity requirements, and operational standards. Such standards have the potential to create a development constraint if they are too onerous or add to the cost of housing. The residential frontage standards require that the ground floor be no more than five feet above the ground surface. This is easily attained, since the site is relatively flat. The standards establish a 10’ floor to floor height, which is consistent with the overall 28’ height limit as well as typical residential construction standards and interior ceiling heights. Entrances and windows are required along the front façade, and entrances to individual units may either be direct to the exterior, or to an interior hallway. Stoops and porches may be located on the exterior, and projecting elements (bay windows, eaves, balconies) may extend into setback areas. Street tree, landscaping, and lighting requirements apply, but these do not constrain development. The usable open space standards likewise do not represent a constraint. These requirements call for an amenity such as a children’s playground or clubhouse in multi-family projects. The amenity may be indoors or outdoors and may not include parking areas, streets, or driveways. Projects are also expected to include amenities such as pedestrian walkways, landscaping, bike storage racks, and screened trash enclosures, and would need to comply with building code standards for interior noise. These are common requirements in California communities and do not represent a constraint. Mobile and Manufactured Homes As required by State law, the City Zoning Ordinance allows for manufactured housing units to reduce residential construction costs. Section 17.12.130 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code defines manufactured homes and mobile homes as “single family dwellings”; as such, they are subject to the same standards as wood-frame construction. Emergency Shelters Every city in California is required to identify a zone where at least one year-round emergency shelter is permitted without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit (Govt Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)). The Government Code further requires that emergency shelters be subject to the same standards that apply to residential and commercial development in that zone, except that certain objective standards prescribed by the State may apply. In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to permit emergency shelters “by right” in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Zone. Rolling Hills has adopted standards for shelters that meet the requirements of the Government Code and facilitate emergency shelter construction or conversion. The RDMO Zone encompasses over 31 acres of public property, most of which is underutilized. There are opportunities to create shelters by converting existing buildings, constructing new buildings, or using temporary facilities such as portables or tiny homes. This use is permitted by right, with no discretionary permit required by the City. There are no limitations on where shelters may locate within the boundary of the RDMO Zone. Since shelter beds do not constitute “dwelling units”, an emergency shelter would 398 Housing Constraints Page 5-11 not be considered part of the 16 dwelling units permitted by the Overlay Zone and would not affect the number of allowable multi-family units in the Zone. The City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review in December 2020 and subsequently revised those standards to ensure that they are compliant with the Government Code and do not present a constraint to emergency shelter development. The adopted standards include: • Shelters may be 300 feet apart, consistent with Government Code 65583(a)(4)(A)(v) One parking space for each staff person must be provided. There are no supplemental parking requirements based on the number of beds. The requirements are consistent with Government Code 65583(a)(4)(V)(A)(ii) and are no greater than those that apply to other land uses and activities in the RDMO zoning district. • A maximum of 12 beds applies. This is comparable to the maximums that apply in nearby cities, including those with unsheltered populations. • 50 square feet of personal living space is required for each occupant, excluding common areas. • The standards allow, but do not require, shelters to include a dining room, commercial kitchen, laundry room, recreation room, child care facilities, and support services (the Code indicates these may be provided, but they are not mandatory) • At least five percent of the shelter area must be dedicated for on-site waiting and intake, and an equivalent (or larger) area is required for exterior waiting • Shelters must comply with building code, plumbing code, and trash enclosure requirements—the same standards that apply to other uses in the Overlay Zone and in the underlying base RAS-2 Zone. Consistent with the Government Code, an application to operate an emergency shelter requires submittal of a management and operations plan that addresses hours of operation, staffing levels, maximum length of stay, and security procedures. The application would require approval by the City Administrator, based on satisfaction of the conditions listed above and review for compliance with Building, Fire, and other applicable regulations. The regulations do not constrain emergency shelter development and are compliant with Government Code requirements. As they were just put into effect in 2021, the City will monitor their effectiveness over the 2021-2029 planning period to determine if changes are needed. Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to allow Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing in the RDMO Zone. These are facilities with individual rooms or small efficiency apartments designed for very low-income persons. There are no limitations on where SROs may locate within the boundary of the RDMO Zone. A Conditional Use Permit is required. In December 2020, the City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review and subsequently revised those standards to ensure that they do not present a constraint to SRO development. The adopted standards include: 399 Housing Constraints Page 5-12 • A minimum of six units and a maximum of eight units • Maximum occupancy of two persons per unit • Floor area of 250-350 square feet per unit • Each room must include a water closet (Toilet plus sink) • Each room must include a kitchen sink with a disposal (but not necessarily a full kitchen) • Each unit must have a closet • Full kitchens (i.e., with range, refrigerator, dishwasher, etc.) and full bathrooms (with shower/bath) may be provided in each unit but are not required. If these facilities are not included in each unit, then shared facilities are required on each floor. • 0.5 parking spaces are required per unit, plus one space for each employee on duty • Occupancy is for 30 days or more The City initially proposed including a requirement for 24-hour on-site management, and a requirement for elevators in the event the building was two stories. Both of these requirements were removed following HCD’s feedback that they were potential constraints. Requiring 24-hour management requirement could be a constraint for a 6-8 unit facility. As a result, on-site management is not required on a 24-hour basis. Given that the building would only be two stories, the requirement for elevators was removed. Since SRO rooms would not be classified as independent “dwelling units”, they would not be considered part of the 16 units permitted by the Overlay Zone and would not reduce the number of allowable multi-family units in the Zone. Supportive, Transitional, and Employee Housing Supportive housing is a type of rental housing that includes on-site services such as medical assistance or treatment of chronic health conditions or disabilities. Transitional housing is a type of supportive housing but is specifically intended for unsheltered residents who are transitioning to permanent housing. Supportive and transitional housing is not associated with a specific structure type—single family homes can be used in this manner, and so can multi-family buildings. Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires cities to treat transitional and supportive housing as residential uses that are only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. In other words, a City cannot hold a single family home used as supportive housing to a different standard for parking, setbacks, floor area, etc. than a single family home occupied by a family or other type of household. Public Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 requires the City to treat employee housing for six or fewer people the same as other single family housing in each zoning district. For example, if a corporation in another city purchased a home in Rolling Hills and allowed its employees to live there, the use would be treated like any other single family home. Rolling Hills presently has no Code language that limits transitional, supportive, or employee housing or imposes any special restrictions on such housing. However, these housing types are not expressly acknowledged in the Municipal Code. The 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an action item to add definitions of transitional, supportive, and employee housing to the Municipal Code within six months of Housing Element adoption, acknowledging that such 400 Housing Constraints Page 5-13 housing is permitted or conditionally permitted in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone, as required by State law.7 Housing Constraints for Persons with Disabilities Government Code Sections 65583(a)(4) requires the Housing Element to include “an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement of development of housing…for persons with disabilities. AB 686 also requires the City to affirmatively further fair housing, which includes housing that meets the needs of persons with disabilities. In November 2020, the City Council approved reasonable accommodation procedures, including application requirements, review procedures, findings, and provisions for noticing and advertising the opportunity. These procedures establish a process through which persons with disabilities can request reasonable accommodations (or modifications) to the City’s codes, rules, policies, practices or services so that they have an equal opportunity to enjoy or use a dwelling. The City has also adopted a resolution recognizing the Americans with Disabilities Act, including a commitment to assist disabled residents. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when the application of a land use, zoning, or building regulation, policy, practice, or procedure acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. The City has posted notices at City Hall informing the public of its right to make such a request, including application forms for those making a request. Requests are generally made to the City Manager. Once a completed application is received, the City Manager has 45 days to make a written determination. Additional information may be requested of the applicant in order to make an informed determination. An alternative solution to the one proposed by the applicant may be considered if it would reduce impacts and still achieve the intent of the request. The request is granted, with or without conditions, if the City Manager finds that the housing will be occupied by an eligible individual, the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the individual with equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, the requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City, or fundamentally alter the City’s zoning or building laws or undermine the General Plan, and there are no other reasonable accommodation methods that would allow the applicant to enjoy the dwelling that would be less impactful on the surrounding area. Conditions of approval may be replaced on the application. These may include periodic inspection to verify compliance, recordation of a deed restriction requiring removal of the improvements when it is no longer needed, time limits, measures to reduce off-site impacts, and measures that respond to the unique physical attributes of the property. Decisions may be appealed. Rolling Hills has adopted the Los Angeles County Building Code. As long as construction is consistent with the Building Code, residents are permitted to provide any disabled access or 7 This action was completed in August 2022 and the City is now fully compliant. 401 Housing Constraints Page 5-14 amenity improvements necessary to reduce barriers. Access to homes via ramps is permitted. One-story construction throughout the community removes a major barrier for persons with disabilities and facilitates access for persons with mobility limitations. Accessibility improvements, universal design changes, and other accommodations for persons with disabilities are processed administratively in conjunction with the building permit process and are permitted in both of the City’s residential zones. No constraints to housing for persons with disabilities were identified in this analysis. As noted in Chapter 3, the city’s large population of older adults requires ongoing efforts to facilitate retrofitting of existing homes for residents with physical limitations, and their caregivers. Residential Care Facilities and Definition of “Family” The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act requires that small licensed residential care facilities for six of fewer clients be treated as regular residential uses and permitted by right in all residential districts. Care facilities with seven or more clients (e.g., “large” residential care facilities) may be subject to additional requirements but must be treated the same as other residential uses in that zoning district. Cities that require conditional use permits for large residential care facilities are required to mitigate this constraint in their housing elements. At this point in time, the Rolling Hills Zoning Code does not expressly mention or define residential care facilities, nor does it distinguish between “large” and “small” facilities. The Code should be amended to expressly indicate that this use is permitted by right in all zones where housing is allowed, and is subject to the same standards, fees, and procedures as other residential uses in those zones. This is required by State law. As required by California Health and Safety Code Section 1566.2, the City does not collect business taxes, registration fees, or other fees for small residential care facilities. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code includes a definition of “family” in its zoning regulations. Overly restrictive definitions may pose a housing constraint, but in this instance the definition is broad and inclusive. According to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, “family” means: “one or more persons living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding, rooming or lodging house, hotel or club. Family may include domestic servants.” 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts of Land Use Controls State law requires the City to consider not only the impact of individual development standards, but also the cumulative effects of these standards on the cost and supply of housing. For example, it is possible that a particular setback requirement may appear reasonable on its own b ut may limit development opportunities when combined with height and lot coverage limits. Sometimes, the combined effect of different development controls can require more expensive construction or result in frequent zoning variances. Because of the very large lot sizes in Rolling Hills, the zoning standards do not create an adverse cumulative impact on development costs or the housing supply. As previously noted (pages 5-2 402 Housing Constraints Page 5-15 and 5-4), a special zoning overlay (OZD-1) was created in 2012 to recognize that some parts of the city have prevailing lot sizes that are smaller than the one-acre minimum required by the RAS- 1 district. Roughly 10 percent of the City’s parcels are covered by this zone, which allows reduced setbacks in order to avoid the need for zoning variances. As noted earlier, the combination of front, rear, and side yard setbacks on a rectangular one-acre lot would still allow for a buildable area of over 16,000 square feet. Most parcels are considerably larger than one acre and have buildable areas that exceed 20,000 square feet. FAR and lot coverage limits likewise allow ample structure coverage, and homes larger than 10,000 square feet can be built without Variances on most lots. The one-story height limit tends to produce building footprints that are quite large—but still within the 20% structure coverage requirement. Each residence is required to have two covered parking spaces (three, if an ADU or guest quarters are on-site). This requirement is modest given the typically large home size and does not constrain building construction. The land use controls also do not present a cumulative constraint to ADU construction. Almost every parcel in the City has the land area or existing built floor area to support an ADU, and many homes already have spaces that could be easily converted to ADUs. The ADU and JADU regulations adopted in 2018 and revised in 2020 were drafted to work in tandem with the controls for the RAS-1 and RAS-2 districts and have laid the foundation for substantial ADU production. There are no cumulative land use constraints to multi-family development. The Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Zone standards have been tested to ensure they are internally consistent and can support housing in the 20-24 unit/acre range. The RDMO Zone allows multi-family housing to be either owner or renter occupied. New housing units in this zone must be affordable. The affordability requirement is not a constraint to development, as the site is publicly owned and represents a unique opportunity for reduced land and construction costs. There are no comparable opportunities in the city, as this is the only property in Rolling Hills that is flat, vacant, served by public sewer, and walking distance from public transit. Prior to August 2022, one notable omission from the City’s zoning regulations was a provision for density bonuses. State law requires that the City offer a density bonus for projects that set aside various percentages of units for affordable housing, senior housing, and other types of special needs housing. The number of bonus units is based on a sliding scale and can be up to 50 percent above the base density permitted by zoning. For projects where all units are affordable to low and very low income households, the density bonus rises to 80 percent. A density bonus could be requested for the Rancho Del Mar site, since the overlay requires that any multi-family housing is 100 percent affordable. This would allow 28 units on the site instead of the 16 allowed by the General Plan and zoning. Density bonus provisions were adopted by Rolling Hills in August 2022 and the City is now fully compliant with this requirement. The Housing Element includes a program recommendation that the City amend the Municipal Code to adopt density bonus provisions or adopt the State provisions by reference. 403 Housing Constraints Page 5-16 5.2.5 Building Code Standards The City of Rolling Hills adopted the Building Code for Los Angeles County in effect on January 1, 2020 as its Building Code. A number of local amendments to the Code were made. This includes an allowance for the City Council to hold a public hearing to review decisions of the County Board of Appeals, Code Enforcement Appeals Board, or Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board. Other local amendments include a modified definition of “basement” (to avoid the appearance of multi-story buildings), adjusted provisions for grading and cut slopes, limits on driveway slope, and limits on developing slopes over 50 percent. The City has also adopted the Los Angeles County Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, Residential Code, Fire Code, and Green Building Code. Effective July 1, 2008, all land in the City of Rolling Hills was deemed to be a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” (VHFHSZ). As a result, several more restrictive fire safety standards have been adopted. The City also has adopted standards for hours of construction, and requirements for geological surveys and investigations. 5.2.6 Permit Processing Times and Approval Procedures Processing and permit procedures can be a constraint to the production and improvement of housing due to the time they add the development process. Unclear permitting procedures, layered reviews, multiple discretionary review requirements, and costly conditions of approval can increase the cost of housing, create uncertainty in the development process, and increase the financial risk assumed by the developer. In Rolling Hills, the time required to process a project varies depending on the size and complexity of the proposal, and the volume of projects being reviewed. Not every project must complete every possible step in the process. In addition, certain review and approval procedures may run concurrently. For smaller projects, permit processing times tend to be faster than in most cities. Administrative review applications (i.e., those that do not require public hearings) typically take only a few days to process. However, the City’s capacity is limited, requiring that some permit processing functions are contracted out. Even smaller projects that are approved ministerially typically require review by the Rolling Hills Community Association and the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department, in its role as the contracted building authority of the City. The City collects no fees for over the counter review—such fees are assessed when the project is submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Administrative review processes have been created for residential additions less than 1,000 square feet, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, remodels, foundation repair, and re-roofing. Such projects are required to submit two sets of plans, various checklists, and calculations of existing and proposed square footage, lot coverage, and impervious surface coverage. The City’s website provides comprehensive information for applicants seeking permits, including on-line portals for applications, payment, and checking progress on permit status. Larger projects such as new homes take longer, but they are less common. New homes in 404 Housing Constraints Page 5-17 Rolling Hills are multi-million dollar projects that often require demolition, site preparation and grading, and new driveways before construction may begin. Larger projects may also require review by the LA County Health Department for the adequacy of the septic system, and the Fire Department for fuel modification. Unless specifically exempted by State law, large projects such as new homes and residential additions of 1,000 square feet or larger are subject to Site Plan Review. An initial consultation with staff is strongly encouraged at the start of the process. Once an application is received, it is reviewed for completeness, including required calculations, elevations, and site plans. When the application is deemed complete, it is forwarded to the Planning Commission for a hearing, including a recommendation from staff. The Site Plan review process typically takes three to six months from start to finish, including a field trip by Planning Commissioners to the project site at the start of the process. The process may be completed in a single hearing but on occasion may take two to three hearings so that issues raised by the Commission and public can be addressed. Additionally, project applicants may modify their site plans after approval and return to the Commission for approval of major revisions. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve Site Plan Review applications. The decision of the Commission is considered final unless an appeal is filed with the City Council or the City Council decides to take the application under its jurisdiction. The decision becomes effective 30 days after adoption of the resolution. Approval of a Site Plan Review application requires findings related to compliance with the General Plan and adopted lot coverage standards, preservation of topography and vegetation, grading that follows natural contours or does not adversely modify natural drainage channels, the use of drought-tolerant landscaping, impacts to pedestrian movement, and compliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission does not expressly perform design review as part of this process, as its findings are principally related to address public health, safety, and welfare. Design review occurs privately, through the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). The RHCA has an Architectural Committee that reviews plans for new homes and large additions to ensure that easements are kept free and clear of structures, including fences and other obstructions.8 Projects are submitted to LA County Building and Safety following RHCA review. RHCA maintains its own design guidelines, covering such topics as roofs, walls, windows, doors, and lighting. Because RCHA is a non-governmental agency, these guidelines are described later in this report under non-governmental constraints (see discussion of CC&Rs on page 5-22). Projects that require Variances to development standards or Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) also require Planning Commission hearings. CUPs are required for large horse stables and corrals, detached garages, tennis courts, and a number of other large-footprint site features. From start to finish, the process from submittal of plans to approval of permits may take six months or longer for 8 School District and City-owned property is exempt from this requirement. Thus, any development in the RDMO Housing Opportunity Zone would not be subject to RHCA review. 405 Housing Constraints Page 5-18 a brand new home. Applications for ADUs, major remodels, residential additions, and accessory structures are more common, and are processed more rapidly. ADUs, JADUs, and other ministerially approved projects take approximately two to four weeks to process. The City regularly seeks ways to expedite processing and improve the timeliness of its services. At the present time, permitting and processing time is not considered a constraint and the City complies with the time limit requirements established by Sections 65943 and 65950 of the Government Code. The Site Plan Review requirements and other permitting requirements are not a constraint to the development of multi-family or affordable housing as they would not apply to projects on the Rancho Del Mar site nor would they apply to ADUs that meet the City’s adopted standards. As such, they have no impact on the cost, supply, timing, or approval certainty of these projects. For new single family homes, the review requirements result in processing times that may take several months. However, they do not affect the supply approval certainty. In a review of applications over the past eight years, only one application was denied (requesting a height modification to approved addition in 2017) and another application had a partial denial (for stairs and walls, in 2014). 5.2.7 Site Improvement Requirements The principal site improvements required upon development of a vacant property are the undergrounding of electrical lines to the structure, installation of a septic system, and conformance to the City’s outdoor lighting standards. Road and emergency access (fire safety) improvements may be required for properties that do not have street frontage or have other access constraints. New development in Rolling Hills consists almost entirely of custom homes on existing vacant or previously developed lots, rather than subdivision of “raw land,” which tends to reduce overall improvement requirements. At the Rancho Del Mar affordable housing site, installation of curb and gutter improvements would be required prior to development, but the site already has road access, storm drainage, and water and sewer facilities in place. There would be no special or unique site improvement requirements imposed on development of this site. Projects requiring the subdivision of land would be subject to the standards set forth by the City’s subdivision regulations, which are specified in Title 16 of the Municipal Code. These standards establish a 24-foot road width for streets. A 32-foot turning radius is required on dead-end streets, and grades may not exceed six percent. The standards recognize that all streets in Rolling Hills are private. The City Council has the discretion to require additional site improvements adjacent to sites where land is being subdivided, including widening existing roads to meet neighborhood traffic and drainage needs. The subdivider may also be required to provide drainage improvements, in accordance with standards set by the City Engineer and with the city’s MS4 permit (see P 5-26). The subdivision ordinance further specifies that water mains and fire hydrants may be required when new lots are created, and that easements for gas and electric services may be required. The cost of installing a new septic system is generally not a constraint for brand new homes but can be an impediment for ADUs and smaller additions, particularly for homeowners with limited incomes. At minimum, the County Health Department requires a feasibility study for any project that could result in septic tank capacity being exceeded. Older homes may face costly septic 406 Housing Constraints Page 5-19 installation requirements that could render a home addition or ADU infeasible. Programs to assist lower income or senior homeowners with septic tank replacement could be considered, particularly where an ADU is being added. 5.2.8 Development and Permitting Fees Fees are charged by the City and other agencies to cover the costs of processing permits and providing services and facilities, such as utilities, schools, and infrastructure. Most of these fees are assessed through a pro rata system based on the square footage or value of the project, the staff time required for processing, and the magnitude of the project’s impact. If fees become excessive, they can become a constraint on development and make it more difficult to build housing affordably. They can also place a burden on lower income homeowners seeking to modify their homes or add an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Table 5.2: City of Rolling Hills Major Development Fees1 Fee Type Fee Amount Notes Site Plan Review $1,500 Conditional Use Permit $1,500 Variance $1,250 Minor Variance $750 Encroachments from main structure that do not extend more than 5’ into required setbacks Zoning Change or Code Amendment $2,000 General Plan Amendment $2,000 Accessory Dwelling Unit application $375 Major Remodel Review $375 View Impairment Review $2,000 Processing fee for Committee review of impacts on trees and views Water Efficient Landscape Review $1,500 Unused balance refunded Traffic Commission Review $300 Required for new driveways Lot Line Adjustment $1,500 Plus County fee Tentative Parcel Map $1,500 Plus County fee Final Parcel Map -- County fee only Environmental Review Determination $200 Plus Fish and Game Fee Environmental Impact Reports Consultant fee plus 10% Only required as needed Appeal Fee 2/3 of original application fee Only required as needed Source: City of Rolling Hills, 2021. Barry Miller Consulting, 2021 1 This is not a comprehensive list of all fees but covers the major development-related categories in the City’s fee schedule. The fee schedule also covers records searches, inspections, and review of grading plans. 407 Housing Constraints Page 5-20 A summary of residential development fees charged by the City of Rolling Hills is presented in Table 5.2. Most projects do not require payment of these fees, as they would not typically require use permits, Variances, Zoning changes, General Plan amendments, CEQA review, lot line adjustments, and so on. However, Site Plan Review is commonly required for all new homes and major additions, and ADU permits are required for larger ADUs. For projects complying with City standards and requirements, the fees are not a development constraint. Rolling Hills is one of 13 cities that contracts with the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety (LACDBS) for plan checking, building permits, and building inspection. The County issues building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits on the City’s behalf. The cost schedules for the incorporated cities served by LACDBS are higher than the schedules for the unincorporated area but are comparable to nearby cities with full-service building departments. A residential project with an assessed valuation of $100,000 would be subject to a plan check fee of $3,413 and a permit fee of $4,029. This includes required energy and disabled access checking costs. As the value of a project increases, the fees decline as a percentage of total project costs. They represent 7 percent of a $100,000 project but less than 5 percent of a $500,000 project. The fee schedules for other permits varies by type. Electrical permits are subject to a base fee of $74.70, plus a cost per square foot ($0.20/SF for multi-family and $0.50/SF for single family and duplexes). Separate fees are collected for swimming pools, branch circuits, lighting fixtures, appliances, and electrical plan checking. Mechanical permits are collected for HVAC systems, compression units, boilers, refrigeration systems, etc. Plumbing permits are based on the number of fixtures and also cover projects requiring connection to septic tanks and work such as solar water heaters, sprinkler systems, and backflow protection devices. Relative to the other 12 cities that contract with Los Angeles County, the fee schedule in Rolling Hills is slightly higher. However, the fees are lower in Rolling Hills than in nearby Rolling Hills Estates. The County also collects fees for projects requiring geotechnical review. This would apply to most new housing units in Rolling Hills. The fee ranges from $2,752 to $17,746, with the actual amount based on 0.50% of the value of the proposed structure. Additional fees are charged for geotechnical site inspections and geotechnical review of grading plans. Los Angeles County typically updates its fees annually based on the consumer price index and other factors. The increase in 2021 was 2.2 percent for all cities served by the County. Rolling Hills updates its fee schedule less frequently, although fees are considered as part of the annual budgeting process. Some of the City’s fees—such as the fees for parcel maps and lot line adjustments—have not been updated in many years. There are no local surcharges or special fees associated with multi-family housing. On a per unit basis, permitting costs would be substantially lower for multi-family units than for new single family units. This is due to the smaller size of multi-family units and to multi-family housing being permitted “by right” within the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, with no applicable administrative fees. The City’s fee structure has not historically distinguished between single and multi -family construction, as multi-family housing only recently became a permitted use. 408 Housing Constraints Page 5-21 A number of other fees apply in Rolling Hills; these are typically associated with new residences and are intended to offset the additional cost of providing services. These include: • A Park and Recreation Fund Fee, which is equivalent to 2% of the first $100,000 in building evaluation, plus an additional 0.5% of the remaining balance. The fee for a $1 million construction project would be $6,000. This fee is only charged for new primary homes---ADUs are exempt. • A School Impact Fee, which is paid to the Palos Verdes Unified School District. In 2020, the fee was $3.79 per square foot for new residential construction. • A fee collected by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), equivalent to $0.20 per $100 of assessed valuation (i.e., $2,000 for a project with a construction value of $1,000,000) • Additional architectural review fees collected by the RHCA, including a $165 flat fee plus $1 per square foot for new construction, additions and major remodels. In addition, RHCA collects fees ranging from $25 to $500 for individual features such as swimming pools, tennis courts, gazebos, and new roofs. There are no sewer connection fees in the city, since there are no sewers. There is no water connection fee; water service charges are determined by the size of the meter and the number of fixtures, plus the amount of water used. The City likewise has no impact fees for housing, transportation, public art, or other services. Projects in the RDMO Zone would be exempt from the RHCA fee, since they are outside the HOA boundary. In total, fees for a typical new home are roughly equivalent to 7-8 percent of total construction costs. This is comparable to other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, though somewhat higher than in other urbanized parts of Los Angeles County. The higher fees are associated in part with the terrain and hazards in Rolling Hills and the size and complexity of applications for new homes, many of which require extensive grading and multiple inspections. Fees do not constrain development in Rolling Hills, but they do add to the cost of housing, which is already expensive in the City. Programs to reduce processing and permitting fees for ADUs could be considered, as they could incentivize ADU production. 5.2.9 Other Local Ordinances and Disclosure Requirements No other local ordinances were identified that could present potential constraints to housing needs. The City does not have an inclusionary zoning requirement, growth control ordinance or limits on the number of units that may be constructed in a given year, or other locally-imposed requirement impacting the cost of residential development. The City prohibits the rental of rooms and houses for periods of less than 30 days, effectively disallowing short-term rentals. This supports the City’s goal of using Accessory Dwelling Units as rental housing, rather than for transient occupancy. The City also complies with AB 1483 (2019), which requires that agencies publish specific information on their websites starting January 1, 2021. This information includes: • All current fees and exactions applicable to housing • All zoning ordinances, design and development standards 409 Housing Constraints Page 5-22 • Current and five previous annual financial reports • An archive of nexus studies for impact fees conducted after January 1, 2018 The City of Rolling Hills maintains a Planning and Community Services landing page on its website that contains all of this information. This landing page includes a link to all planning and development fees, the Zoning Map, the Municipal Code (which includes the zoning ordinance and all applicable development standards), the General Plan, the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Landscape Design Standards, the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Planning and Development forms and application materials, the Planning Commission calendar, technical information for developers (related to stormwater management), permitting requirements, guidelines for equestrian facilities, information on solar panels and rainwater harvesting, and guidance on septic system installation. The City is also updating its environmental programs page. An action program in the Housing Element calls for this information to be reorganized and updated, with new information added on Accessory Dwelling Units and links to the RHCA Design Guidelines. Every annual budget and audited financial report for the City since 2010 is available on the City’s website. There have been no nexus studies for impact fees since 2018, but such studies would be posted if conducted in the future. Disclosure requirements related to SB 35 also apply to Rolling Hills. In 2018, California adopted SB 35, which establishes streamlining provisions for multi-family projects meeting certain criteria related to affordability and payment of prevailing wages to construction workers. As of 2021, projects in Rolling Hills in which 10% of more of the units are affordable are eligible for SB 35. Article III Section 300 (b) of HCD’s Guidelines for SB 35 requires that cities in this situation must provide “information, in a manner readily accessible to the general public, about the locality’s process for applying and receiving ministerial approval, materials required for an application as defined in Section 102(b), and relevant objective standards to be used to evaluate the application.” An action program in this Housing Element recommends creating an SB 35 information sheet and application and including it on the Planning and Community Services Website. 410 Housing Constraints Page 5-23 5.3 Non-Governmental Constraints Non-governmental constraints significantly affect the affordability of housing in Rolling Hills. Specifically, the high cost of real estate in the city, its heritage as a rural, gated equestrian community, and its limited infrastructure and severe environmental constraints, make it extremely challenging to build traditional affordable housing units. The city is one of the most expensive and highly constrained communities in California. To be economically viable, affordable housing must be tailored to community context—for example, through accessory dwelling units. 5.3.1 Land Costs Land in Rolling Hills is expensive. The city features dramatic topography, with sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean and Los Angeles basin. Property in the city is marketed as a location for prestigious estates. The supply of acre-plus homesites on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is limited, making demand for such properties very strong. A scan of Zillow.com in Fall 2021 shows two vacant lots for sale in the city—one for $7.5 million and another with geologic constraints for $1 million. Data on recent sales shows a vacant single family parcel that sold for $6.85 million in November 2020 and another that sold for $1.84 million in 2019. These properties have been marketed and sold as sites for large single family homes. The economic viability of affordable housing on these sites is further challenged by the cost of the site improvements that would be required to facilitate safe development. The vacant parcels described above lack public sewer; are accessed by narrow, winding, private roads traversing an area with very high wildfire severity; and have slopes that exceed 50 percent in some cases. The cost of road widening, grading and earth movement, and installation of community-wide sewer and storm drainage construction make most types of multi-family housing economically infeasible. There is no public revenue source to make these improvements. The absence of commercial land uses in the city limits the City’s ability to sponsor programs that would reduce or underwrite land or site improvement costs. 5.3.2 Construction Costs The cost of construction, including labor and materials, is a significant constraint to housing development in Rolling Hills. While high costs have impacted the entire state, Rolling Hills is particularly impacted by the high cost of mitigating environmental constraints, including fire and geologic hazards. New home construction requires grading and earth movement, often with costly retaining walls and engineered drainage systems. Many homes in the city feature high- end finishes, as well as amenities that result in higher costs. The city is also vulnerable to elevated or inflated costs that reflect its reputation as a high-end, high-income market. In 2014, the Rolling Hills Housing Element estimated that construction costs were approximately $330 to $500 per square foot. Based on recent projects in the city, costs have doubled since then. The National Association of Homebuilders estimated that costs increased 26 percent between June 2020 and June 2021 alone. There have been rapid increases in the price of lumber, copper, steel, aluminum, concrete, and other building materials, resulting in some 411 Housing Constraints Page 5-24 projects being placed on hold and others being cancelled altogether. Construction costs for home additions now regularly exceed $800 per square foot. Construction of septic tanks represents a unique expense in Rolling Hills that is not common in surrounding cities. Anecdotally, homeowners in the city report costs of well over $25,000 to install new septic systems, which in some cases can be an impediment to adding an accessory dwelling unit or expanding an older home. 5.3.3 Financing Financing is not a constraint to housing development in Rolling Hills, but the high cost of housing makes it infeasible for most households to buy a home in the community. Home mortgage interest rates were low at the time the Housing Element was drafted, with rates at around 3.0 percent for a 30-year mortgage in Fall 2021. Income and down payment requirements have become more stringent than they were following the mortgage crisis of a decade ago, and there are fewer flexible loan programs to bridge the gap between the amount of a required down payment and a potential homeowner’s available funds. Given the very high cost of housing in Rolling Hills, significant capital is required to purchase a home. A 20 percent down-payment on the median priced home in the City would be nearly $750,000, with monthly mortgage payments of nearly $19,000. A very high income would be required to qualify. First time buyers face particular challenges in the city, given the lack of equity from prior home ownership. 5.3.4 Delays Between Approval and Construction Given the high cost of construction and rising interest rates, there may be delays between the time a project is entitled and when it is actually constructed. Applicants may postpone their projects due to high material costs, supply shortages and shipping delays, and a lack of skilled construction workers and contractors. Rising interest rates can also add to the cost of a project, leading to postponement. The economic uncertainty and upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic has also caused some projects to stall over the last two years. In some cases, projects may be cancelled altogether, or the property may be sold to a new owner who may modify or abandon previously approved plans. These factors are out of the City’s control but can have a real impact on housing supply and construction. The City is particularly interested in the completion of permitted ADUs, as these units are critical to achieving affordable housing goals. As noted in Chapter 6, Rolling Hills intends to establish a monitoring program for permitted ADUs to facilitate their construction. This would include reaching out to those who receive ADU permits and monitoring construction progress on those units. The monitoring program includes follow-up conversations with any applicants who do not complete their projects to understand the factors leading to that decision, and any steps the City can take to improve completion rates. Another issue that could potentially hinder housing production is the length of time between receiving approval for a project and issuance of a building permit. As noted in Section 5.2.6, 412 Housing Constraints Page 5-25 approval resolutions for projects that require discretionary action do not become final for 30 days. Approval by the RHCA also occurs after City approvals. The total required time between City approval and application for a permit is typically 30 to 90 days. Planning entitlements are valid for two years and may be extended, so this time interval does not hinder construction. The time between submittal of an application for a building permit and issuance of the permit depends on the complexity of the project. As noted in Section 5.2.6, building permits are issued by the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Division (Building and Safety). Typical processing time for complex projects is less than nine months. The City does not receive notification from Building and Safety when permits are issued, and the County’s on-line record-keeping system does not consistently reflect current permit status. An action program in this Housing Element calls for Rolling Hills to work with the County to receive regular updates on active building permits. This will allow the City to track the status of development projects and follow up when necessary. 5.3.5 Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Development in Rolling Hills is controlled through both municipal zoning and privately enforced CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are considered a non-governmental constraint because they are enforced by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), a private entity. The CC&Rs were established by the Palos Verdes Corporation in 1936 upon the initial development of the community. They apply to all property in the city except the City Hall Campus, Tennis Court Facilities, PVP Unified School District site (Rancho Del Mar), and Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center. The RHCA does not have design review or building permit review authority on these sites. Elsewhere in Rolling Hills, the CC&Rs restrict the development and use of property to single family homes and limited public uses. They do not allow multi-family housing, commercial, office or industrial activity. One of the stated purposes of the CC&Rs is to preserve and maintain the rural character of the community, including regulating the architectural design of structures. The CC&Rs authorize the RHCA Board to appoint and maintain a five-member Architectural Review Committee to carry out this objective. The Committee is comprised of three Association members and two licensed architects. The RHCA Board has adopted a Building Regulations manual that is used by homeowners and their architects/ contractors, and by the Committee to evaluate projects. Committee review is required for all new residences and accessory structures, and for all projects that modify the exterior of existing structures. Committee meetings occur twice monthly, on the first and third Tuesdays. The meetings are not considered “public hearings” since RHCA is not a public agency, but they are open to all members of the Association and are subject to Association bylaws. RHCA’s Building Regulations require that all homes under RHCA’s jurisdiction be one-story, ranch-style construction. The Regulations identify three permissible style types: traditional ranch, contemporary ranch, and early California Rancho. Specific standards are provided for each style, including allowable exterior siding materials, roof materials (and colors), roof pitch, 413 Housing Constraints Page 5-26 building height (25 feet), and floor to ceiling plate heights (8’6” maximum in at least 50 percent of the structure). Regardless of style, all buildings must be painted white, conform to the natural grade, and have consistently designed doors and windows. A minimum floor area of 1,300 square feet, plus a two-car garage, is required for all residences. The regulations align with the City of Rolling Hills zoning regulations—in fact, the CC&Rs expressly state that the Architectural Committee must comply with applicable provisions of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. This includes allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), which are not mentioned in the Association’s Building Regulations. Under AB 670 and AB 68 (effective January 2020), CC&Rs may not be used to deny ADU applications, and prohibitions on ADUs by homeowner associations are not enforceable. State law does allow homeowner associations to review the design of ADUs, provided their process is fair, reasonable, and expeditious. This has been occurring in Rolling Hills for the last three years with no adverse effects on ADU construction. As noted earlier in this chapter, the City has developed a ministerial process for ADU approval as required by state law. Projects meeting the dimensional requirements in the Municipal Code (which are consistent with State standards) are approved without a public hearing or discretionary review by the City. If an ADU does not affect the exterior of a home (for instance, a Junior ADU entirely within the footprint of an existing home, or the conversion of a detached guest house to an ADU), then no RHCA review is required. The Architectural Committee does review ADUs that modify the exterior, add square footage to a structure, or result in a new accessory structure. The purpose of this review is to verify that the structure meets the objective design requirements in the RHCA Building Regulations rather than to evaluate the merits of the project or its off-site impacts. According to the Committee’s own guidelines, it “will not require modifications to working drawings that materially change the massing of the project.” City staff has worked closely with RHCA staff to ensure that their design review process is coordinated with City permitting, streamlined, and does not impose unreasonable restrictions on applicants. The RHCA office is adjacent to City Hall and there is ongoing coordination between the two entities. When an application for an ADU is submitted to the City, the City advises the applicant to proceed to RHCA immediately afterwards to initiate project review. Projects are typically forwarded to the RHCA Architectural Committee within two weeks and are typically approved at the initial meeting; if modifications are required, the plans are typically approved at the second meeting two weeks later. The review occurs concurrently with the City permitting process, avoiding potential delays. In practice, every ADU application approved by City staff has subsequently been approved by the RHCA Architectural Committee. Nonetheless, an action program in this Element recommends that the City work with RHCA to update the 2017 Building Guidelines to acknowledge ADUs and provide guidance for homeowners seeking to add an ADU. 414 Housing Constraints Page 5-27 5.3.6 Infrastructure Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the limited availability of infrastructure, specifically streets, sewer, storm water and water facilities. Streets Rolling Hills has no public roads or streets. Since the 1930s, the community’s internal street network has been designed to establish a rural, equestrian character. This historic aspect of the city’s infrastructure is one of Rolling Hills’ defining features. The road network is typified by winding roads with a 15- to 25-foot paved cross-section and no curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or streetlights. Narrow road width, coupled with steep grades and very low densities, effectively precludes public transit within the city. Access is also gate-controlled at three entry points. The city's circulation infrastructure is not conducive to uses generating high trip volumes, such as higher-density housing. Given the entire city’s designation as a very high wildfire hazard severity area, the capacity to evacuate the population is also a limiting factor. Most streets in the community are “dead ends” without emergency vehicle access alternatives in the event that ingress and egress is blocked. A number of properties—including City Hall, the Retreat Center, and the PVUSD site, are accessed from roads outside the City gates. These parcels are less constrained by street access but could require ingress and egress improvements (resurfacing, driveways, etc.) in the event a change of use was proposed. Such improvements are typical for any development and would not adversely affect expected construction costs. Wastewater Disposal With the exception of the school site and thirteen residences that have individually or collectively (through the creation of a small sewer district) connected to an adjacent jurisdiction's sewer systems, there is no sanitary sewer system in Rolling Hills. Residences are served by individual septic tanks and seepage pits. These systems are designed to serve single family residences and are not conducive to multi-family housing. This is particularly true given the geologic, slope, and soil constraints in Rolling Hills. To meet water quality and runoff requirements, high-density housing typically requires a viable sewer connection. Over the past 35 years, the City has conducted multiple sewer system feasibility studies. In 2019, the City received approval from the Los Angeles County Public Works and Sanitation District to discharge effluent from up to 235 existing homes in Rolling Hills. The City is in the process of completing design drawings for Phase One, which is a 1,585-foot long 8-inch diameter sewer line along Rolling Hills Road/Portuguese Bend Road. This will provide service to City Hall, the RHCA offices, and the Tennis Courts. Future phases of the project could provide service to residences but would require significant grant funding and potentially special assessments. In 2021, the City surveyed all households to determine the level of support for developing a sewer system. Roughly 16 percent of the City’s households participated. The survey found that about three-quarters of the residents’ septic tanks were more than 20 years old. More than 80 415 Housing Constraints Page 5-28 percent supported construction of a sewer system, though many responses were contingent on the cost. Past engineering studies have concluded that the terrain and unstable geological conditions in the city make a conventional gravity sewer system infeasible in the city, meaning the cost to property owners could be significant. The Palos Verdes Unified School District site is an exception. It is connected to a wastewater treatment line that was installed when the school was initially constructed. Collection lines were sized to accommodate a school campus with several hundred students, and associated maintenance facilities—a higher level of demand than is associated with current uses on the site. Given the availability of sewer service to this site and the high cost of extending sewer services elsewhere, it is the most suitable property for multi-family housing in the City. In some instances, septic systems may present a constraint to ADU development. This is generally not an issue for JADUs or smaller ADUs that repurpose existing habitable space, but a new detached ADU that adds floor space may require increasing the capacity of a septic system. As noted earlier in this chapter, a program in this Housing Element proposes further evaluation of this constraint, and possible ways to assist homeowners in addressing it. Storm Water Run-off As a rural community without public streets, Rolling Hills does not have a municipal storm sewer system or continuous network of storm drains. Drainage follows topography, with stormwater flowing into steep ravines through the community. Water percolates into the ground along canyon bottoms, with runoff flowing to the ocean, or to larger streams and detention basins downstream, depending on location. To comply with federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and maintain its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, the City is required to screen and monitor its runoff to avoid compromising downstream water quality standards. It also required to implement a number of programs, such as an Illicit Discharge Elimination Program. The City also requires Best Management Practices (BMP) for construction in order to avoid erosion, pollution, sedimentation, and runoff that would degrade water quality. These requirements are not a development constraint but may add to the cost of construction. Moreover, the lack of a municipal storm drainage system represents another constraint to higher density housing in most of the city. The Rancho Del Mar site is outside the area covered by the MS4 monitoring program and drains west toward Rancho Palos Verdes. Unlike the rest of Rolling Hills, it is served by an improved storm drainage system. A 2017 facility evaluation reported the storm drains and inlets on the site as being in good condition. Water Water infrastructure in Rolling Hills is owned, maintained, and operated by California Water Service (CalWater). The city is within CalWater’s Palos Verdes District, which also serves the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Facility planning is governed by an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which evaluates anticipated demand and the water resources available to meet that demand. 416 Housing Constraints Page 5-29 Projections of future water use are based in part on expected population growth, which is derived from SCAG forecasts and local general plans. Water demand is projected to increase by 6 percent by 2045, reflecting very slow population and housing growth in the Peninsula cities. Development beyond that anticipated by SCAG forecasts could reduce water pressure, compromise firefighting capabilities, and curtail domestic water availability. This is a problem throughout California, made worse by persistent drought conditions. The UWMP provides water shortage contingency plans, including measures to reduce demand and procure emergency supplies. Water storage facilities and pipelines in Rolling Hills are generally adequate to meet local needs. However, many of the city’s water facilities are aging and the system as a whole is vulnerable to damage during earthquakes and landslides. Storage and distribution facilities reflect the rural density of the city and are not sized to accommodate significant growth. The Palos Verdes Unified School District site provides a unique opportunity in this regard, as its water system was designed for a public school campus with several hundred students. The introduction of ADUs in Rolling Hills could potentially impact water demand in the City. The California Water Company has no plans to upgrade the aging water system. As ADUs are created, it will be important to consider potential impacts on water distribution lines and fire fighting capacity. Several factors work to mitigate the impacts of ADUs on the water system. First, the population of Rolling Hills has declined by roughly 300 since 1980. Thus, the addition of 40 or so ADUs over eight years may not increase the total number of residents in the City. Second, water conservation measures have been implemented—and continue to be implemented—to reduce water flows and water demand. These measures include water- efficient landscaping requirements, as well as requirements for more efficient plumbing fixtures. Dry Utilities Rolling Hills residences are also served by dry utilities. Electric services are generally provided by Southern California Edison while natural gas is provided by Southern California Gas Company. A range of private vendors provide phone, internet, and cable services. Capacity is available to serve new development, and all of the vacant and underutilized sites identified in Chapter 4 would have access to these services if they were developed. The Rancho Del Mar site currently has access to these services as it is a former school. 417 Housing Constraints Page 5-30 5.3.7 Environmental Constraints Rolling Hills has severe environmental constraints to development. Slopes exceeding 25 percent are present on almost every remaining undeveloped parcel in the city. Geotechnical studies are required when new homes are constructed, and mitigation is often required to reduce the potential for future damage. The City’s Site Plan Review Process and grading requirements are intended to strictly limit recontouring of existing terrain. Most grading occurs through “cut and fill” procedures that retain materials on site. This adds to local housing costs and limits the viability of multi-family housing on most properties in the city. Landslide Hazards Figure 5.2 shows landslide zones in Rolling Hills, as mapped by the California Geological Survey (CGS). Large portions of the city are considered hazardous and major slides have occurred in the past. This includes the Flying Triangle Landslide, which has impacted roads, homes, and properties in the southern part of the city for the last 50 years. These areas are poorly suited for development and are susceptible to slope failure. Human modifications to slopes (through development) can exacerbate the problem and the risk. Building at the head of a landslide can decrease the bedrock strength along an existing or potential rupture surface and “drive” the landslide down slope. Improper grading practices can also trigger existing landslides. Because of these geologic hazards, the City limits land disturbance and other actions that would exacerbate soil instability. Ground instability would contribute to potential risks to human life as well as to physical structures. The Safety Element of the General Plan sets forth policies to restrict new development and expansion of existing development in areas susceptible to landslides. Earthquake Hazards Like most of Southern California, Rolling Hills is vulnerable to earthquakes. Large earthquakes can cause building damage and collapse, as well as damage to roads and utilities. The City of Rolling Hills is crossed by the Cabrillo Fault, which is part of the Palos Verdes Fault Zone. It is also vulnerable to earthquakes on the Whittier Fault, the Newport-Inglewood Fault, the Malibu Fault, the Santa Monica Fault, the Redondo Canyon Fault. The location of these faults is shown on Figure 5.3. The Whittier and Newport-Inglewood Faults are considered capable of generating earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 7.0 and have the potential to cause catastrophic damage. In the event of a major earthquake on either fault, the city of Rolling Hills would be vulnerable to ground shaking. Secondary hazards include liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and differential settlement. Fault rupture is not a significant hazard in the city, and there are no Alquist Priolo “special studies” zones within the city limits. Wildfire As shown on Figure 5.4, the entire city of Rolling Hills has been designated a “Very High Wildfire Hazard Severity Zone” by CalFire. The city’s terrain creates challenges for vegetation management and presents conditions where a fire can travel quickly up and down canyon 418 Housing Constraints Page 5-31 slopes. Despite defensible space requirements, the city’s rural nature and equestrian heritage means that extensive areas are covered by dense scrub and brush. The Palos Verdes Peninsula has a history of destructive wildfire, including fires that destroyed homes in 1973, 1993, 2009, and 2018. The City has taken measures to reduce fire hazards, including preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan in 2020. The Plan outlines measures to harden infrastructure, improve vegetation management, underground electric power lines, and improve inspections and enforcement. It also includes provisions for evacuation. Additionally, the City (and Los Angeles County) require special building safety measures, including standards for roofing, eaves, exterior finishes, and buffer zones that respond to the higher fire hazard levels. Despite these measures, the risks of wildfire cannot be eliminated entirely. Moreover, the city continues to face evacuation constraints resulting from its narrow roads, limited ingress and egress points, and the presence of livestock on many properties. Biological Resources Rolling Hills supports a variety of plant and wildlife species, including some that are listed or under consideration for listing by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These species include the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly, the California Gnatcatcher, the Pacific Pocket Mouse, the San Diego Horned Lizard, and Brackishwater snail. Development that could adversely impact the habitat of these species must undergo review and approval by the overseeing federal and state agencies. Typical mitigation measures include preservation of habitat, further restricting the potential land available for development. This constraint is likely to continue throughout the planning period. 419 Housing Constraints Page 5-32 Figure 5.2: Landslide Hazard Areas in Rolling Hills Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2022 420 Housing Constraints Page 5-33 Figure 5.3: Earthquake Faults in the Rolling Hills Vicinity Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021 421 Housing Constraints Page 5-34 Figure 5.4: CalFire “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zones Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021 422 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. 423 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. 424 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. 425 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-4 6.2 Housing Implementation Plan, 2021-2029 The goals and policies set forth in the Housing Element will be implemented through a series of housing programs. Some of these programs are already underway and others will be implemented over the next eight years. This section of the Housing Element provides a brief description of each program, including measurable objectives, responsible entities, and implementation timeframes. Each of these programs has been developed consistent with HCD guidelines and State Government Code requirements. Program 1: Annual Progress Report As required by State law, the City will prepare and file an annual report on the progress made toward implementing its Housing Element using forms and definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Guidance on the content of the report is provided by the State Office of Planning and Research. It documents the City’s progress toward meeting its share of regional housing needs and efforts to remove government constraints to housing production. The report must be presented to the City Council prior to its submittal (it may be approved as a consent item). Quantified Objective: Provide one report per year Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: File by April 1 of each year Program 2: Rancho Del Mar Opportunity Site Monitoring In February 2021, the City adopted the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone on the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar (RDM) campus owned by the Palos Verdes Unified School District. As documented in Chapter 4 and Appendix B of this Housing Element, large parts of the RDM site are unimproved and vacant. The new zoning permits 16 affordable multi-family units on the site, which may be developed “by right” at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. The City Manager will meet at least once annually with the School Superintendent to discuss the future of the site, including future development opportunities. Next steps to be pursued on the site include: • Subdividing the site to create a separate parcel west of the PVPTA transit facility. This site could potentially be more easily marketed as a development opportunity than the 31- acre site as a whole.1 • Preparation of a “fact sheet” for the site, for review by the School Superintendent and School Board, highlighting the potential for multi-family housing • Further discussions with the School Board regarding opportunities for teacher housing and/or senior housing on the site. 1 Subdivision is not required to develop the site—it can also be developed “as is” in 2022. However, subdivision could provide an incentive for future development during the planning period. 426 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-5 • In collaboration with the School District, make information on the site (e.g., the “Fact Sheet”) available to affordable housing developers. • Further discussions with non-profit developers regarding the opportunity to construct housing on the site, including technical assistance to developers where requested. • Consideration of permit streamlining, CEQA clearance, and fee reductions for future affordable housing development on the site. Multi-family housing is already permitted “by right” subject to objective design standards adopted in February 2021, but further steps could be taken to reduce future development costs. Quantified Objectives: (1) 16 units of affordable housing on the RDM site (2) Annual meeting between the City Manager and School Superintendent Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager Implementation Time Frame: (1) Meeting with School Superintendent by end of 2022 and once annually thereafter (2) Preparation of site “fact sheet” for review by School District and School Board by June 2023 (3) Subdivision creating “western” parcel by end of 2023, subject to School Superintendent and Board approval Program 3: No Net Loss Monitoring and Other Multi-Family Housing Opportunities The City has identified adequate capacity to accommodate 45 units of housing, as required by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Sixteen of these units are on the Rancho Del Mar Site. Five are new single family homes on vacant lots (three of which are already approved). The remainder are Accessory Dwelling Units. Rolling Hills will continue to maintain General Plan and zoning designations that facilitate development of the required number of units and will continue to comply with the Housing Accountability Act in the event projects are proposed. SB 166 (2017) requires that every city maintain “adequate sites” to accommodate its RHNA by income category at all times during the eight-year Housing Element period. If a designated housing opportunity site becomes unavailable, the city must demonstrate that it still has adequate capacity on its remaining sites (e.g., “no net loss”). In the event the Rancho Del Mar site becomes unavailable to produce the housing units envisioned by the overlay zone, the City would need another suitable site to accommodate those units. Cities generally meet the no net loss mandate by providing one or more “buffer” sites in addition to their primary sites. These sites must meet HCD criteria, including the ability to accommodate 16 units at a density of at least 20 units per acre. As demonstrated in Chapter 4, due to the lack of sewer and the community’s natural hazards, Rolling Hills does not have a buffer site available. The City will continue to explore potential housing sites that could supplement the RDM site, particularly where sanitary sewer service could be made available in the future. The City will continue to rely on accessory dwelling units to meet the balance of its lower-income housing assignment, regardless. 427 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-6 Quantified Objectives: No net loss of housing capacity to meet RHNA at all times Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Continuous through 2029 Program 4: Add Definitions of Transitional and Supportive Housing, Residential Care Facilities, and Employee Housing, to Municipal Code This action was completed in August 2022. To comply with Government Code Section 65583(c)(3), the City of Rolling Hills was required to clarify that residential care facilities, transitional housing, and supportive housing are considered residential uses and are subject to the same restrictions that apply to the other residential uses that are allowed in a given zoning district. In other words, a single family home used as a group home for persons with disabilities is subject to the same planning and zoning requirements that apply to a single family home used by a traditional family. Most local governments have addressed this requirement by adding definitions to their zoning codes for transitional and supportive housing, as well as large and small residential care facilities. The purpose of this program was to add those definitions to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (Chapter 17). The definitions acknowledge that such housing is permitted in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone as required by State law. The recent Code amendments also explicitly state that supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including non-residential zones permitting multi-family uses. The amendments ensure that no special requirements are placed on residential care facilities with seven or more occupants, as required by State law. Definitions of low barrier navigation centers also have been added to the Code and referenced in other zoning regulations, as required by State law. This program also included a Municipal Code Amendment to add a definition for employee housing in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). HSC Section 17021.5 states that employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer people shall be deemed a single family structure with a residential land use designation. It further states that employee housing may not be considered a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or similar term that implies that such housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a single family dwelling. State law precludes a city from requiring a conditional use permit, zoning variance or other zoning variance for such housing, and stipulates that the use of a single family dwelling for six of fewer employees does not constitute a change of occupancy for building code purposes. As of August 2022, the City fully complies with this requirement. Quantified Objectives: N/A (program completed) Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Attorney Implementation Time Frame: Completed in August 2022 428 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-7 Program 5: Density Bonus Ordinance This action was completed in August 2022. Section 65915 of the California Government Code establishes mandatory statewide provisions for density bonuses for affordable and senior housing projects. Prior to August 2022, Rolling Hills did not currently have density bonus provisions in its Municipal Code. Historically, the City has not had multi-family housing, nor any site where multi-family housing could be constructed. With the creation of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, a developer could request a density bonus and related concessions from a developer. State standards would apply in this instance. The City has adopted provisions in its Municipal Code acknowledging the applicability of State density bonus laws in the event a request is received. Quantified Objectives: Application of density bonus to future affordable rental housing on Rancho Del Mar Overlay site (up to 12 additional units, assuming 100% affordable project on the site) Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Ordinance Adopted in August 2022 Program 6: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Production, Monitoring, and Incentives As noted in Chapter 4, the City intends to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 29 lower income units through a combination of affordable housing on the Rancho Del Mar site (16 units) and privately constructed and rented ADUs on scattered sites throughout the city. At least 13 ADUs should meet affordability thresholds for low and very low income households.2 Creating opportunities for lower income households on scattered sites supports one of the main objectives of the State’s Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements, which is to avoid the concentration of lower income housing in a single location. An ADU-centered strategy also responds to the lack of sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and public streets in Rolling Hills and the community’s rural densities and absence of supportive services. As stated in Chapter 4, the City approved nine ADUs in 2021 alone, including two that are projected to be affordable to lower income households based on their small size. Thus, creating another 11 ADUs affordable to lower income households over the next eight years is an attainable goal. The Annual Housing Progress Report should address the City’s progress toward meeting this goal; if the City is falling short after two years, the strategy should be revisited and additional incentives should be developed. 2 Two ADUs meeting affordability criteria for low/very low are already under construction (see Table 4.1), leaving a balance of 11 needed. 429 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-8 Program 6 includes a number of specific elements, which are listed below: 6.1 Develop Citywide ADU Registry. The City developed an ADU registry in October 2021 and will expand it as new units are created. Currently, the registry (or data base) contains fields such as Address, Owner, month approved, square footage, and a description of each unit. This should be expanded to include information on whether the unit is occupied, the number of occupants, and the rent charged—this information would be requested from homeowners on a voluntary basis. Tracking occupancy and affordability is intended to determine how many units are serving very low- and low-income households, and to demonstrate that the City is meeting its RHNA. 6.2 Annual ADU Survey and Monitoring. The City will send an annual letter to households on the ADU roster requesting information on the status of the unit. The information will be used to prepare a summary that can be referenced as part of the City’s Annual Progress Report. As part of this task, the City will also identify instances where very low or extremely low income households (including family members, domestic employees, caregivers, etc.) are residing on Rolling Hills properties and paying below market rent (or no rent). To the extent these households are occupying independent living quarters, this data provides evidence that the City is accommodating its RHNA target for very low income households. As part of this effort, the City will also implement an annual monitoring program to ensure that the Housing Element targets for ADUs are being achieved. A determination of the City’s progress toward meeting its RHNA target of 40 units over 2021-2029 shall be made once per year. In the event the City is not on track to meet its target, it will consider alternative means of meeting its RHNA goals within six months of this determination. These could include additional ADU incentives, modifications to the affordable housing overlay zone, and other actions that would facilitate production of additional affordable units. 6.3 Develop Inventory of Potential ADUs. Over time, the City will develop a parcel data base of potential (or “unintended”) ADUs, which are existing habitable spaces that could potentially be converted into independent dwelling units. This would include guest houses, pool houses, and similar accessory structures that are used by the primary residence. As the inventory is completed, owners would be advised of the opportunity to convert the space into a legal ADU. 6.4 Incentives for ADU Construction. The City will develop incentives for ADU construction. Different incentives may be developed for those building new homes (i.e., reduced fees for including an ADU in a new residence), those adding a new ADU on their property, and those converting existing habitable floor space into an ADU. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Section 65583(c)(7) (effective January 1, 2021), the City will explore the use of State CalHome, LEAP, REAP, and SB 2 funding to help local homeowners build or finance ADUs on their properties. Access to these funds typically requires rents that are affordable to low and very low-income households. 6.5 Pre-Approved ADU Plans. The City will determine its eligibility for State grant funding to develop “pre-approved” plans for ADUs that can be used by Rolling Hills residents. These architect-developed plans would be specifically tailored to meet the RHCA design guidelines and would respond to the topography and access constraints found on most Rolling Hills 430 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-9 lots. Enabling homeowners to use pre-approved plans may reduce architectural design costs, and potentially reduce construction costs. This can make ADUs more feasible and allow them to be rented more affordably. 6.6 Coordination with RHCA. The City will coordinate with the Rolling Hills Community Association to ensure that RHCA’s design review practices and procedures do not constrain ADU construction or add to their costs. City staff will meet with RHCA staff and the RHCA Architectural Committee regularly to coordinate review, advise RHCA of State laws relating to ADUs, and address any issues that may arise in the future. The City will also work with the Rolling Hills Community Association to explore reduction of annual HOA fees for property owners agreeing to limit rents on their ADUs. 6.7 Septic Tank Replacement Grants or Financial Assistance. The City will pursue funding for a grant which can be used to assist homeowners with septic tank replacement when paired with the addition of an ADU. The grants would be targeted to lower income seniors who may seek to add an ADU but lack the financial resources to replace their septic tanks. 6.8 Non-Profit Construction of ADUs. The City will explore the possibility of engaging a non- profit housing developer in a program to develop ADUs in partnership with interested Rolling Hills property owners. Participation could be limited to qualifying lower income residents, or to homeowners who agree to limit rents to levels that are affordable to lower income households. Such a program was successfully implemented by the City of Santa Cruz, in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity, and could be considered locally. 6.9 Monitor Best Practices in ADUs. The City will continue to track statewide and national trends in ADU management, incentives, and regulations. The focus will be on cities in California that are comparable to Rolling Hills in density, character, and constraints, with an eye toward cities that are relying on ADUs to meet a substantial share of their RHNA for lower income households. Programs that are potentially transferable to Rolling Hills will be considered for local implementation. The City is currently working with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments on an ADU research study, including a state-funded “ADU Acceleration Project” to explore ways to promote ADUs in southern LA County cities. 6.10 Update Municipal Code Provisions for ADUs. This action was completed in August 2022. The City has updated its ADU ordinance to reflect changes to State law made since the last revision to the ordinance in February 2020. This included eliminating references to a maximum bedroom count in an ADU and including provisions for complete applications to be deemed approved if they are not acted upon within 60 days. 6.11 Outreach to ADU Permit Recipients. The City will monitor ADU approvals, including six- month “check-ins” with all applicants receiving ADU permits until the units are completed. These check-ins will include status updates on the projects, including whether a building permit has been issued and what progress is being made. In the event an applicant chooses not to follow through on an approved ADU, staff will make an effort to document the reasons and evaluate any changes that might be made to the City’s ADU program to improve completion rates. This information should be part of the City’s annual housing progress report. 431 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-10 In addition to the specific measures listed above, City staff will continue to assist homeowners who are interested in adding an ADU, and will work with applicants to facilitate ADU review, permitting, and approval. Quantified Objectives: (1) Citywide ADU registry of 40 ADUs by 2029, including at least 13 ADUs rented at levels meeting affordability criteria for lower income households (2) ADU Survey, administered once a year (3) Inventory of potential ADUs (4) ADU Incentives (5) Two to four pre-approved ADU architectural plans (6) Municipal Code Revisions (see 6.10 above) -- Completed (7) 100% completion of ADUs receiving permits Funding Source: City General Fund/ State grants Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Attorney Implementation Time Frame: (1) Rosters and Surveys prepared by 2022 and updated annually (2) ADU incentives by 2023 (3) Approved architectural plans by 2024, or as funding allows (4) Amend Municipal Code Chapter 17.28 (Accessory Dwelling Units) for consistency with State law by August 2022 (this action has been completed) (5) Establish protocol for 6-month check-ins with ADU permit recipients by January 1, 2023 (6) Annual monitoring report on ADU production 432 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-11 Program 7: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Outreach, Education, and Information Program 7 addresses public outreach, education, and information on ADUs. Like Program 6, it has multiple elements. 7.1 Biennial Mailing. The City will send or help coordinate a mailing to all households in Rolling Hills at least once every two years advising them of the opportunity to create an ADU, the potential benefits of having an ADU, and potential incentives in the event the ADU will be occupied by a household worker, caregiver, family member, or other household meeting the definition of a low or very low income household. The mailing may consist of an article in the City’s monthly newsletter, or could be included as a component of the South Bay Cities COG efforts to encourage ADU production. The City is one of 15 cities participating in this program. 7.2 Website. The City will develop a landing page on its website with information on ADU opportunities (“Thinking about building an ADU?”). The website landing page will include information on the types of ADUs an owner may consider (detached, attached, junior, etc.), the typical cost and cost considerations, financing options, tax implications, development standards, tenant selection, and so on. The information should also be provided in printed form for interested homeowners. 7.3 RHCA Design Guidelines Update. The City will work with the Rolling Hills Community Association to facilitate an update of the RHCA Design Guidelines so that they address ADUs. Currently, the Guidelines do not acknowledge ADUs at all. The Update would provide objective design standards for ADUs that are consistent with Rolling Hills zoning standards as well as the design guidelines that currently apply. Quantified Objectives: (1) Outreach mailer to 639 households (at least once every 2 years) (2) Creation of 40 new ADUs by 2029 (5 per year) Funding Source: City General Fund, State grants Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: (1) First mailing by March 2023 (2) Website update by June 2023 (3) Update of design guidelines by 2024 433 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-12 Program 8: Assist Senior and Disabled Households The City will continue to address the housing needs of seniors and persons with disabilities by connecting those in need with social service agencies, non-profits, volunteer organizations, and other service providers, and by coordinating with the RHCA in the services and programs it provides. As noted in the Needs Assessment, more than one-third of the city’s residents are over 65 and about 10 percent have one or more disabilities. The City will work with seniors, especially those on fixed incomes, to evaluate housing needs and resources. Within 18 months of Housing Element adoption, the City Council will convene a study session jointly with the RHCA Needs of Seniors Committee and at least one local non-profit serving seniors (such as Peninsula Seniors) to discuss the needs of Rolling Hills seniors and potential programs to address these needs. Several of the programs listed elsewhere in this Element (shared housing, assistance with home maintenance, reduced utility rates, etc.) are primarily intended to benefit lower income seniors. The City also will support expanded opportunities for persons with disabilities, including the use of universal design principles and accessibility standards in new construction and ADUs. As part of this program, Rolling Hills will also work with the Harbor Regional Center to implement outreach services to Rolling Hills families on services available to persons with developmental disabilities. The City’s website will be updated to include links to housing and supportive services for seniors and disabled persons. Quantified Objectives: Website landing page with senior housing resources Facilitate age-in-place retrofits for 10 senior households City Council study session on needs of seniors and potential actions to assist Rolling Hills seniors Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager Implementation Time Frame: June 2023 (for website) Council Study Session before December 2023 Program 9: Assist Extremely Low-Income Households Extremely Low Income (ELI) households have incomes that 30 percent or less of the County median. In 2021, the income thresholds for ELI were $24,850 for a household of one; $28,400 for a household of two; $31,950 for a household of three; and $34,450 for a household of four. Based on CHAS data, there are 25 ELI households in Rolling Hills, representing about 3.5 percent of the city’s households. The CHAS data indicated that all 25 of these households were homeowners, suggesting they are primarily seniors on fixed incomes. The City will explore ways to assist elder Rolling Hills homeowners on fixed incomes with home maintenance, repair, and retrofit activities. It will also direct these households to appropriate resources, such as shared housing services and programs to reduce utility costs. There are additional ELI households in Rolling Hills that may not be counted in the Census data, including extended family members living in independent quarters on a property, or domestic employees (housekeepers, au pairs, personal assistants, etc.) living in guest houses, accessory 434 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-13 buildings, or in separate quarters within the primary residence. The City will address the needs of these households by prioritizing applications for ADUs and encouraging homeowners to create opportunities for domestic employees and family members to live “on site.” A study sponsored by SCAG in 2020 determined that 15 percent of the ADUs in the coastal Los Angeles area were likely to be available at rents affordable to Extremely Low Income Households.3 A 2018 study further found that 17% of the ADUs in Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver were occupied by a friend or family member for free.4 A 2014 study found that 18% of the ADUs in Portland were occupied for free or extremely low cost.5 A 2012 UC Berkeley publication indicates that up to half of all ADUs are occupied at no cost.6 Based on these analyses, the City is estimating that seven “rent free” or extremely low income rentals will be added to the Rolling Hills housing stock by 2029. It will seek to document and measure progress toward this objective by soliciting voluntary reporting of such units by individual homeowners. As noted in Program 6.2, an annual survey is proposed to be adminstered to all registered ADU owners in the city. This would enable tracking of rent-free or reduced rent ADUs. Quantified Objectives: Provide seven housing units affordable to Extremely Low Income Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Prepare inventory of Extremely Low Income (ELI) units by 2024, update annually Facilitate housing assistance to at least three ELI senior homeowners by 2025 Program 10: Support Regional Efforts to End Homelessness Extremely low-income persons also include those who are homeless or may be at risk of becoming homeless. Although the point-in-time surveys for the last five years have not counted any homeless residents in Rolling Hills, the City recognizes that homelessness is a regional problem that requires regional solutions. Rolling Hills will continue to allow emergency shelters and single room occupancy hotels in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone and will monitor the effectiveness of its regulations in its Annual Housing Progress Report. The City will continue to work with adjacent communities on emergency shelter referrals. As a member of SCAG and the South Bay Cities COG, staff and elected officials participate in forums and discussions of homelessness, and potential programs and resources to end homelessness and increase the supply of shelter, transitional, and supportive housing in Greater Los Angeles. 3 SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, 2020 4 Jumpstarting the Market for ADUs. Terner Center (for ULI), San Francisco, 2018 5 ADUs in Portland OR. Environmental Solutions Management, 2014 6 Scaling Up Secondary Unit Production in the East Bay. Berkeley Institute of Regional Development, 2012 435 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-14 Quantified Objectives: Participation in point in time surveys; participation in at least one regional meeting annually on strategies to end homelessness Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021 through 2029 Program 11: Permit Streamlining The City will continue its efforts to expedite permit processing, ensure efficiency, and reduce administrative and processing costs for new development. This could include provisions for reduced fees for ADUs that are rented at below market levels, or occupied by qualifying lower income households. As part of the annual budgeting process, the City will ensure that fees are appropriate for the services provided, and will consider ways to improve the permitting and entitlement processes. This program includes working with LA County Building and Safety to receive periodic updates on the status of active building permits in Rolling Hills. While this data is available on-line through the County’s website, it is not consistently updated or made available in a format that allows the City to easily track the status of entitled projects. The City will use this data to identify approved housing units (including ADUs) that have been entitled but not yet constructed so that it may follow up with owners in the event of permitting delays. Quantified Objectives: Compliance with all provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees Responsible Agency: City Manager/ Finance Director/ Planning and Community Services Department/ LA County Building and Safety Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021 through 2029 Program 12: Facilitate Communication with Affordable Housing Service Providers, Developers, and Advocates The City of Rolling Hills periodically receives requests from housing advocates, non-profit developers, and service providers to disseminate information on affordable housing needs and opportunities and work collaboratively to address housing issues. City planning staff regularly field requests from for-profit and non-profit developers, participate in regional housing meetings and discussions, and work with other cities to explore creative, effective ways to meet housing needs. In the event a non-profit agency or developer wishes to submit a grant application that will increase housing affordability for senior or low income Rolling Hills residents, staff will provide administrative support wherever possible. Quantified Objective: Hold at least one meeting a year with one or more non-profit housing sponsors to discuss housing opportunities and needs in Rolling Hills See also Programs 8, 13, and 15 Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Convene one meeting before December 2022. Convene additional meetings at least once a year from 2023 to 2029. 436 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-15 Program 13: Home Sharing Shared housing enables homeowners to offset their housing costs by receiving rent, or get additional help in managing housing duties. It also creates a resource for lower income households in the community, including college-aged students and young adults, caregivers, domestic workers, landscapers and building industry workers, child care workers, teachers, and other public service employees. It can also be a resource for seniors, some of whom may no longer wish to live alone or lack the financial resources to live alone. Residents in Rolling Hills have access to two nearby home sharing programs: Focal Point at the South Bay Senior Services Center in Torrance and the Anderson Senior Center in San Pedro. Both these centers offer resources to assist seniors locate roommates interested in sharing housing. These programs make roommate matches between seniors based on telephone requests. Numerous other home sharing services have emerged over the last decade. These include SHARE! Collaborative Housing, a public-private partnership supporting shared single family housing for persons with disabilities in Los Angeles County; Affordable Living for the Aging, which matches younger single tenants with seniors in Los Angeles County; and Los Angeles County HomeShare, which serves residents of all ages throughout the County. There are also private services such as Silverleaf (Long Beach) that facilitate home sharing for a fee. The City will continue to apprise residents about shared housing programs by providing information at the public counter and online, including an article in the City Newsletter in 2023. It will also proactively meet with at least one non-profit home-sharing service provider in 2023 to discuss opportunities in Rolling Hills. Quantified Objectives: Continue to provide informational brochures advertising shared housing programs at City Hall and on the City’s website At least five Rolling Hills households participating in a non-profit managed home sharing program by 2029 Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Provide article and meet with home sharing service in 2023 437 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-16 Program 14: Sewer Feasibility Studies and Phase One Construction As indicated in Section 5.3.5 of this Housing Element, Rolling Hills does not have a sanitary sewer system. With a few exceptions, the entire city is served by private septic systems. Septic system installation is costly and requires customized design to reflect steep terrain. The cost of installing sanitary sewers and storm drains would be even more costly, as it would likely require easements, force mains, and lift stations. The City recently completed design drawings for a sanitary sewer extension through adjacent Rolling Hills Estates that will bring service to Rolling Hills City Hall and the Tennis Courts. A future phase of this project could continue southward along Portuguese Bend Road, allowing some Rolling Hills homes and a number of vacant properties to be served by sewer. A survey done by the City in 2021 indicated there was strong support for a sewer extension project, contingent on the cost to each homeowner. There is currently no funding source for such an extension. Grant funding would be required, as it would reduce the cost burden on homeowners and make the project more feasible. The City will continue to work toward addressing this constraint during the 2021-29 planning period. This includes: • Developing the initial phase of the project, serving City Hall and the Tennis Courts • Conducting feasibility and cost studies for a future phase to serve privately owned homes and parcels in the northern part of Rolling Hills • Pursuing funding for future phases • Continuing to poll Rolling Hills residents on their level of support for the project In addition, the City continues to monitor water quality issues related to its MS 4 permit for stormwater discharge. Efforts to address runoff quality and implement best management practices to reduce pollution are ongoing and will continue. Quantified Objective: (1) Complete 1,585-foot sanitary sewer extension to City Hall/ Tennis Courts (Phase I) (2) Complete feasibility / cost study of sanitary sewer extension (3) Obtain grants for Phase I project construction (4) Updated “Will Serve” letter from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, indicating ability to accept effluent from 235 existing homes upon completion of future phase sewer system Funding Source: General Fund/ State grants Responsible Agency: City Manager Implementation Time Frame: Complete Phase I by 2024 Determine viability of future phases and available grants by 2023 438 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-17 Program 15: Pursue Grants for Minor Home Repair Program At least once every two years, the City should re-evaluate the feasibility of joining the Los Angeles Urban County CDBG program in order to create a funding source for home improvements for qualifying lower income Rolling Hills residents. In the event the City finds that the amount of funding it will receive exceeds the costs of administering the program (including staffing and reporting requirements), the City will participate in the program. Available funds will be used to improve housing conditions for lower income and senior Rolling Hills residents, including: • Grants for minor home repair and rehabilitation projects, including electrical, plumbing, and heating repairs; health and safety improvements; and energy efficiency improvements; • Grants to facilitate “aging in place” for lower income seniors and residents with disabilities; • Grants for septic system repair for lower income homeowners seeking to add an ADU If the City determines that CDBG participation is not viable, it will pursue other funding sources that could support a similar grant program for lower-income Rolling Hills homeowners. This could include administration of home repair grants by another entity (such as South Bay Cities COG) or a local non-profit. Quantified Objectives: Minor home repair/ age-in-place/ septic tank replacement assistance to at least ten lower-income or senior Rolling Hills households Funding Source: LA Urban County CDBG Program/ State grants Responsible Agency: City Manager/ Finance Director Implementation Time Frame: By 2023, and every two years thereafter Program 16: Code Enforcement The City will continue code enforcement and nuisance abatement activities to ensure the safety and habitability of housing in Rolling Hills. While property maintenance in Rolling Hills is excellent, there is a need for ongoing enforcement of planning and building codes. The City has a “Code Enforcement” webpage with online forms for reporting suspected violations, including those relating to vegetation management and outdoor lighting as well as unpermitted construction or nuisances. Periodic information on code enforcement resources and requirements is also provided to residents through the City’s monthly newsletter. Quantified Objective: Respond to 100 percent of resident Code Enforcement inquiries Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021-2029 439 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-18 Program 17: Reduce Home Energy Costs Energy bills can be a significant cost burden, particularly for households on fixed incomes with large homes to heat and cool. The City has adopted the Green Building Code and enforces Title 24 energy efficiency requirements through its contract with the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety. New residential projects, including new homes, ADUs, renovations, and additions, will continue to be required to meet Title 24 standards. These requirements result in energy savings which reduce gas and electric consumption and home utility bills. Rolling Hills also works with Southern California Edison to distribute information to residents on energy conservation and weatherization, including information on financial assistance and lower utility rates for low-income customers. The City will provide links on its website to assist lower income residents in accessing information on reduced utility rates. Rolling Hills is also a member of the South Bay Environmental Services Center, which provides information on energy incentives, audits and rebates. These programs will continue in the future. The City will also support resident installation of solar energy systems. A growing number of Rolling Hills homeowners have installed photovoltaic panels, increasing energy independence and resilience while reducing home energy costs. Quantified Objective: (1) Provide links on City website related to energy conservation, weatherization, and financial assistance (2) Adopt updated Building Code standards for energy efficiency Funding Source: General Fund, LIHEAP Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Website Update, with links: Complete by January 2023 Program 18: Facilitate New Construction and Home Improvements The City will continue to work with property owners, architects, and builders to enable new housing to be built in the City. Continued cooperation and communication between City staff, applicants, and neighbors will facilitate the construction of new housing. The City is committed to efficient planning, building, and inspection procedures, and regularly seeks ways to improve the process and reduce delays. With few vacant lots remaining, most construction projects in Rolling Hills consist of home additions, repairs and modernization, or replacement of existing dwellings. Continued investment in Rolling Hills housing stock is strongly encouraged and will continue to be supported in the future. Although the City does not provide direct financial assistance to lower income homeowners, it assists owners in keeping costs down through permit streamlining and fees that are generally below average compared to other cities in Los Angeles County. Quantified Objective: 5 new single family homes (above moderate income) Funding Source: Private Funds (Permitting Fees) Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department, LA County Building and Safety Implementation Time Frame: Objective covers the period from 2021 through 2029 440 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-19 Program 19: Remediate Geologic Hazards The City will continue to explore solutions to ground stability and landslide problems. Grading, new structures and additions typically require a soils and geology report along with grading and building permits. The City has developed strict grading practices that limit grading to no more than 40 percent of the lot and require maintenance of natural slopes. These practices are necessary to safeguard the public against ground instability. The City will support repair work on landslide-damaged homes and hillsides that have been damaged or compromised by past landslides. The City will strive to avoid further loss of its housing stock as a result of natural disasters, including landslides and wildfires. Quantified Objective: Geologic studies for new development and major grading permits Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager Implementation Time Frame: On-going, 2021 to 2029 Program 20: Fair Housing Services Program Administration The City will complete a Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement Options Memorandum to determine options for ensuring that existing and prospective residents have access to fair housing services, and that property owners are apprised of Fair Housing laws and practices. This could include an agreement with a third party fair housing services provider to promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, disability, or other characteristics protected by state and federal fair housing law. Other alternatives for outreach, education, and enforcement also may be considered. Based on the findings of the Memorandum, the City will implement Fair Housing measures, including Programs 21 and 22 described below. Quantified Objective: 100% response rate for any fair housing complaint received by the City Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager Implementation Time Frame: Complete memorandum by June 2023 441 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-20 Program 21: Fair Housing Outreach and Affirmative Marketing The City will provide information on fair housing resources on its website, including links to fair housing services. Other outreach measures to be implemented include posting regulations regarding housing discrimination, as well as phone contacts, at City Hall and periodically providing this information in the City’s newsletter. The City will also provide a referral process for any person who believes they have been denied access to housing because of their race, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status or disability. In the event a complaint is received, the City will refer the party to a fair housing service provider for follow up and work with the complainant to resolve the issue. In addition, the City will affirmatively market future housing opportunities in the city by: • Requiring an affirmative marketing plan for any affordable multi-family development created in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone. Such a plan would be prepared by the project’s developers and would ensure that future units are marketed to attract occupants who are demographically diverse, including lower-income households in other parts of the South Bay and Los Angeles County. • Developing materials for Rolling Hills residents who may be seeking tenants for their ADUs, which will be provided to ADU applicants at the time they apply for a building permit or ADU permit. These affirmative marketing materials will include contact information for housing service providers and non-profit housing organizations that serve lower-income tenants in the surrounding region. Interested residents can use these materials to find prospective tenants in a larger market area than the Palos Verdes Peninsula, including residents of all races, ethnicities, ages, and abilities. Quantified Objective: (1) At least 50% of future occupants of affordable housing created on the RDMO site are from outside Rolling Hills. (2) At least 50% of future ADU occupants are from outside Rolling Hills (to be measured through the ADU survey described in Program 6.2) Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager, Planning and Community Services Director Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021-2029. Website update by December 2022. 442 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-21 Program 22: Fair Housing Training for Staff At least one City staff member will attend an on-line fair housing certification training class on an annual basis. These classes are typically three-hour sessions in which participants are informed and educated about federal and California fair housing laws, compliance, and illegal housing practices. The trainings cover prohibited and best practices, including language guidance for advertising housing for sale or for rent, and protected classes under federal and California law. In addition, the City will regularly evaluate the need for multi-lingual services, including translation of material on its website into other languages. It will also continue to implement its reasonable accommodations ordinance and monitor data on persons with disabilities in the city to ensure that barriers to mobility are eliminated to the greatest extent possible. Quantified Objective: (1) At least one Rolling Hills staff member participates in on-line Fair Housing training each year through 2029 (2) At least one presentation on fair housing is delivered to the City Council in a noticed public hearing, attended by at least 10 residents Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager Implementation Time Frame: 2023 Program 23: Written Procedures for SB 35 Projects As required by State law, the City will prepare written procedures and application materials for projects seeking to use SB 35. Affordable multi-family housing development on the Rancho Del Mar site would be potentially eligible. The procedures would follow the provisions established by the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, and include the objective standards and application procedures identified when that zone was adopted. Once completed, the information will be included as a PDF link on the Planning and Community Services Department website for easy access. Quantified Objective: Posted information on SB 35, including application form Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Complete by December 31, 2022 443 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-22 Program 24: Updating of Linked Files on Planning and Community Services Department Landing Page AB 1483 requires that every city post current information on fees, zoning standards, design guidelines, processes and procedures, nexus studies and other pertinent information on its website. Although Rolling Hills complies with this requirement today, reorganization of the material could provide greater clarity and easier access to this information. For example, the website could include a link to the RHCA design guidelines, as well as updated flow charts and graphics showing approval processes. As noted under Program 7.2, the website also should include dedicated information about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and the steps residents can take to add an ADU on their property. Quantified Objective: Reorganized and updated Planning and Community Services Department website Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Complete by December 31, 2023 444 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-23 6.3 Summary of 2021-2029 Quantified Objectives Table 6.1 provides quantified objectives for housing construction, rehabilitation, and conservation by income group. The new construction objectives align with the RHNA numbers that appear earlier in the Housing Element. The rehabilitation objective aims to assist 10 very low-income senior households over the eight year period. The conservation and preservation objectives correspond to the approximate number of households in Rolling Hills by income group based on Census data. The objectives aim to preserve housing for 100 percent of these households. There are no housing units in Rolling Hills that are at risk of conversion from affordable to market-rate. Table 6.1: Quantified Objectives by Income Group for Rolling Hills (20 21-2029) Income Category New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation/ Preservation Extremely Low [1] 7 5 25 Very Low 13 5 45 Low 9 45 Moderate 11 25 Above Moderate 5 500 Total Housing Units 45 10 640 Source: SCAG Adopted Regional Housing Needs Determinations (November 2012) [1] City’s RHNA for “Very Low” income is 20 units. This has been allocated proportionally to “Extremely Low” and “Very Low” based on Table 3.8, which indicates the current proportion of “Very Low” income households in these two groups. Extremely low income households represent 35% of the “very low” total. Table 6.2 summarizes the 24 Housing Element programs listed in this chapter. It includes a quantified objective and timeframe for each program, as presented above. 445 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-24 Table 6.2: Housing Element Action Plan Summary # Program Timing Quantified Objective 1 Prepare Annual Progress Report on Housing Element implementation Annually, by April 1 One Report per year 2 Facilitate affordable housing on Rancho Del Mar Housing Opportunity site • Annual meeting with School Superintendent • Subdivision by 2024 16 lower-income units by 2029 3 No net loss monitoring/ other housing opportunities Continuous, through 2029. Address in Annual Report. No net loss of housing capacity for duration of planning period 4 Add definitions of transitional, supportive, employee housing and residential care facilities to Municipal Code August 2022 Council action adopting definitions and identification of permitted uses (COMPLETED) 5 Adopt density bonus provisions in Municipal Code August 2022 • Council action adopting density bonus provisions (COMPLETED). • 12 density bonus units by 2029 (on Rancho Del Mar site) 6 Accessory Dwelling Unit production, monitoring, and production • Updated ADU ordinance by August 2022 • ADU Roster in 2021 • Annual ADU survey, starting in 2022 • Pre-approved plans in 2024 • ADU incentives in 2023 • Annual monitoring program (2023) 40 ADUs by 2029, including at least 13 ADUs affordable to lower income households 7 Accessory Dwelling Unit Outreach, Education, and Information • First biennial mailing by end of 2022 • Website update by 6/23 • Update of design guidelines by 2024 • Outreach mailer to 639 households • ADU website landing page • ADU section added to RHCA Guidelines 8 Assist senior and disabled households • Website update by 6/23 • Housing assistance during 2021-2029 Assist 10 lower income senior households with age in place retrofits 9 Assist extremely low income households • Prepare inventory of ELI units by 2024 7 ADUs affordable to ELI households 446 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-25 # Program Timing Quantified Objective 10 Support regional efforts to end homelessness Ongoing • Participate in point-in- time surveys • Attend one mtg a year 11 Permit streamlining Ongoing Compliance with Permit Streamlining Act 12 Facilitate communication with affordable housing service providers, developers, and advocates By December 2022 • Convene at least one meeting a year • See Programs 8, 13, 15 13 Home Sharing By December 2022 • Provide information on website, plus print media resources • Five shared housing arrangements 14 Sewer feasibility studies and Phase I construction Phase I construction (serving City Hall) by 2024 • Sewer extension to City Hall/ Tennis Courts • Feasibility study for sewer extension • “Will serve” letter for 235 existing homes 15 Consider participation in Urban County CBDG Program By 2023 Minor home repair/septic tank replacement assistance to 10 lower income or senior households 16 Code enforcement Ongoing 100% follow up 17 Reduce home energy costs By 2023 Website update 18 Facilitate new construction and home improvements Ongoing 5 market-rate single family homes (including 3 already approved) 19 Remediate geologic hazards Ongoing Geologic studies for new development 20 Fair housing program administration Develop fair housing compliance program by December 2022 100% response to all Fair Housing complaints 21 Fair housing outreach and affirmative marketing Website update by December 2022 • At least 50% of future occupants of affordable housing created on the RDMO site are from outside Rolling Hills • At least 50% of future ADU occupants are from outside Rolling Hills 447 Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-26 # Program Timing Quantified Objective 22 Fair housing training for City staff Initiate in 2022 • Training for one staff member annually • Noticed presentation to City Council attended by at least 10 residents 23 Prepare written instructions for SB 35 applications Complete by December 31, 2022 Guidance memo and application form 24 Update Planning and Community Services website Complete by December 31, 2023 Updated website 448 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). 449 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-2 Chart A-1: Summary of AB 686 Requirements Source: HCD, April 2021 450 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 451 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-4 housing elsewhere in Rolling Hills---on hazardous sites prone to landslides and wildfires, without public street access or sewer facilities—would be inconsistent with the objectives of AB 686. Fair Housing Enforcement Fair housing enforcement is presently handled on a case-by-case basis. The State of California has an Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FEHO) that enforces the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights authorities that prohibit discrimination. In the event a fair housing complaint is received by the City, the involved party would be referred to FEHO for investigation. There are no pending lawsuits, enforcement actions, judgements, settlements, or findings related to fair housing and civil rights in Rolling Hills. There are currently no local fair housing laws in the City, but Rolling Hills complies with all applicable state and federal laws. These include: • The federal Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., which the City complies with by ensuring that housing is available to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex. • The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which the City complies with through its building code, permit review procedures, and reasonable accommodation procedures • The California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which the City complies with through its protocols for hiring, decision-making, staff training, advertising, and legal counsel • Government Code Section 65008 and 11135, which guide the City’s procurement protocols, provide preferential treatment for affordable housing, provide equal access to housing assistance, and ensure that multi-family housing is treated fairly relative to single family housing • Government Code Section 8899.50, which specifies AFFH requirements • Government Code Section 65913.2, which precludes excessive subdivision standards • Government Code Section 65302.8, which precludes certain types of municipal growth control laws (the City has none) • Government Code Section 65583, which includes the requirement to have a housing element • Housing Accountability Act, which is implemented through the City’s development review and zoning procedures HCD’s AFFH data viewer reports that there were zero (0) fair housing enforcement and outreach inquiries in Rolling Hills between 2013 and 2021. The City is unaware of any fair housing cases that may have occurred without being formally reported, and has not received complaints or inquiries from residents. The City is likewise unaware of any Section 8 housing choice vouchers in use within Rolling Hills, or any instance of a prospective applicant being denied the opportunity to use a voucher within the city. Due to the small size of the City’s staff, there is not a formal fair housing training program and there is limited expertise on fair housing issues. An action program in this Element directs the City to provide fair housing training to staff, and to improve web-based and print media resources to inform residents of their rights and obligations under the Fair Housing Act. Fair housing information will also be included in the City’s newsletter. 452 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-5 Integration and Segregation Race and Ethnicity Chapter 3 of the Housing Element provides an overview of the racial composition of Rolling Hills and the surrounding region. In addition, Table A-1 below shows race and ethnicity data for Rolling Hills and the region (in this case Los Angeles County) for 2010 and 2020. Relative to Los Angeles County and the greater Los Angeles region, Rolling Hills has a higher percentage of White and Asian residents, and a lower percentage of Black and Hispanic residents. This is also true of the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Rolling Hills has have seen an increase in Asian and multi-racial residents over the last 20 years, but the aggregate Black and Hispanic population is 8.3 percent compared to a countywide figure of 55.6 percent. The percentage of residents who are two or more races more than doubled in Rolling Hills between 2010 and 2020, which is a much faster rate of increase than the county as a whole. However, given the city’s small population, even a few households can cause percentages to shift noticeably. The most significant change is that the number of White, Non- Hispanic households in the city declined from 74.1 percent to 64.9 percent over the decade. Countywide, this percentage dropped from 27.8 percent to 25.6 percent, a smaller rate of decrease. Table A-1: Population Share by Race and Ethnicity, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County Percent of Residents by Race in Rolling Hills Percent of Residents by Race in Los Angeles County 2010 2020 2010 2020 White Non-Hispanic 74.1% 64.9% 27.8% 25.6% Hispanic/Latino 5.5% 7.0% 47.7% 48.0% Black 1.5% 1.3% 8.3% 7.6% Native American 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% Asian 16.2% 20.4% 13.5% 14.7% Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% Other 0.2% 0.7% 0.3% 0.6% Two or More Races 2.4% 5.6% 2.0% 3.1% Sources: US Decennial Census, 2010 and 2020. 453 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-6 Since the City is comprised of a single Census tract block group, this data is most useful on a regional basis. Census tracts located several miles to the east and north of Rolling Hills, in Lomita, and in the San Pedro and Wilmington neighborhoods of Los Angeles, are more diverse. Some of the Census tracts on the Palos Verdes Peninsula have larger percentages of Asian residents, making them majority non-White. Figure A-2 shows the “diversity index” for Census tract block groups in and around Rolling Hills. The index is an indicator of racial and ethnic diversity within a given geographic area. It considers both race and ethnicity (Hispanic or Non-Hispanic). The higher an area’s number, the more diverse it is. The index ranges from zero (no diversity) to 100 (complete diversity). An area’s diversity is 100 when the population is evenly divided into different race/ethnic groups. The Table indicates an index of 48.4 for Rolling Hills, indicating it is somewhat diverse. The rating is comparable to many other census tracts on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Some tracts in Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes are more diverse, while several tracts in Palos Verdes Estates are less diverse. The diversity index is considerably higher in the more urbanized tracts in San Pedro and the Harbor neighborhoods to the east. Persons with Disabilities Chapter 3 of the Housing Element provides information on the number of people with disabilities by disability type in Rolling Hills. Roughly 10.6 percent of the city’s population has one or more disabilities compared to 9.9 percent in Los Angeles County as a whole. The higher local percentage is likely a result of the older population in Rolling Hills, where the median age is 55 compared to the County average of 36.5. This is further supported by the data shown in Table A-2, which indicates that the percentage of residents with a hearing disability and an ambulatory disability is higher in Rolling Hills than in the county as a whole. Conversely, a smaller percentage of Rolling Hills residents have cognitive disabilities, vision disabilities, and self-care limitations. Figure A-3 shows census tract maps for Rolling Hills and the surrounding area indicating the percentage of residents who are disabled. As Figure A-3 indicates, Rolling Hills appears within the 10-20 percent interval on the map, which is comparable to the percentage in Rancho Palos Verdes, Lomita, and the San Pedro and Wilmington neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Most of the other Census tracts in the vicinity, including those comprising the majority of Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, and Torrance, are in the less than 10 percent interval. However, the difference is marginal, with Rolling Hills being less than one percentage point above the 10 percent threshold. Given that the population of Rolling Hills is significantly older than the county as a whole, the rate of disability in the city is relatively low. Compared to the disabled population in the region at large, the city’s disabled residents have greater access to medical care and supportive services as a result of higher household incomes and the generational wealth accrued through home ownership and equity. The special housing needs of persons with disabilities are addressed in Section 3.3.2 of the Housing Element. 454 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-7 Table A-2: Percentage of Residents with a Disability, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County Percent of Residents in Rolling Hills Percent of Residents in Los Angeles County 2010 2020 2010 2020 Total with a Disability N/A 10.6% 9.3% 9.9% Hearing N/A 3.7% 2.3% 2.5% Vision N/A 1.3% 1.8% 2.0% Cognitive N/A 2.1% 3.6% 4.1% Ambulatory N/A 6.9% 5.2% 5.8% Self-Care N/A 2.3% 2.6% 3.0% Independent Living N/A 5.0% 4.1% 5.6% Sources: US Decennial Census, American Community Survey, Five Year Averages for 2010 and 2020. ACS 2010 indicates no data for Rolling Hills (“X”). 455 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-8 456 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-9 457 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-10 458 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-11 Familial Status The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of familial status. This refers to the presence of children in a household, regardless of the relationship of the child to the adult members of the household. It also includes pregnant women and persons in the process of obtaining legal custody of a child. Housing that is exclusively reserved for seniors is exempt from these requirements. Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to someone because they have a child or are a single parent, evicting a tenant if they have a child, or requiring families with children to live in a specific part of a multi-family building. Advertising that prohibits children also is prohibited. Relative to Los Angeles County as a whole, Rolling Hills has about the same percentage of married couples with children but much lower percentages of single parent households. The 2015-2019 ACS indicated there are five single parent female households with children in Rolling Hills. Despite the small number, single parent households may have special needs due to having only one income, as well as greater needs for child care and other supportive services (see Housing Element Section 3.3.4). These obstacles can limit net income and prevent most single parents from being able to live in Rolling Hills. Table A-3 shows familial status in Rolling Hills relative to Los Angeles County. The table compares the percentage of households in different categories, including families, married couples, other households, and non-families (including persons living alone). Table A-3: Population by Familial Status, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County Percent of Total in Rolling Hills Percent of Total in Los Angeles County 2010 2020 2010 2020 Family Households 81.9% 78.7% 67.3% 66.4% Married Couples (75.2%) (68.5%) (44.5%) (44.8%) With children under 18 at home 30.1% 17.8% 21.6% 18.8% Without children under 18 at home 45.1% 50.7% 22.9% 26.0% Other Families (6.7%) (10.2%) (22.9%) (21.5%) With children under 18 at home 2.8% 3.1% 11.2% 8.8% Without children under 18 at home 2.9% 7.1% 11.7% 12.7% Non-family Households 18.1% 21.3% 32.7% 33.6% Sources: American Community Survey, Five Year Averages for 2010 and 2020. All percentages refer to the percentage of total households in Rolling Hills in the listed category. Because the categories are “nested”, the numbers add up to more than 100 percent. 459 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-12 Relative to Los Angeles County as a whole, Rolling Hills has a much higher percentage of married couples. However, the percentage of married couples with children at home is about the same as the countywide average, and has declined substantially since 2010. More than half of the city’s households are married couples with no children living at home, compared to 26 percent countywide. Only 10 percent of the city’s households are “other” families (mostly single parent households), which is less than half the countywide average. Rolling Hills also has a far smaller percentage of non-family households than Los Angeles County, representing 21 percent of the city compared to 34 percent countywide. The city’s demographics are indicative of a relatively stable, older population with smaller households than the county as a whole. Figure A-4 shows familial status in Rolling Hills and surrounding areas. As the map indicates, the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula is in the same category as Rolling Hills, which corresponds to 80 percent or more of all children living in married couple households. The rate is considerably lower in adjacent cities in Los Angeles County but is still at least 60 percent in most of the South Bay cities. Rates below 60 percent occur in some of the census tracts in the Harbor area of Los Angeles, including San Pedro. Rates below 60 percent are also found beyond the South Bay, in locations such as Compton, Inglewood, Carson, Northern and Central Long Beach, and South Central Los Angeles. These are generally lower resource areas, with higher rates of poverty and unemployment, and lower rates of home ownership. Income Level Activities funded by federal community development and housing programs are typically designed to benefit low- and moderate-income (LMI) persons. For example, activities qualify for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding if they benefit the residents of a primarily residential area where at least 51 percent of the residents are low- and moderate-income. Accordingly, HCD has used Census income data to map these areas by Census block group. This is shown in Figure A-5. The Figure illustrates that there are no LMI areas in Rolling Hills or in any of the adjacent communities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Fewer than 25 percent of Rolling Hills’ residents are LMI. While there are a few block groups in Rancho Palos Verdes that are 25-50 percent, none exceed 51 percent. There are multiple LMI block groups in San Pedro and the Harbor neighborhoods east of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. There are also LMI areas in Lomita and Torrance to the north. Figure A-6 shows median income by Census block group. The Palos Verdes Peninsula is one of the most affluent parts of Los Angeles County, with Rolling Hills among the highest income census tracts in the County. Figure A-7 shows median income for a larger geographic area, including most of the urbanized part of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. At the regional level, the Palos Verdes Peninsula stands out as an affluent area with incomes above $100,000. The Beach cities of Manhattan, Hermosa, and Redondo Beaches are also in this category, as are numerous census tracts on the west side of Los Angeles, the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, and Orange County. The lower income areas are generally located in central and south Los Angeles County, East Los Angeles, the southeast part of the San Fernando Valley, and the older suburbs in Orange 460 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-13 County. Many of these areas include high concentrations of persons of color who historically faced discrimination in the housing market. Comparative income data between the city and region is shown in Table A-4. As the table indicates, Rolling Hills has a substantially higher income profile than the county, with well over half of its population earning over $200,000 a year, compared to 11 percent in the county as a whole. By contrast, only 15 percent of the city’s households earn less than $50,000 a year, compared to 36 percent countywide. However, it is notable that the percentage of households in Rolling Hills earning less than $25,000 a year grew from 4.5 percent of the population in 2010 to 6.4 percent in 2020. This is likely due to the growing number of households aging in place and living on fixed incomes. Countywide, the percentage of households in this category declined over the decade, from 24 percent to 18 percent. Table A-4: Household Share by Income, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County Percent of Residents by Income in Rolling Hills Percent of Residents by Income in Los Angeles County 2010 2020 2010 2020 Less than $10,000 1.5% 1.5% 6.8% 5.5% $10,000-$14,999 0.7% 2.7% 6.1% 4.6% $15,000-$24,999 2.3% 2.2% 11.1% 7.8% $25,000-$34,999 4.8% 4.7% 9.7% 7.6% $35,000-$49,999 2.5% 4.5% 13.5% 10.7% $50,000-$74,999 4.9% 3.3% 17.4% 15.8% $75,000-$99,999 4.9% 3.5% 11.7% 12.3% $100,000-$149,999 14.1% 12.0% 12.8% 16.3% $150,000-$199,999 11.0% 12.0% 5.3% 8.2% $200,000 or More 53.3% 53.6% 5.5% 11.1% Median Income $219,688 $250,000+ $52,684 $71,358 Sources: American Community Survey, Five-Year Averages, 2010 and 2020 461 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-14 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Affluence Racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty –or R/ECAPs—are census tracts identified by HUD with a majority non-White population (greater than 50 percent) and poverty rates that exceed 40 percent or are three times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever is lower. Figure A-8 shows the location of R/ECAP areas in southern Los Angeles County, including the City of Los Angeles. The largest concentration of R/ECAP areas in the County are in and around Downtown Los Angeles, the neighborhoods south of Downtown, and a few tracts in the Harbor area and Long Beach. There are no R/ECAP areas on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. HCD also has identified “racially concentrated areas of affluence” (RCAAs). These are areas that exhibit both high concentrations of White residents and high concentrations of wealth. With a population that is 70 percent White, Non-Hispanic and a median income of over $250,000, all of Rolling Hills is considered an RCAA. Large areas of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, and Rancho Palos Verdes also meet the RCAA criteria. Other parts of Los Angeles County considered to be RCAAs include Malibu, Santa Monica, Bel Air/ Brentwood, Westwood, Beverly Hills, and adjacent parts of the West Side, as well as La Canada-Flintridge and several other outlying communities. 462 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-15 Figure A-4: Familial Status 463 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-16 464 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-17 465 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-18 466 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-19 467 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-20 Historic Context Like many communities in Southern California, Rolling Hills reflects cultural and social norms of the era in which the city was founded and initially developed. These norms predated the Fair Housing Act and civil rights movement and included practices that excluded certain racial and ethnic groups from purchasing property. As Table A-5 indicates, Rolling Hills is almost exclusively comprised of single family homes. Even between 2010 and 2020, the composition of the City’s housing stock did not change significantly. In Los Angeles County, fewer than half of the housing units are single family detached homes and more than one-third are in multi-family buildings. The county as a whole has seen the share of multi-family units go up over time. By contrast, the California Department of Finance reports that 99.9 percent of the dwelling units in Rolling Hills are single family homes. Table A-5: Housing Units by Type, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County Number/Percent of Total in Rolling Hills Number/Percent of Total In Los Angeles County 2010 2020 2010 2020 Single Family Detached 715 99.9% 718 99.9% 1,717,448 49.9% 1,732,045 48.2% Single Family Attached 0 0 228,560 6.6% 234,107 6.5% 2-4 units 0 0 282,178 8.2% 295,700 8.2% 5+ units 1(*) 0.01% 1(*) 0.01% 1,156,648 33.6% 1,270,425 35.4% Mobile Homes 0 0 58,253 1.7% 58,297 1.6% TOTAL 716 719 3,443,087 3,590,574 Source: California Dept of Finance Table E-5, 2010 and 2020. Note: (*) The State’s data indicates that there is a building with five or more units in Rolling Hills. This is incorrect, as there are no multi-family units in Rolling Hills at this time. The history of Rolling Hills is linked to broader early 20th Century efforts to develop the 16,000- acre Palos Verdes Peninsula as a master planned community. Prior to 1910, the entire area was farm and ranchland. Several development concepts were proposed in the 1910s and 20s, including a plan to divide the peninsula into large estates (Vanderlip, 1914) and the “Palos Verdes Project,” which eventually became the City of Palos Verdes Estates. Long before Rolling Hills was subdivided, the Peninsula had gained a reputation as the “Riviera of America” and was renowned as an exclusive and beautiful place to live.1 1 Morgan, Delane. The Palos Verdes Story, 1982 468 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-21 A.E. Hanson became manager of the Palos Verdes Corporation in 1931. He laid out the boundaries of a development named Rolling Hills, just beyond the boundaries of the Palos Verdes Project. The community was initially marketed to residents of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills as 10 to 50 acre “dude ranches.”2 In 1936, it was reimagined as an equestrian community of one- to five-acre homesites. The initial development included 100 homesites on 600 acres. All homes were required to be one-story ranches, painted white, a requirement that remains in place today. The Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) were a strong part of the community’s appeal, as they assured maintenance and uniformity throughout the years. Rolling Hills was subdivided by a single large owner. In that respect, it is more akin to a large residential subdivision, rather than a traditional city or town with multiple land uses, developers, and housing types. Moreover, its first generation of housing consisted of modest one-story ranch-style homes, including homes smaller than 2,000 square feet. Multi-family housing was excluded from the community to retain its rural, equestrian character and to recognize what was then a remote and rugged location with no services. As a community of small horse ranches with no sewer system, high fire danger, and private streets, construction of multi-family housing would not have made economic sense. As the Palos Verdes Peninsula was built out at suburban densities in the 1950s and 60s, Rolling Hills retained its very low density zoning. Some of the adjacent cities on the Peninsula added multi-family housing, but the established lot pattern in Rolling Hills and its CC&Rs made this infeasible. In this respect, the CC&Rs had an exclusionary impact on the community. The City incorporated in 1957 to further protect its very low-density character. As this became a rarer commodity in southern Los Angeles County, real estate values increased substantially. Much of the original 1930s and 40s era housing stock was replaced with newer, larger housing with many more amenities. The city became a “location of choice” and became less affordable. These changes were largely economic and driven by the dynamics of the private real estate market. They occurred after the passage of the Fair Housing Act and the era of redlining. However, the conditions were compounded by historic inequities in access to capital among racial monitories and a legacy of discriminatory lending practices in the United States. Housing opportunities for lower income households have not historically existed in the city. The city’s identity and history is rooted in its low density, rural character and equestrian heritage. Fair housing solutions that reflect the City’s history and character can and should be pursued. These include creating housing opportunities on the recently rezoned Rancho Del Mar site, and encouraging greater production of accessory dwelling units in the community. They also include enforcement of fair housing laws and increased awareness of fair housing rights and practices, as well as the history of housing practices in California. 2 Rolling Hills General Plan Land Use Element, 1990 469 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-22 Access to Opportunity California HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened a task force to advance fair housing through research and policy recommendations. One of the products of this effort was a series of “opportunity maps” that identify resource levels across the state. The intent of these maps is to improve the eligibility of “high resource areas” for low- income housing tax credit funding. Improving access to these funds makes it more viable to build affordable housing in these areas. The opportunity maps depict composite data on environmental conditions (vulnerability to pollution, etc.), economic conditions (poverty, job proximity, home values), and educational conditions (graduation rates, math and reading proficiency, etc.). HCD has made these maps available through its AFFH data viewer. Conditions in Rolling Hills are depicted in Figures A-9 through A-12. On all of these maps, each census tract is assigned a value based on its level of resources. The higher the value, the more positive the outcome. TCAC Environmental Outcomes In this context, environmental conditions refers to environmental health and exposure to man- made hazards such as vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, and cancer-causing chemicals. It does not refer to natural environmental hazards such as wildfire and landslides. Figure A-9 indicates that outcomes in Rolling Hills are positive, as the community does not have industrial land uses or major pollution sources. Rolling Hills has an environmental score of 0.97, which is close to the highest possible score of 1.0. All of the Census tracts on the Palos Verdes Peninsula have scores of 0.75 or greater. Rolling Hills Estates also receives a 0.97 rating, while Rancho Palos Verdes varies from 0.82 to 0.98. Just two miles east of the city limits, near the Phillips 66 refinery, the environmental score is 0.03. Refineries and heavy industrial uses along the 110 Freeway and in the Port of Los Angeles vicinity result in low environmental rankings in a number of Census tracts around San Pedro and Wilmington. Scores are also below 0.50 around the Zamperini Airfield in Torrance, and in parts of Downtown Long Beach. The City also is in the highest-ranking category using the Cal EnviroScreen maps and is highly ranked on the Public Health Alliance of Southern California “Healthy Places Index.” Environmental outcome values are also high in the other Peninsula cities. Exposure to environmental hazards is much higher along the freeways and in the Harbor area, where industrial uses and refineries are more prevalent. TCAC Economic Outcomes Figure A-10 shows economic outcomes in southern Los Angeles County. This is generally a measure of wealth and access to jobs. Rolling Hills and all of the Peninsula cities are in the highest category, reflecting high rates of home ownership, high home values, and high incomes. The census tracts to the east have more diverse ratings, with low ratings in Northwest San Pedro and Wilmington. The TCAC Opportunity Score for Rolling Hills is 0.86, which is in the highest of the four quartiles shown on the opportunity map. Neighboring census tracts in Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho 470 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-23 Palos Verdes have comparable scores, generally ranging from 0.75 to 0.95. Just to the east, in the Harbor neighborhoods of Los Angeles, the economic index is as low as 0.04 in some census tracts. Areas of strongly positive and much less positive economic outcomes exist in close proximity in this area, a legacy of historic land use and development patterns. To the north of Rolling Hills, the City of Torrance has economic opportunity scores that are comparable to the Palos Verdes Peninsula, despite a more moderate-income profile. Torrance is predominantly White and Asian, while the Harbor neighborhoods are primarily Latino, an indication that race and ethnicity have influenced economic opportunity in the area. TCAC Educational Outcomes Educational outcomes are shown in Figure A-11. Rolling Hills is in highest quartile, with positive educational outcomes. The City’s score is 0.96, on a scale of zero to 1.0. This reflects the community’s high wealth and access to education. Adjacent neighborhoods in Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes have identical scores, while scores in the beach cities to the north are even higher. Conversely, scores step down in several bands moving to the east, with the third quartile just east of Rolling Hills, then the second quartile, and then the lowest quartile in San Pedro roughly four miles east. Low outcomes also appear in Wilmington and the neighborhoods around the Port of Los Angeles. Transportation Public transportation to and from Rolling Hills is poor and there is no transit service at all within the city limits. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority operates buses along Palos Verdes Road North, which serve the northern edge of the city and provide service to the Peninsula’s commercial centers as well as San Pedro. Connecting service is available along those routes to other transit systems (including the Metro Silver Line in San Pedro), providing connections to Los Angeles and other regional destinations. However, given the distance and travel time, these are not generally viable means of transport to workplaces. US Census data indicates that zero percent (0.0%) of the city’s residents use public transit to commute to work. 471 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-24 Composite Opportunity Map Figure A-12 is a composite of the TCAC analysis, taking the three above variables into consideration. The Figure affirms what is shown in Figures A-9, -10, and -11. Rolling Hills is a high-resource, high opportunity area, with positive environmental health indicators, positive economic outcomes for its residents, and access to quality education. Because of the city’s small size, these opportunities are homogenously distributed across the community. The same conditions are found in the other Palos Verdes Peninsula neighborhoods, some of which have even higher composite scores than Rolling Hills. Figure A-12 provides a more regional perspective than Figures A-9, -10, and -11. The pattern immediately evident on this map is that the coastal communities of Los Angeles County are almost all in the highest resource category. There is a swath of moderate and low resource neighborhoods extending from Downtown Los Angeles southward to the Port of Los Angeles. Areas extending from Central LA southward are highlighted on the map as having high segregation and poverty rates, corresponding with the lowest level of opportunity. Moving further east, the pattern becomes more diffuse, with a patchwork of high, moderate, and low resource areas extending toward the San Gabriel Valley and Orange County. The high opportunity ranking given to Rolling Hills was part of SCAG’s rationale for assigning the city a large allocation in the 6th Cycle RHNA. The base number of units assigned to the city by SCAG was calibrated upward based on their “social equity adjustment,” resulting in Rolling Hills’ 45 units (compared to six units in 2013-2021). This reflects several mandated objectives of the RHNA methodology, including promoting socio-economic equity and balancing disproportionate household income distribution across the region. As indicated earlier in this analysis, the Rancho Del Mar School site provides the best location to improve access to opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing within Rolling Hills. The site has the potential to improve economic outcomes for lower income households by providing affordable housing in a high-resource area. 472 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-25 473 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-26 474 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-27 475 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-28 476 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-29 Disproportionate Housing Needs “Disproportionate housing needs” refer to conditions in which members of a protected class within a defined geographic area experience much higher housing needs than the population at large.3 Following HCD guidance, the analysis to identify disproportionate needs considers cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions. Much of this data also is contained in the Housing Element Needs Assessment (Chapter 3), but the focus here is on extremely low- income residents, tenure, and persons of color. As noted in earlier sections of this Appendix, the analysis for Rolling Hills is hampered by the small size of the community and the fact that it contains only one Census Block Group. The margin of error for American Community Survey (ACS) data for the city is high, and the number of residents in protected classes is small. Where available, maps are used to compare data for Rolling Hills with data for surrounding communities. Tenure and Tenure by Race Table A-6 shows tenure in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County as a whole. Relative to the region, Rolling Hills has a much higher rate of homeownership. The rate exceeded 95 percent in 2020, compared to 46 percent regionally. As in the County, the percentage of renters increased slightly between 2010 and 2020, but the number remains very small. Rates of home ownership often vary by race and ethnicity. Regionally and nationally, the rate of home ownership is substantially lower for Black/African-American households than it is for White households. This is not the case in Rolling Hills. The 2015-2019 ACS indicates that 100 percent of the Hispanic, Black, and multi-racial households in the city are homeowners. For White households, 95 percent are homeowners and 5 percent are renters. Among Asian households, 98 percent are homeowners and 2 percent are renters. Table A-6: Housing Tenure in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County Percent of Households in Rolling Hills Percent of Households in Los Angeles County 2010 2020 2010 2020 Owners 96.9% 95.1% 46.9% 46.0% Renters 3.1% 4.9% 53.1% 54.0% Sources: American Community Survey Five-year averages for 2010 and 2020 3 The protected classes are race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and disability. 477 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-30 Cost Burden As noted in Chapter 3, a household is considered cost burdened if more than 30 percent of its income is spent on housing (including utilities). Figures A-13 and A-14 depict the incidence of cost burden for owners and renters in Rolling Hills and surrounding communities. Table 3.9 (in Chapter 3) indicates the percent of income spent on housing for homeowners with a mortgage, homeowners without a mortgage, and renters. Roughly 31 percent of the city’s households are considered cost-burdened, but most have above moderate incomes. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development publishes data on the number of households that are cost-burdened in each community using federally-defined income categories. This is referred to as the CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data. According to the CHAS 2014-2018 data, there are 100 low- and very low-income households in Rolling Hills (i.e., earning 80 percent or less of the areawide median income [AMI]). These households include 83 who were cost-burdened, including 65 who were defined as being “severely” cost-burdened (spending more than half their incomes on housing). CHAS data indicates that 78 of the cost-burdened lower-income households were homeowners and the remainder were renters. The relatively high number of cost-burdened low-income homeowners is likely associated with retired seniors on fixed incomes, who must still pay property taxes, utilities, insurance, HOA dues and other housing costs—even after their mortgages are paid off. These expenses may be several thousand dollars a month. In fact, the CHAS data indicates that there are 25 extremely low-income households in Rolling Hills (earning less than 30% of AMI), all of whom are homeowners. The most recent available CHAS data indicates that there are no extremely low-income renters in the city. CHAS data identifies 10 very low-income renter households in the city (30-50% of AMI), along with 30 very low-income owners. Seventy-five percent of these households pay more than 30% of their incomes on rent. As illustrated in Figures A-13 and A-14, the incidence of cost burden is somewhat lower in Rolling Hills than it is in adjacent communities, including those on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Figure A-13, which is based on American Community Survey (ACS) data for 2015-2019, identifies Rolling Hills as being in the 20-40% overpayment interval for homeowners. In other words, between 20 and 40 percent of its owner-occupied households spend more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. The city is surrounded on all sides by census tracts with rates in the 40-60% interval. This is not an indication that homes in Rolling Hills are more affordable, but rather a reflection of the length of residency and the large number of homeowners in Rolling Hills who have no mortgages. About 37 percent of the city’s homeowners have lived in their homes for over 30 years. Rates of homeowner overpayment are higher in the San Pedro area of Los Angeles, several miles east of Rolling Hills and in lower income census tracts throughout Central Los Angeles County. On the other hand, the rate in Rolling Hills is comparable to many cities in the county, including Torrance, Carson, Palos Verdes Estates, and the Beach cities to the north. Figure A-14, which is also based on ACS data for 2015-2019, identifies Rolling Hills as also being in the 20-40% overpayment interval for renters. However, this is based on a sample of a very small demographic, since there are only 27 renter households in the entire city. As Figure 478 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-31 A-14 indicates, the rate of overpayment is significantly higher in the portion of Rancho Palos Verdes located immediately east of the city, and in the portion of Rolling Hills Estates located immediately west of the city. There are also nearby tracts with overpayment rates that are less than 20 percent. On a regional basis, the percentage of renter overpayment in Rolling Hills is low. Most tracts in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and the larger suburban cities have rates in the 40 to 60 percent range. Rolling Hills renters tend to be more affluent, and are typically renting single family homes rather than apartments. Cost-burden data is also shown in Table A-7 below. As the table indicates, most extremely low- income households in Rolling Hills were considered severely cost-burdened in both 2010 and 2020. Most lower income homeowners and many lower income renters (i.e., those earning 80 percent of areawide median or lower) were also cost-burdened. Rates of cost-burden were even higher in Rolling Hills than in the county as a whole. However, the data for Rolling Hills in Table A-7 is based on a very small number of households, leading to a high statistical margin of error (for instance there are only 10 lower income renter households in the city). At a countywide level, about 63 percent of all low-income homeowners and 75 percent of all low- income renters are cost-burdened. Table A-7: Percentage of Cost-Burdened Households, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County Percent of Households in Rolling Hills (*) Percent of Households in Los Angeles County 2008-2012 2014-2018 2008-2012 2014-2018 Cost-burdened households earning less than 80% AMI (low income) Owners Paying > 30% 78.8% 86.7% 66.3% 63.1% Paying > 50% 61.2% 66.7% 44.3% 40.2% Renters Paying >30% 100.0% 80.0% 73.3% 75.1% Paying > 50% 0% 40.0% 43.0% 44.5% Cost-burdened households earning less than 30% AMI (extremely low income) Owners Paying > 30% 100.0% 76.0% 74.7% 75.4% Paying > 50% 100.0% 60.0% 62.4% 63.0% Renters Paying > 30% 100.0% 0% 82.4% 81.7% Paying > 50% 0% 0% 70.4% 70.2% Sources: CHAS HUD User website, data for 2008-2012 and 2014-2018. Data for Rolling Hills indicates 4 lower income renter households in 2008-2012 and 10 lower income renter households in 2014-2018 479 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-32 Overcrowding As noted in Chapter 3, a household is considered overcrowded it the housing unit it occupies has more than one person per room, excluding kitchens and bathrooms. As noted on page 3- 11, only one percent of the city’s households meet this definition. There are no households in the city that meet the definition of “severe” overcrowding, which is more than 1.5 persons per room. Moreover, the data indicates that none of the renter-occupied households in the city were overcrowded. There were six owner-occupied units with more than one person per room. Figure A-15 shows this information spatially, illustrating that units on the Palos Verdes Peninsula are generally not overcrowded. All of the tracts in all four Peninsula cities have overcrowding rates below 8.2 percent, which is the statewide average. Units in the more urbanized areas to the east, with higher percentages of renters and smaller housing units, are more likely to be overcrowded. Tracts in the Wilmington and San Pedro areas have rates exceeding 20 percent in some cases. Further north, tracts in South Central Los Angeles, Compton, Southgate, Lynwood, Compton, and other more diverse and lower income communities have higher rates of overcrowding. Table A-8 shows household overcrowding in Rolling Hills and the region. Table A-8: Overcrowded Households, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County Percent of Households in Rolling Hills Percent of Residents in Los Angeles County 2010 2020 2010 2020 Owner Households Less than 1.0 persons per room 99.5% 99.4% 93.9% 94.3% 1.01-1.50 persons per room 0.5% 0.6% 4.6% 4.1% 1.51-2.00 persons per room 0 0 1.1% 1.1% 2.01 or more persons per room 0 0 0.3% 0.5% Renter Households Less than 1.0 persons per room 100.0% 100.0% 82.4% 84.0% 1.01-1.50 persons per room 0 0 9.8% 8.5% 1.51-2.00 persons per room 0 0 5.2% 5.3% 2.01 or more persons per room 0 0 2.6% 2.2% Sources: American Community Survey Five-Year averages for 2010 and 2020 480 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-33 Table A-8 confirms that rates of overcrowding are much lower in Rolling Hills than in Los Angeles County, with no overcrowded rental units and only 0.5 percent of the owner-occupied units meeting the Census definition of overcrowding. Moreover, the data indicates almost no change between 2010 and 2020. By contrast, the countywide data shows that about 6 percent of owner-occupied units and 16 percent of rental units are considered overcrowded. In most cases, the percentages did not change significantly between 2010 and 2020. Housing Problems The HUD CHAS data indicates how many households in each community experience one of four specific housing problems—these problems are (a) lack of a complete kitchen; (b) lack of complete plumbing facilities; (c) overcrowding; and (d) severe cost burden (paying more than 50 percent of income on housing). According to CHAS data for 2014-2018, there are about 110 owner-occupied households in Rolling Hills and four renter households in Rolling Hills with one or more of these problems. Since all housing units in the city have kitchens and baths, and only six are overcrowded, the primary problem experienced is a severe housing cost burden. The CHAS data indicates there are 105 owner-occuped households with a severe housing cost burden. Most of these are lower-income senior households Figure A-16 shows this data on a regional level. The rate of housing problems is higher in Rolling Hills than it is in the other Palos Verdes Peninsula cities, due to the high percentage of senior homeowners living on fixed incomes and paying substantial portions of their incomes on housing. However, the city’s rate is comparable to other affluent areas on the west side of Los Angeles and is lower than in the neighborhoods and communities immediately south and immediately east of Los Angeles. 481 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-34 482 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-35 483 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-36 484 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-37 485 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-38 Displacement Risk Figure A-17 illustrates “sensitive communities” in the southern half of Los Angeles County. These are communities with relatively high risks of displacement due to rising rents and a lack of tenant protection. None of the Palos Verdes Peninsula cities are shown as vulnerable. On the other hand, most of the tracts in the City of Los Angeles, including the San Pedro and Wilmington communities, are shown as vulnerable. The entire South-Central area of Los Angeles is vulnerable, as are nearby communities such as Compton, Inglewood, and Hawthorne. As depicted on Figure A-17, vulnerable communities are communities in which at least 20 percent of the population is low income and two or more of the following conditions are present: • Renters are over 40% of all households • People of color are 50% or more of the population • Share of severely cost-burdened very low income renters is above county median • Rents have been increasing at faster rate than county median • Larger than average gap between local rents and rents in surrounding tracts These conditions are not present in Rolling Hills. Figure A-17: Sensitive Communities Census tracts in purple are designated as “vulnerable” due to displacement risk ROLLING HILLS 486 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-39 Due to the very high percentage of home ownership, Rolling Hills does not face displacement risk. Displacement may occur due to other reasons, such as an aging household unable to maintain their property or afford the modifications needed to age in place. Homelessness Homelessness in Rolling Hills is addressed in Section 3.4.8 of the Housing Element (Chapter 3). As indicated there, the annual point-in-time count for Los Angeles residents identified no unhoused residents in the city in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, or 2020. Figure A-18 shows the spatial extent of homelessness at a regional level based on data provided by the County of Los Angeles. The table shows that there were three unhoused residents per square mile in all four of the Palos Verdes Peninsula cities. The density is highest in Downtown Los Angeles, Venice, and various neighborhoods on LA’s West Side and South Central areas. Some of these areas have more than 500 unhoused residents per square mile. The relatively low densities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula reflect the absence of shelter facilities, supportive services, non- residential land, and public lands where outdoor camping might occur. Other Populations with Special Needs Chapter 3 of the Housing Element identifies special needs populations in Rolling Hills. The principal special needs group is older adults, with one-third of the city’s population over 65. As noted in Section 3.3.1, 56 percent of the households in Rolling Hills include at least one person who is 65 or older. Most of the persons with disabilities and all of the extremely low income households in the city are seniors. Rolling Hills has a very small number of single parents and large households, and it does not have farmworkers. 487 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-40 488 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-41 Other Relevant Factors The State’s guidance for AFFH requires that other relevant factors contributing to fair housing issues be evaluated as part of this analysis. As explained in the next section, the principal contributing factor is that Rolling Hills was developed as an equestrian community in which multi-family residential uses were not permitted. The city’s single family character was reinforced by minimum lot size requirements (one acre) and a (now repealed) prohibition on Accessory Dwelling Units which made it difficult for low and moderate income persons to afford housing in the community. These requirements effectively limited the rental housing supply to very expensive single family homes and resulted in a tenure pattern in which more than 97 percent of the households in the city are homeowners. Governmental spending on affordable housing and the implementation of housing programs is severely limited by the small size of the city (fewer than 700 homes), the lack of any tax- generating land uses other than housing, the high cost of land and construction, and severe environmental hazards in the community. Historically, there have no instances of transportation or infrastructure improvements causing the displacement of lower income households. As documented in Chapter 5 of the Housing Element, there are no public streets in the city and almost no properties served by sanitary sewers. This has been an impediment to the development of multi-family housing. The high cost of housing in Rolling Hills has historically precluded low- and moderate-income households from living in the city, unless they were home care providers, domestic employees, persons renting a room, family members, or seniors without a mortgage. Additionally, lending practices historically favored White borrowers, making the city less diverse than the county and region. This has changed in the past few decades and Rolling Hills has become more racially diverse. However, the city has not become economically diverse. Based on Census (ACS 2015-2019) data, there are not significant differences in the rates of home ownership among different race and ethnic groups in Rolling Hills. As shown in Table A-9, the data indicates that all Black and Latino households in the city are homeowners, and that all renter households in the city are White or Asian. However, the findings are based on sample data and the sample sizes are very small. The greater takeaway is that housing in the city continues to be affordable only to very high income households. Table A-9: Rolling Hills Home Ownership Rates by Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Owners Renters Total % Owners White, Non-Hispanic 360 8 368 98% Asian, Non-Hispanic 101 16 117 86% Black, Non-Hispanic 9 0 9 100% Hispanic/Latino 28 0 28 100% Two or more races 35 3 38 92% Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (2022) 489 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-42 Local Data and Knowledge HCD’s guidance for the AFFH analysis indicates that cities should use local data and knowledge to analyze fair housing issues, including information obtained through community participation or consultation. The regional demographic data help show spatial patterns but do not expressly explain why problems exist. An additional screen of local insights is necessary to complement federal and state data sources. While there is no specific local data on fair housing, the circumstances behind the spatial patterns shown throughout this analysis are mostly self-evident. The city was master planned more than 80 years ago as a low-density equestrian community with large parcels marketed to prospective homeowners. Rental housing was not included in these plans and CC&Rs were drafted and enforced to maintain single family character. The lack of sewers, risk of wildfire and landslides, and absence of public streets created further disincentives for multi-family housing, while also increasing construction costs. More recently, the high cost of land has made affordable housing construction economically infeasible, which will continue to be an impediment in the future. Rolling Hills is also an entirely residential community. There are no private businesses in the city limits, except for a handful of home-based occupations. Employment is associated with the PVPTA maintenance yard, the Rancho Del Mar school building, the Fire Station, and the City Hall/ Rolling Hills Community Association buildings, which collectively employ just over 100 people. Housing demand is not generated by businesses within the city. There are no underused commercial sites to be repurposed for housing, since there have never been commercial land uses in the city. Rolling Hills does generate demand for services that create jobs, including low-income jobs. Local homeowners provide employment for caregivers and home health care workers, au pairs and home child care providers, landscapers and domestic workers, personal assistants, and those in the construction trades. Housing for this workforce has been largely unavailable in the city, although some of these employees may live on-site and are considered part of the primary household. Local data and knowledge supports a fair housing strategy that is heavily focused on housing this population in ADUs, potentially at reduced rents. The service industry population is generally more racially and ethnically diverse than the city at large. Providing additional ADU and JADU opportunities would help contribute to the State’s integration and equity goals while improving access to housing in a high-resource area. It can also reduce commuting and associated congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. 490 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-43 Distribution of Proposed Housing Sites This section of the AFFH analysis evaluates the City’s site inventory to ensure that the distribution of sites does not exacerbate patterns of segregation, access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs. The site inventory must be consistent with each community’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Rolling Hills presents a unique situation in this regard, as the entire city consists of just one census block group. Data for this one tract indicates that the entire city is in the highest resource category. The land use pattern is homogenous and consistent in all parts of the city, and there are no observable disparities in housing condition, demographics, or income at the neighborhood level. Additionally, the city’s lower income RHNA is 29 units. While the State mandate calls for distributing opportunities on multiple sites in each city, the economics of affordable housing development make this impractical in Rolling Hills. The City is more likely to see affordable units developed on a single site capable of supporting a critical mass of at least 16 units than on multiple sites capable of accommodating a few units each.4 The City will distribute affordable opportunities through a strategy that relies on its housing opportunity site and about a dozen accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on scattered sites. The development of affordable housing on the Rancho Del Mar site furthers the goals of AB 686 by providing a viable opportunity for affordable housing in a very high resource area. This opportunity did not exist prior to 2020 when the site was rezoned. Moreover, the City has adopted provisions to allow the development “by right” creating a path to expedited approval. As documented in Chapter 4, this is the only viable site in Rolling Hills for higher density housing given the lack of sewer and a public road system. It is also one of the few sites that is accessible to transit and evacuation routes. Meeting the remaining lower income need for affordable units through ADUs is a practical, effective way to meet the intent of AB 686 while dispersing opportunities across a large geographic area. By definition, ADUs distribute affordable housing opportunities across the community rather than concentrating them in a single location. They are also responsive to very real opportunities in Rolling Hills, resulting from large house sizes, numerous accessory buildings, a large number of one- and two-person households, and an aging population. The City’s new ADU program has a demonstrated track record of success, with nine units permitted in 2021. Continued efforts to support ADUs will allow Rolling Hills to achieve AFFH goals in a way that is realistic, practical, responsive to local conditions, and produces real results. 4 While the base density for the Rancho Del Mar site is 16 units, the City requires that the site be developed with 100% affordable housing. Thus, it will be eligible for an 80% State density bonus which would enable 29 units in total. 491 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-44 Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors “Contributing factors” are the underlying forces that create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues. In its AFFH Guidance Memo (2021), HCD has identified eight contributing factor topic areas, including general outreach, fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparity in access to opportunity, disparity in access for persons with disabilities, disproportionate housing needs and displacement risks, and the site inventory. Under each of these topic areas, the Guidance memo lists individual issues which can potentially be addressed by a Housing Element action. AB 686 requires that the City strategically prioritize the contributing factors and develop programs that mitigate these factors through its goals, policies, and actions. . HCD generally groups these actions into the following four categories: • Housing Mobility Strategies, which consist of removing barriers to housing in areas of opportunity • New Housing Choices and Affordability, which include strategies to promote more housing supply and choices in areas of high opportunity and outside areas of concentrated poverty • Place-based strategies to Encourage Community Conservation and Revitalization, which include approaches to conserve and improve assets in areas with concentrated poverty and lower opportunities • Protecting Residents from Displacement, which includes strategies to preserve housing choices and affordability for residents within low and moderate opportunity areas. Given that Rolling Hills is a high-resource, high-opportunity area, all of the City’s AFFH strategies fall in the first two of these categories. Following is an assessment of factors that could contribute to fair housing issues in Rolling Hills, along with strategies that mitigate these factors. Priority 1: Address Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factors: • Land Use and Zoning Laws • Lack of Public Investment in Services and Amenities The City’s highest AFFH priority is to address disparities in access to opportunity. These disparities have been created primarily by land use and zoning laws, coupled with economic conditions and environmental hazards that precluded multi-family housing in Rolling Hills. The City historically has had no rental housing and no housing opportunities for lower and moderate income households. It has begun to remove land use and zoning barriers by allowing and encouraging accessory dwelling units, promoting home sharing, rezoning land for multi- family and special needs housing, and supporting public investments in infrastructure that will 492 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-45 facilitate future housing development. The 2021-2029 Housing Element identifies additional steps the City will take to mitigate this contributing factor. Specific Programs (described in Chapter 6) aimed at mitigating land use and zoning as a contributing factor include: • Program 2 supporting the development of affordable multi-family housing on the Rancho Del Mar Housing Opportunity Site • Program 4 adding definitions of transitional and supportive housing to the Municipal Code, to clarify that these uses are subject to the same standards that apply to the other residential uses in each zoning district • Program 5 adopting a density bonus ordinance • Program 6 creating incentives for ADUs • Program 7 promoting community education on ADUs • Program 12 supporting outreach to affordable housing service providers and developers • Program 13 supporting a shared housing program Specific Programs (described in Chapter 6) aimed at mitigating lack of public investment in services and amenities as a contributing factor include: • Program 14 calling for sewer feasibility studies and phase one construction of a sanitary sewer system that would serve City Hall and the community tennis courts and potential future expansions • Program 15 calling for potential participation in the CDBG Urban County program, which could provide a public funding source for infrastructure and housing improvements This contributing factor is also mitigated by the designation of the Rancho Del Mar site for multi- family housing, since this is the only site in the city that has sanitary sewers and access to a public street. As noted throughout the Housing Element, most of Rolling Hills does not sewer or public street access. All of the above programs fall into the “New Housing Choices and Affordability” category, as they promote more housing supply and choices in areas of high opportunity. Priority 2: Increase Fair Housing Outreach, Education and Enforcement Capacity Contributing Factors: • Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement The second AFFH priority area is to improve fair housing outreach, education, and enforcement capacity. While public agencies do not directly control the actions of private property owners related to fair housing, they can influence outcomes. Rolling Hills has limited staff (6 FTEs) and a severely constrained budget, no tax-generating commercial land uses, and limited revenue to fund new programs. The capacity to do pro-active outreach and enforcement of fair housing complaints is constrained. As a result, owners seeking to rent property may be unaware of fair 493 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-46 housing laws and discriminatory practices. Likewise, tenants (or prospective tenants) may be unaware of their rights and may face discrimination without awareness of the opportunity for recourse. At present, there is not a formal private fair housing outreach and enforcement program and resources for such a program are limited. Specific Programs (described in Chapter 6) aimed at increasing fair housing outreach, education, and enforcement include: • Program 20 recommends that the City increase its capacity for fair housing outreach, education, and enforcement. This would include education to those choosing to rent their homes or ADUs regarding state and federal laws on discrimination and the acceptance of housing vouchers. • Program 21 calls for increased information on fair housing on the City’s website, including a dedicated landing page with fair housing information and links to fair housing resources. • Program 22 calls for fair housing training for City staff. All of the applicable strategies to address this priority fall are in the “Housing Mobility” category, in that they are aimed at removing barriers in a high opportunity area. Priority 3: Disparities in Access for Persons with Disabilities Contributing Factors: • Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications • Lack of affordable in-home or community-based supportive services As noted earlier in this Appendix and in Chapter 3 of the Housing Element, more than one-third of Rolling Hills residents are over 65 and most of the City’s households include at least one person over 65. This demographic has the highest rate of disability in the city, primarily associated with mobility limitations. Sight and hearing impairments and cognitive impairments also may affect older adults. As a rural community with very large lots and no public transportation, persons with these limitations and impairments may face housing challenges as well as other challenges such as the ability to evacuate in an emergency. Specific Programs (described in Chapter 6) aimed at reducing disparities in access for persons with disabilities include: • Programs 6 and 7 supporting ADU development, including units for live-in caregivers and health care providers • Program 8 to assist senior and disabled households, including home retrofits for aging in place. This also includes housing resources for persons with developmental disabilities. • Program 12 supporting home sharing, especially for senior and disabled households All of the above programs fall into the “New Housing Choices and Affordability” category, as they promote better choices in high opportunity areas. 494 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-47 Summary Table A-10 summarizes AFFH priorities, contributing factors, fair housing issues, and applicable housing programs. Table A-10: Fair Housing Priorities, Issues, Contributing Factors and Strategies Priority Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Program Category Relevant Program (see Chapter 6) 1 Disparities to Access in Opportunity • Land Use and Zoning Laws New Housing Choices and Affordability • Program 2: Affordable multi-family housing development on Rancho Del Mar site • Program 4: Definitions of transitional and supportive housing in the Municipal Code, • Program 5: Density bonus ordinance • Program 6: ADU incentives • Program 7: ADU education and outreach • Program 12: outreach to housing service providers • Program 13 supporting a shared housing program • Lack of Public Investment in Services and Amenities • Program 14: sewer feasibility studies • Program 15: CDB Urban County Program 2 Fair Housing Outreach, Education, and Enforcement • Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement Housing Mobility • Program 20: Increase capacity for fair housing outreach, education, enforcement • Program 21: Increased fair housing information on City’s website • Program 22: Fair Housing training for staff 3 Disparities in Access for Persons with Disabilities • Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications • Lack of affordable in- home or community- based supportive services New Housing Choices and Affordability • Program 6: ADU incentives • Program 7: ADUs outreach for live-in caregivers and health care providers • Program 8: Assistance to senior and disabled households • Program 12: Home sharing 495 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-48 Summary of Fair Housing Issues and Additional Fair Housing Concerns According to the California Code of Regulations, a land use practice has a discriminatory effect where it actually or predictably results in a disparate impact on a group of individuals, or creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns, based on membership in a protected class. Such practices may still be lawful--however, the State has determined that they should be mitigated to the extent that they increase, reinforce, or perpetuate segregated housing patterns. In this context, the State has found that single family zoning itself has had unintended (and in some cases, intended) discriminatory effects. In response, the legislature has taken steps requiring local governments to accommodate additional housing units on single family zoned sites. Rolling Hills has adopted regulations permitting accessory dwelling units and is currently considering legislation reflecting recently adopted SB 9. Both of these measures provide potential opportunities for rental housing, smaller units, and more affordable units that did not previously exist in the city. New ADU production and affordability programs affirmatively further fair housing and promote new housing opportunities throughout the community. Strategies to enhance mobility (i.e., transit access to Rolling Hills), preserve existing affordable housing, and protect residents from displacement are less applicable in Rolling Hills. However , the City’s policies and programs do aim to address disparities and create new affordable housing opportunities in high-resource areas. The City has required that any multi-family construction be affordable to low and very low income households, ensuring opportunities for economic diversification rather than further concentration of affluence. Allowing market-rate multi-family housing would only exacerbate existing concentrations of affluence and run counter to the purpose and intent of AB 686. Rolling Hills also has made fair housing outreach and education a priority, not only for Rolling Hills residents but for those who may seek to move to Rolling Hills in the future. Current efforts will be expanded in the future by making more information available and strengthening communication with fair housing service providers. 496 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. 497 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. 498 Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-3 499 Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-4 500 Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-5 501 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: 502 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. 503 Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-8 504 Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-9 505 Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-10 506 Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-11 507 Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-12 508 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. 509 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 510 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. 511 Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-16 /intentionally blank/ 512 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. 513 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 514 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 515 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 516 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) 517 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) 518 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? 519 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? 520 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. 521 Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-10 522 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. 523 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) __________________ ___________________ _________________ 524 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 525 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: 526 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov July 21, 2022 John F. Signo, Director Planning & Community Services Department City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear John F. Signo: RE: City of Rolling Hills’ 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Rolling Hills’ revised draft housing element received for review on May 24, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. The revised draft element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s April 11, 2022 review; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The revisions needed are as follows: 1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) Strategies, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones: While the element included some revisions, additional revisions will be needed to address HCD’s prior review, as follows: • Metrics: The element did not address this finding. As found in HCD’s prior review, the element must include quantifiable metrics or numerical objectives to target beneficial impacts for people, households, and 527 John F. Signo, Director Page 2 neighborhoods (e.g., number of people or households assisted, number of housing units built, number of parks or infrastructure projects completed). In addition, HCD’s prior review found that the element must include significant and meaningful actions to address promoting housing mobility and increasing housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity areas. While the element was revised to reference specific programs, additional revisions will be needed, as follows: •Housing Mobility: Promoting housing mobility removes barriers to higher opportunity areas and strategically enhances access to housing choices and affordability. Given, among other things, that the City is entirely highest category of disparities in access opportunity and largely does not reflect the socio-economic characteristics of the broader region, the element must include significant actions to promote housing mobility within the City and relative to the region to promote an overall inclusive community. To address this requirement, the element relied on the City’s one affordable housing site to accommodate the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) and fair housing enforcement and outreach programs. However, actions should go beyond the RHNA and be significant to facilitate meaningful change. The element could consider improving existing programs or including new programs related to homesharing, promoting a city-wide affordable rental registry for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) paired with affirmative marketing outside of the City and coordination with regional entities. •Increasing Housing Choices and Affordability in Higher Opportunity Areas: To address this finding, the element relied on actions that are required to comply with state law including updating the City’s density bonus program and allowing for transitional, supportive, group, and employee housing. However, to increase housing choices and affordability throughout the City, the element should consider going above and beyond state law such as allowing two JADUs on a single family lot, developing and marketing a homeowner rehabilitation and/or down payment assistance program, etc. For additional examples, please see pages 72 to 74 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml. 2.An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) 528 John F. Signo, Director Page 3 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Permanent and Supportive Housing): The element was revised with a program to define supportive housing and permit it as a residential use, similar to other residential uses. However, the element still must address the requirements under Government Code section 65651. As found in the prior review, Supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement or add or modify programs as appropriate. 3. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the… …the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).) Approval Time: The element was revised to include a discussion on the time between entitlements and construction and the current conditions of the construction market. However, this does not address HCD’s prior review. Specifically, the element must be revised to include an estimate for the length of time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need. The element will meet statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and adopted to comply with the above requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65585. For your information: Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory (for all income-levels). Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml for a copy of the form and instructions. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov. As a reminder, the City’s 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City’s 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance. Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element 529 John F. Signo, Director Page 4 process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html. HCD appreciates the hard work of the City’s planning staff and consultants during our review. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Gianna Marasovich, of our staff, at Gianna.Marasovich@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Paul McDougall Senior Program Manager 530 ‐1‐ Responses to 7/21/22 HCD Comments on May 2022 Draft Housing Element HCD Comments are in boxes and are numbered. City revisions are noted in red font HCD COMMENT: Strategies, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones: While the element included some revisions, additional revisions will be needed to address HCD’s prior review, as follows: Metrics: The element did not address this finding. As found in HCD’s prior review, the element must include quantifiable metrics or numerical objectives to target beneficial impacts for people, households, and neighborhoods (e.g., number of people or households assisted, number of housing units built, number of parks or infrastructure projects completed). HCD subsequently indicated (in a Zoom meeting) that the City should develop metrics or numeric objectives for Programs 4, 5, 7, 12-15, and 20-22. Revisions made by City in Response to this Comment: Quantifiable metrics or numerical objectives have been added as follows: Program 4: Since the time of the HCD comment letter, this program was completed. Thus, the objective (compliance with State law) has been achieved. Program 5: New metric added: Include up to 12 affordable density bonus units in any future project on the Rancho Del Mar site, through the State-mandated density bonus. Program 7: New metric added: Reach 639 households every two years through a mailing (or newsletter article) on ADUs (this is equivalent to the number of households in Rolling Hills, based on the 2020 Census). This program also references the Program 6 objective of creating 40 ADUs by 2029. Program 12: This program cross-references numeric objectives in Programs 8, 13, and 15 Program 13: New metric added: At least 5 Rolling Hills households participate in home sharing by 2029. Program 14: New metric added: City requests an updated “Will Serve” letter from LA County Sanitation District indicating its ability to receive effluent from 235 homes if future phase of sewer system is constructed. Program 15: New metric added: City receives CDBG or other grant to assist 10 senior and/or lower-income homeowners with minor home repair (including age-in- place retrofit and septic tank replacement for household adding an ADU) Program 20: New metric added: Follow up on 100% of all fair housing complaints Program 21: New metrics added: (1) At least 50% of future occupants of any affordable housing created on Rancho Del Mar site will be from outside Rolling Hills; (2) At least 50% of occupants of ADUs to be created by 2029 will be from outside Rolling Hills (to be measured through ADU survey question) Program 22: New metrics added: (1) At least one staff person receives fair housing training each year; (2) At least one presentation by fair housing organization is made to City Council, with at least 10 attendees 1 531 ‐2‐ HCD COMMENT: In addition, HCD’s prior review found that the element must include significant and meaningful actions to address promoting housing mobility and increasing housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity areas. While the element was revised to reference specific programs, additional revisions will be needed, as follows: Housing Mobility: Promoting housing mobility removes barriers to higher opportunity areas and strategically enhances access to housing choices and affordability. Given, among other things, that the City is entirely highest category of disparities in access opportunity and largely does not reflect the socio-economic characteristics of the broader region, the element must include significant actions to promote housing mobility within the City and relative to the region to promote an overall inclusive community. To address this requirement, the element relied on the City’s one affordable housing site to accommodate the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) and fair housing enforcement and outreach programs. However, actions should go beyond the RHNA and be significant to facilitate meaningful change. The element could consider improving existing programs or including new programs related to homesharing, promoting a city-wide affordable rental registry for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) paired with affirmative marketing outside of the City and coordination with regional entities. Revisions made by City in Response to this Comment: The City has made the following changes to support housing mobility, consistent with the HCD comment:  Program 13 has been re-titled “Home Sharing” (instead of “Shared Housing”) and a quantified objective has been added (5 households)  Program 6.1 has been re-titled “Develop Citywide ADU Registry” (instead of “Roster of ADUs).  Program 21 has been expanded to include “Affirmative Marketing”. Per HCD’s direction, the program includes the steps the City will take to support affirmative marketing of any units created on the Rancho Del Mar site. It also supports marketing of ADUs to persons living outside Rolling Hills by local residents.  Programs 6.9 and 7.1 describe the City’s coordination with regional entities to promote housing opportunities (specifically the South Bay COG’s ADU Accelerator program and ADU education and outreach program). 2 532 ‐3‐ HCD COMMENT: Increasing Housing Choices and Affordability in Higher Opportunity Areas: To address this finding, the element relied on actions that are required to comply with state law including updating the City’s density bonus program and allowing for transitional, supportive, group, and employee housing. However, to increase housing choices and affordability throughout the City, the element should consider going above and beyond state law such as allowing two JADUs on a single family lot, developing and marketing a homeowner rehabilitation and/or down payment assistance program, etc. Revisions made by City in Response to this Comment: In subsequent oral communication with HCD, it was suggested that the City strengthen Program 15 to go beyond “considering participation in the CDBG program.” HCD suggested that the City could instead commit to a course of action that would result in minor home repair grants for lower income Rolling Hills households. The “down payment assistance program” referenced in this comment would not be viable in Rolling Hills due to the very high cost of housing in the city. Program 15 now indicates the City will pursue CDBG grants and/or other funding sources in order to offer minor home repair grants to a target of 10 lower-income and/or senior households. This could include grants for septic tank replacement for homeowners seeking to add an ADU (see also Program 6.7). The program could also be administered by another entity, such as South Bay COG or a non-profit, with City support. HCD COMMENT: Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Permanent and Supportive Housing): The element was revised with a program to define supportive housing and permit it as a residential use, similar to other residential uses. However, the element still must address the requirements under Government Code section 65651. As found in the prior review, Supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement or add or modify programs as appropriate. Revisions made by City in Response to this Comment: The City amended its Municipal Code in August 2022 to include the exact language cited here, consistent with the Government Code. The highlighted language was been adopted and the City is compliant with Government Code section 65651. This language has also been added to Housing Element Program 4. 3 4 533 ‐4‐ HCD COMMENT: Approval Time: The element was revised to include a discussion on the time between entitlements and construction and the current conditions of the construction market. However, this does not address HCD’s prior review. Specifically, the element must be revised to include an estimate for the length of time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need. Revisions made by City in Response to this Comment: The City has edited Chapter 5 (Constraints Analysis) and Chapter 6 (Goals, Policies, Programs) to address this comment. Page 5-24/ 5-25 have been edited to add text on the “length of time between receiving approval for housing and submittal of an application for building permits.” In Chapter 6, Program 11 has been expanded. New text recommends that City staff work with LA County Building and Safety to receive periodic reports on active building permits in Rolling Hills. This will help the City follow up on projects that have been entitled but not yet received their building permits. OTHER EDITS The City has edited Programs 4, 5, and 6.10 to reflect the fact that these actions were completed in August 2022. 5 534 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-1 5.0 Constraints to Housing Production 5.1 Introduction Government Code Sections 65583(a)(5) and (6) require the Housing Element to contain an analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels. Governmental constraints include land use controls, building codes and code enforcement practices, site improvement requirements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. Non-governmental constraints include the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, requests to develop at densities below what is allowed by zoning, community opposition, and similar factors. In each case, the Housing Element is required to demonstrate local efforts to remove constraints that are identified, thus improving the City’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The extent to which these constraints are affecting the supply and affordability of housing in Rolling Hills is discussed below, along with past (or proposed future) efforts to eliminate those constraints. 5.2 Governmental Constraints Governmental constraints include activities imposed by local government on the development of housing. These activities may impact the price and availability of housing, the ability to build particular types of housing, and the time it takes to get housing approved and constructed. While these requirements are intended to improve housing quality and protect public safety, they may have unintended consequences. 5.2.1 Rolling Hills General Plan Every city and county in California is required to adopt a General Plan for its long-term development. This Housing Element is actually part of the General Plan but it stands on its own as a separate document since it is updated on a schedule set by the State of California. The other elements of the General Plan are updated as needed. Most cities update their plans every 15 to 20 years. Most of the Rolling Hills General Plan was drafted in 1990. In addition to the Housing Element, the Plan includes a Land Use Element, a Circulation Element, an Open Space/ Conservation Element, a Safety Element, and a Noise Element. An update to the Safety Element was prepared concurrently with the Housing Element, in response to recent State requirements. The Rolling Hills Land Use Element includes a Land Use Policy Map illustrating the types of uses permitted throughout the city. When the Map was adopted in 1990, it reinforced existing parcel patterns and responded to the infrastructure, geologic, wildfire, and environmental constraints in 535 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-2 the city. Four categories are shown: Very Low Density Residential (2 acres per unit), Low Density Residential (1 acre per unit), Civic Center, and Publicly-owned Open Space. Prior to 2020, the City did not allow development at densities greater than one unit per acre and had no General Plan provisions for multi-family housing. As part of 5th Cycle Housing Element implementation, the City amended its Land Use Element to add the Rancho Del Mar Housing Opportunity Overlay designation to the Map (corresponding to the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar school site). At the same time, the City adopted new Land Use Element standards and policies allowing multi-family housing in the Overlay area, along with policies allowing a diverse mix of housing units, as required by state law. The Land Use Element recognizes Rolling Hills’ heritage as an equestrian community comprised of large lots on steep terrain. Its policies call for buffering between uses, preservation of views, and minimizing exposure to landslides, wildfires, and other hazards. These policies remain appropriate given the safety hazards in the community. The Element specifically discusses the 150-acre Flying Triangle landslide hazard area, noting that the area is subject to a moratorium due to unstable geologic conditions. It also notes that many existing parcels are constrained by steep slopes and have only small areas that are suitable for building pads and construction. Recent amendments to the Safety Element further emphasize environmental hazards in the city, as well as constraints associated with evacuation, water supply, and emergency vehicle access. These constraints make most of Rolling Hills poorly suited for additional development or zoning changes that would result in increased density and population. As it currently stands, the General Plan is not a development constraint. 5.2.2 Zoning Standards The Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code) implements the General Plan and provides objective development standards for all parcels in the City. There are three zoning districts in the City: • Residential Agricultural Suburban 1 (RAS-1), which has a one-acre minimum lot size • Residential Agricultural Suburban 2 (RAS-2), which has a two-acre minimum lot size • Public Facilities (PF) The RAS-1 zone roughly corresponds to the “Low Density Residential” General Plan designation The RAS-2 zone roughly corresponds to the “Very Low Density Residential” General Plan designation.1 The PF zone corresponds to the “Civic Center” General Plan designation. Parcels with a General Plan designation of “Publicly-owned Open Space” are zoned RAS-1 or RAS-2, whichever is prevalent on private parcels in the vicinity. There are also two overlay districts. Overlays are mapped “on top” of one of the three base zones listed above and apply additional regulations specific to subareas of the city. The first overlay district (OZD-1) provides more lenient setback standards in an area of the city 1 Parcels along Spur Lane and Cinchring Road have a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential but a zoning designation of RAS-1. 536 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-3 characterized by smaller lots. Roughly 70 lots along Middleridge Lane, Williamsburg Lane, Chesterfield Road and Chuckwagon Road, are covered. The second overlay district (RDMO) is the Rancho Del Mar Overlay, which is mapped on the Rancho Del Mar School site in the RAS-2 district. The RDMO requires the transfer of General Plan density for the property as a whole (which yields 16 units) to a single location in order to facilitate the production of multi-family housing. This overlay also includes objective standards for multi-family housing and emergency shelter, which are permitted by right. The zoning ordinance includes definitions of terms (Chapter 17.12). At this time there are no definitions of transitional and supportive housing, both of which must be permitted in every residential district under state law. An action program in this Element has been included to make that Code amendment. The definitions expressly acknowledge manufactured and mobile homes as being the same as detached single family dwellings, provided they are located on a foundation. The zoning regulations indicate permitted and prohibited uses in each zoning district. Single family residences and accessory dwelling units are permitted “by right” in RAS-1 and RAS-2. The only expressly prohibited uses are short-term rentals (less than 30 days), commercial cannabis activities and cannabis dispensaries. Numerous types of accessory structures are permitted by right, including stables, pools, sheds, and small (under 200 SF) cabanas, guest houses, pool houses, garages, greenhouses, and similar structures. Such structures generally require conditional use permits when they exceed 200 SF (accessory dwelling units are excluded from this requirement). Other conditional uses include schools, fire stations, and similar public buildings and utilities. Site plans are required when development is proposed. Table 5.1 summarizes the development standards in the RAS-1 and RAS-2 zones, starting with the minimum lot size requirements of one acre and two acres. The Code states that existing parcels of record that are smaller than the minimum lot size requirements are considered to be conforming. Minimum dimensional standards are established for new lots, including the ratio of width to depth and a requirement for a minimum width of 150 feet. There are also standards for minimum street frontage, keeping in mind that most streets are private and contained within easements. These standards are more flexible on cul-de-sacs, depending on turning radius. As indicated in Table 5.1, building coverage is limited to 20 percent of the net lot area in both the RAS-1 and RAS-2 zones. Total impervious surface coverage (structures and hardscape) is limited to 35 percent of the net lot area; maximum disturbed area is limited to 40 percent of the net lot area; and building height is restricted to one story. The code identifies 2:1 (50%) as the maximum buildable slope. A minimum dwelling size of 1,300 square feet is established for the primary unit on the site. The Code includes setback standards of 50’ for front and rear yards, and 20’ for side yards in RAS-1 and 35’ for side yards in RAS-2. Lower standards apply in the OZD-1 overlay zone and exceptions are provided for lots along street easements.2 The zoning code affirms the one-story construction requirement established by the Rolling Hills Community Association (the RDM Overlay area is subject to a two-story requirement). The finished floor of structures must be no more than five feet above grade. Basements are 2 The City is currently developing standards to implement SB 9, which allows the division of existing lots into two parcels and the construction of two dwellings on each parcel, subject to specific objective standards and other considerations. 537 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-4 permitted and storage areas may be located above or below a story. The code also provides standards for graded building pads and requirements for stables and corral sites. Table 5.1: Summary of Rolling Hills Zoning Standards(1) RAS-1 RAS-2 OZD overlay Minimum Lot Size 1 acre 2 acres N/A Setbacks Front 50’ from front easement line (2) 30 feet from front roadway easement Side 35 feet (3) 20 feet (3) 20 feet, reduced to 10’ for street side yards Rear 50 feet Structure Coverage (4) 20% Impervious Surface Coverage 35% Building Pad Coverage 30% Maximum Disturbed Area 40% of net lot area (excl. easements) Maximum Height One-story (1) Standards for the RDM Overlay Zone and standards for ADUs are addressed in Section 5.3.2 of the Housing Element. (2) Most property is Rolling Hills is subject to easements varying in width around each property boundary and road easements, granted by the property owner to the RHCA, a private corporation, or another person or entity for the purpose of construction and/or maintenance and use of streets, driveways, trails, utility lines, drainage facilities, open space, and/or a combination of these uses. The RHCA requires that all easement s must be kept free of buildings, fences, plantings or other obstructions. (3) Reduced to 20’ in RAS-2 and 10’ in RAS-1 and OZD if there is a private street along the side property line. (4) The percentage figures in Table 5.1 apply to the “net lot area” on each parcel, which excludes these easements. Additional standards in the Zoning Code prohibit reflective outdoor siding, limit outdoor lighting (to maintain dark skies), and require Class “A” roofing. Conditions are established for specific accessory uses, such as greenhouses, pools, and playgrounds. This includes a requirement that guest houses (which are different from ADUs) may not exceed 800 square feet. Whereas guest houses may not be rented and typically require a conditional use permit, ADUs are permitted by right and subject to different standards (see P. 5-5). A minimum of two garage parking spaces are required for each single family dwelling unit. An additional space is required for homes with guest houses (as noted above, guest houses are treated differently than ADUs). Homes are also required to have driveways, which are generally limited to 20 feet in width and one per lot, though exceptions apply. The parking requirement is not a development constraint and is appropriate given the size of parcels, the high number of automobiles per household3, and the fact that the streets lack sidewalks and are too narrow to permit on-street parking. There is also no public transit service in the city. 3 The 2015-2019 US Census American Community Survey indicates that 63% of all households in Rolling Hills own three or more vehicles. 538 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-5 The development standards in Table 5.1 do not present constraints to the construction of single family homes. Even a “small” substandard lot of 200’ x 200’ (40,000) square feet would be allowed 16,000 square feet of buildable area after required setbacks are subtracted. The allowable structure coverage on such a lot would be 8,000 square feet, providing more than enough space for a residence and detached accessory structures. The requirement for single- story construction has not constrained single family construction, given the ample building footprint accommodated on each site. In fact, single-story construction has enabled many older adults in Rolling Hills to age in place. State law also requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory. No such requests have been received in Rolling Hills, as development typically occurs on existing lots rather than through subdivision or multi-unit construction. 5.2.3 Standards for Different Housing Types Section 65583 and 65583.2 of the Government Code require cities to plan for a “variety of types of housing, including multi-family rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.” Accordingly, the Rolling Hills Housing Element includes provisions for each of these housing types in the city, with the exception of housing explicitly reserved for agricultural employees, since this was not identified as being a need in the city. Accessory Dwelling Units4 An Accessory Dwelling Unit—or ADU—is an attached or detached dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. ADUs are commonly known as in-law units, second units, or granny flats. A “Junior” Accessory Dwelling Unit (or JADU) is an ADU that it is no more than 500 square feet in size, contained entirely within the footprint of an existing or proposed single family dwelling, and has an efficiency kitchen. JADUs often have their own bathrooms but they may also share bathrooms with the primary residence. State law now requires that all cities and counties permit ADUs and JADUs meeting certain standards “by right”—in other words, without a public hearing or discretionary approval. Prior to 2018, ADUs and JADUs were not permitted in Rolling Hills. However, the zoning regulations allowed the construction of non-rentable guest houses for family members, visitors, and domestic employees on all residential properties. The large size and high value of properties in Rolling Hills has supported the development of guest houses in the past, resulting in a large inventory of structures that could potentially be converted from guest houses to ADUs in the future. The city also has a large number of accessory structures such as barns, pool cabanas, studios and workshops that could be converted to ADUs. Because of the single story 4 This text was prepared in December 2021. Subsequent to its initial publication, the City coordinated with HCD to adopt amendments to its ADU ordinance to ensure that it is fully compliant with State law. These amendments were approved in August 2022. 539 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-6 construction requirement, there are also a substantial number of homes with floor plans conducive to Junior ADUs, as many homes have wings, additions, or rooms that could easily be partitioned as independent living units. In January 2018, the City Amended Chapter 17.28 of the Municipal Code to allow for the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs and JADUs). Consistent with State law (Government Code 65852.2 and 65852.22), the City allows ADUs and JADUs ministerially (e.g., without a discretionary public hearing) provided the units meet specific standards and design criteria established in the zoning code. The City has also created a discretionary review path for projects that do not meet these standards. Chapter 17.28 establishes that an ADU and JADU may be allowed with a simple building permit if it is within the space of an existing single family dwelling or accessory structure, including an allowance for up to 150 additional square feet for ingress and egress. The unit must also have exterior access independent of the single family dwelling and side and rear setbacks that meet building and fire codes. In addition, detached ADUs are permitted with a building permit (and no additional permit) if they are 800 square feet or less, no more than 16 feet tall, and have side and rear setbacks of at least four feet. A second permitting path has been created for units that are between 800 and 1,000 square feet. Such units require an ADU Permit, which like the building permit is issued ministerially, with no discretionary review. These units are subject to a size limit of 850 square feet for a studio or one bedroom and 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit. If attached to the primary dwelling, the unit is subject to a requirement that it may not exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling. The ADU may not cause the lot coverage on the property to exceed 50 percent or cause the FAR to exceed 0.45. Setback standards also apply. The City’s ADU ordinance incorporates State standards for parking, which waive parking requirements for JADUs and units created by converting habitable accessory structures. Parking is also waived for units near public transit stops or car-share vehicles. This is generally not applicable in Rolling Hills, since the community is not served by transit or car-share services. Per State law, the Code allows for carports and garages to be converted to ADUs without replacement parking. Where this situation does not apply, one space is required for each ADU, and tandem parking is permitted. ADUs are subject to general requirements, such as fire sprinklers (if the unit is in the primary residence) and a prohibition on short-term rentals (less than 30 days). They are also subject to permit streamlining requirements, including a requirement to act on the application within 60 days after it is deemed complete. This time period may be extended at the applicant’s request, or if the ADU is located within a new single family dwelling on the lot. The City allows both the ADU and the primary residence to be rented, although there are limitations on renting JADUs if the primary residence is not owner occupied.5 The City’s Ordinance also prohibits the sale of an ADU separately from the lot and primary dwelling. ADUs are also subject to basic architectural standards, including compatibility with the design of the primary dwelling. This is objectively quantified, for instance by specifying that the roof pitch 5 JADUs (units created within the floorplan of an existing home) are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement unless the property is owned by a government agency, land trust, or housing organization. 540 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-7 must match the primary dwelling, and that the entry be on the side or rear elevation. The ADU is also subject to a minimum length and width standard of 10 feet, and a minimum ceiling height of seven feet. Landscape screening requirements apply to units that are near adjacent parcels. If the ADU changes the building exterior or involves a new structure, it is subject to design review by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee (see next section for further discussion). ADUs smaller than 750 square feet are exempt from all impact fees. Units larger than 750 square feet may only be charged impact fees that are proportionally related to the square footage of the unit. The Code also includes waivers for utility connection fees for most ADUs, thereby reducing construction and operating costs. Moreover, the Code provides the option for a conditional use permit for ADUs that do not conform to the basic development standards of Chapter 17.28. Overall, these requirements do not constrain or inhibit ADU or JADU construction. The regulations reflect State regulations and create ample opportunities for homeowners to earn extra income while providing a new dwelling unit for a tenant, employee, caregiver or family member. Given the large lot sizes in the city, the setback standards, FAR standards, and lot coverage limits still allow for generous ADU footprints. Likewise, the single story requirement is consistent with the requirement for single family homes. The “bonus” 150 square feet for JADU ingress/egress creates an incentive for such units. The requirement to provide a parking space is consistent with State law, since there is no transit in Rolling Hills—and is not a constraint given the large lot sizes and substantial driveway space available on most lots. While no constraints have been identified, there are opportunities to provide incentives for ADUs that have yet to be realized. Because of recent changes to State law, there are opportunities for ADUs to be conveyed separately or operated by non-profits and/or affordable housing providers. As noted in Chapter 6, the City will pursue future programs to encourage ADU construction, including ADUs for very low and low income households. This includes creating a roster of ADUs and an inventory of units that meet “extremely low income” needs by providing housing for family members, domestic employees, or other long-term occupants. Additionally, State law for ADUs was amended in 2020 and 2021. Several provisions in the City’s regulations must be updated for consistency. This includes eliminating the prohibition on ADUs with more than two bedrooms, and adding a provision that completed applications be deemed approved if they are not acted upon within 60 days. The City will work with the State Housing and Community Development Department to determine if there are other provisions of the ordinance that require updating. Program 6.10 in Chapter 6 identifies this as a high priority action, to be completed by October 15, 2022.6 Multi-Family Housing In February 2021, the City amended its General Plan and zoning regulations to allow multi-family housing within the City limits. This was a key implementation measure in the Fifth Cycle Housing Element. New policies in the General Plan Land Use Element expressly support a range of housing types in the city, including multi-family housing. Chapter 17.19 of the 6 These changes were made and this action was completed in August 2022. 541 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-8 Municipal Code creates the Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Opportunity Overlay Zone, which has the following objectives: • Create “by right” opportunities for multi-family housing • Implement state laws that require cities to demonstrate available land capacity and zoning to accommodate the City’s current and projected need for housing • Facilitate well-designed development projects • Encourage development that provides attractive features that integrate the public realm with development on adjacent private property. The zone is mapped on the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar school site, which as noted in Chapter 4 and Appendix B, is the most viable location for multi-family housing in Rolling Hills. The zone allows 16 units of multi-family housing on the site (excluding potential density bonus units), with a requirement that this housing be constructed at a density of 20 to 24 units per acre. The 20 unit per acre minimum density requirement corresponds to the “default density” under AB 2348, while the 16-unit requirement is based on the number of units permitted by the underlying General Plan and RAS-2 zoning designations. It is also a threshold used by HCD to identify viable housing sites. Affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right in this zone, provided it is affordable to low and very low-income households and meets objective design standards that are included in the zoning code. These include minimum dwelling unit sizes of 250 square feet for a studio, 400 square feet for a one-bedroom, 650 square feet for a two-bedroom, and 900 square feet for a three-bedroom. Higher minimums had been proposed initially but were lowered to the adopted standards based on direction from HCD that the above figures would not constrain development. As noted above, the allowable density range for the Zone is 20-24 units per acre. Numerous projects—both market-rate and affordable—have been developed in this density range in Los Angeles County in recent years. The range can accommodate apartments, condominiums, townhomes, row houses, clustered units, manufactured homes, and small detached cottages. All of these housing types would be permitted under the regulations prescribed by the Overlay Zone. Development standards for multi-family housing within the Overlay Zone are conducive to higher density construction. These standards require 5-foot front and side setbacks and a 10-foot rear setback. Encroachments such as decks, balconies, awnings, porches, and stairways may extend into the setback areas, and architectural features such as eaves and cornices are also permitted in the setbacks. There are no lot coverage standards or Floor Area Ratio limits. A 28’ height applies, allowing two-story construction. This is the only place in Rolling Hills where two- story construction is permitted. Development is subject to a requirement that 100 square feet of common open space be provided for each dwelling unit. Thus a 16-unit project would be required to set aside 1,600 square feet of shared open space, which is equivalent to about 5 percent of the development site (assuming a density of 20 units per acre). When drafting the Ordinance, the City initially proposed a common open space standard of 150 square feet per unit, but this was reduced to 100 square feet during HCD’s review of the draft to eliminate the potential for a constraint. 542 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-9 One parking space per unit is required, plus one guest parking space for every 10 units. For senior housing, one space per unit is required for the first 10 units, and 0.5 spaces per unit are required for any additional units. The RDMO zone allows surface parking, with no requirements for garages or carports. At 180 square feet per parking space, the total area dedicated to parking in a 20 unit per acre project would be 3,240 square feet, or about nine percent of the site. Even with driveway lanes, the total area of the site required for parking would be small. Moreover, the ordinance includes provisions for reduced parking where certain conditions exist (shared parking agreements with nearby uses, available street parking, etc.). No parking is permitted in the 20’ front setback area (at the driveway location). This would not be a constraint given the large size of any parcel that would be created in the future to accommodate multi-family development. Moreover, the front yard setback for structures is only five feet, which creates more space for the building envelope and encourages parking to be placed to the rear or side of the parcel, potentially within the setback. The development standards require that multi-family housing be located at least 50 feet from the toe of the slope associated with a hillside area within the Overlay District. Figure 5.1 shows the sloped area and indicates that the linear distance between the toe of the slope and the access road serving the multi-family development site is 337 feet. Thus the area where structures are acceptable extends 287 linear feet back from the access road (minus a 5-foot front setback). While the rear 50 feet may not include structures, it could include open space and other amenities, including parking and driveways. The 50’ setback does not affect parcel width (i.e., the east-west dimension), and still leaves room for a substantial development site on the property. Figure 5.1: Slope Setbacks on PVUSD Site 543 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-10 Because affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right in the Overlay Zone, the City has adopted objective design standards to ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent uses. These address residential frontages (facades, etc.), usable open space standards, public space amenity requirements, and operational standards. Such standards have the potential to create a development constraint if they are too onerous or add to the cost of housing. The residential frontage standards require that the ground floor be no more than five feet above the ground surface. This is easily attained, since the site is relatively flat. The standards establish a 10’ floor to floor height, which is consistent with the overall 28’ height limit as well as typical residential construction standards and interior ceiling heights. Entrances and windows are required along the front façade, and entrances to individual units may either be direct to the exterior, or to an interior hallway. Stoops and porches may be located on the exterior, and projecting elements (bay windows, eaves, balconies) may extend into setback areas. Street tree, landscaping, and lighting requirements apply, but these do not constrain development. The usable open space standards likewise do not represent a constraint. These requirements call for an amenity such as a children’s playground or clubhouse in multi-family projects. The amenity may be indoors or outdoors and may not include parking areas, streets, or driveways. Projects are also expected to include amenities such as pedestrian walkways, landscaping, bike storage racks, and screened trash enclosures, and would need to comply with building code standards for interior noise. These are common requirements in California communities and do not represent a constraint. Mobile and Manufactured Homes As required by State law, the City Zoning Ordinance allows for manufactured housing units to reduce residential construction costs. Section 17.12.130 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code defines manufactured homes and mobile homes as “single family dwellings”; as such, they are subject to the same standards as wood-frame construction. Emergency Shelters Every city in California is required to identify a zone where at least one year-round emergency shelter is permitted without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit (Govt Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)). The Government Code further requires that emergency shelters be subject to the same standards that apply to residential and commercial development in that zone, except that certain objective standards prescribed by the State may apply. In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to permit emergency shelters “by right” in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Zone. Rolling Hills has adopted standards for shelters that meet the requirements of the Government Code and facilitate emergency shelter construction or conversion. The RDMO Zone encompasses over 31 acres of public property, most of which is underutilized. There are opportunities to create shelters by converting existing buildings, constructing new buildings, or using temporary facilities such as portables or tiny homes. This use is permitted by right, with no discretionary permit required by the City. There are no limitations on where shelters may locate within the boundary of the RDMO Zone. Since shelter beds do not constitute “dwelling units”, an emergency shelter would 544 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-11 not be considered part of the 16 dwelling units permitted by the Overlay Zone and would not affect the number of allowable multi-family units in the Zone. The City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review in December 2020 and subsequently revised those standards to ensure that they are compliant with the Government Code and do not present a constraint to emergency shelter development. The adopted standards include: • Shelters may be 300 feet apart, consistent with Government Code 65583(a)(4)(A)(v) One parking space for each staff person must be provided. There are no supplemental parking requirements based on the number of beds. The requirements are consistent with Government Code 65583(a)(4)(V)(A)(ii) and are no greater than those that apply to other land uses and activities in the RDMO zoning district. • A maximum of 12 beds applies. This is comparable to the maximums that apply in nearby cities, including those with unsheltered populations. • 50 square feet of personal living space is required for each occupant, excluding common areas. • The standards allow, but do not require, shelters to include a dining room, commercial kitchen, laundry room, recreation room, child care facilities, and support services (the Code indicates these may be provided, but they are not mandatory) • At least five percent of the shelter area must be dedicated for on-site waiting and intake, and an equivalent (or larger) area is required for exterior waiting • Shelters must comply with building code, plumbing code, and trash enclosure requirements—the same standards that apply to other uses in the Overlay Zone and in the underlying base RAS-2 Zone. Consistent with the Government Code, an application to operate an emergency shelter requires submittal of a management and operations plan that addresses hours of operation, staffing levels, maximum length of stay, and security procedures. The application would require approval by the City Administrator, based on satisfaction of the conditions listed above and review for compliance with Building, Fire, and other applicable regulations. The regulations do not constrain emergency shelter development and are compliant with Government Code requirements. As they were just put into effect in 2021, the City will monitor their effectiveness over the 2021-2029 planning period to determine if changes are needed. Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to allow Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing in the RDMO Zone. These are facilities with individual rooms or small efficiency apartments designed for very low-income persons. There are no limitations on where SROs may locate within the boundary of the RDMO Zone. A Conditional Use Permit is required. In December 2020, the City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review and subsequently revised those standards to ensure that they do not present a constraint to SRO development. The adopted standards include: 545 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-12 • A minimum of six units and a maximum of eight units • Maximum occupancy of two persons per unit • Floor area of 250-350 square feet per unit • Each room must include a water closet (Toilet plus sink) • Each room must include a kitchen sink with a disposal (but not necessarily a full kitchen) • Each unit must have a closet • Full kitchens (i.e., with range, refrigerator, dishwasher, etc.) and full bathrooms (with shower/bath) may be provided in each unit but are not required. If these facilities are not included in each unit, then shared facilities are required on each floor. • 0.5 parking spaces are required per unit, plus one space for each employee on duty • Occupancy is for 30 days or more The City initially proposed including a requirement for 24-hour on-site management, and a requirement for elevators in the event the building was two stories. Both of these requirements were removed following HCD’s feedback that they were potential constraints. Requiring 24-hour management requirement could be a constraint for a 6-8 unit facility. As a result, on-site management is not required on a 24-hour basis. Given that the building would only be two stories, the requirement for elevators was removed. Since SRO rooms would not be classified as independent “dwelling units”, they would not be considered part of the 16 units permitted by the Overlay Zone and would not reduce the number of allowable multi-family units in the Zone. Supportive, Transitional, and Employee Housing Supportive housing is a type of rental housing that includes on-site services such as medical assistance or treatment of chronic health conditions or disabilities. Transitional housing is a type of supportive housing but is specifically intended for unsheltered residents who are transitioning to permanent housing. Supportive and transitional housing is not associated with a specific structure type—single family homes can be used in this manner, and so can multi-family buildings. Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires cities to treat transitional and supportive housing as residential uses that are only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. In other words, a City cannot hold a single family home used as supportive housing to a different standard for parking, setbacks, floor area, etc. than a single family home occupied by a family or other type of household. Public Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 requires the City to treat employee housing for six or fewer people the same as other single family housing in each zoning district. For example, if a corporation in another city purchased a home in Rolling Hills and allowed its employees to live there, the use would be treated like any other single family home. Rolling Hills presently has no Code language that limits transitional, supportive, or employee housing or imposes any special restrictions on such housing. However, these housing types are not expressly acknowledged in the Municipal Code. The 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an action item to add definitions of transitional, supportive, and employee housing to the Municipal Code within six months of Housing Element adoption, acknowledging that such 546 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-13 housing is permitted or conditionally permitted in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone, as required by State law.7 Housing Constraints for Persons with Disabilities Government Code Sections 65583(a)(4) requires the Housing Element to include “an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement of development of housing…for persons with disabilities. AB 686 also requires the City to affirmatively further fair housing, which includes housing that meets the needs of persons with disabilities. In November 2020, the City Council approved reasonable accommodation procedures, including application requirements, review procedures, findings, and provisions for noticing and advertising the opportunity. These procedures establish a process through which persons with disabilities can request reasonable accommodations (or modifications) to the City’s codes, rules, policies, practices or services so that they have an equal opportunity to enjoy or use a dwelling. The City has also adopted a resolution recognizing the Americans with Disabilities Act, including a commitment to assist disabled residents. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when the application of a land use, zoning, or building regulation, policy, practice, or procedure acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. The City has posted notices at City Hall informing the public of its right to make such a request, including application forms for those making a request. Requests are generally made to the City Manager. Once a completed application is received, the City Manager has 45 days to make a written determination. Additional information may be requested of the applicant in order to make an informed determination. An alternative solution to the one proposed by the applicant may be considered if it would reduce impacts and still achieve the intent of the request. The request is granted, with or without conditions, if the City Manager finds that the housing will be occupied by an eligible individual, the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the individual with equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, the requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City, or fundamentally alter the City’s zoning or building laws or undermine the General Plan, and there are no other reasonable accommodation methods that would allow the applicant to enjoy the dwelling that would be less impactful on the surrounding area. Conditions of approval may be replaced on the application. These may include periodic inspection to verify compliance, recordation of a deed restriction requiring removal of the improvements when it is no longer needed, time limits, measures to reduce off-site impacts, and measures that respond to the unique physical attributes of the property. Decisions may be appealed. Rolling Hills has adopted the Los Angeles County Building Code. As long as construction is consistent with the Building Code, residents are permitted to provide any disabled access or 7 This action was completed in August 2022 and the City is now fully compliant. 547 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-14 amenity improvements necessary to reduce barriers. Access to homes via ramps is permitted. One-story construction throughout the community removes a major barrier for persons with disabilities and facilitates access for persons with mobility limitations. Accessibility improvements, universal design changes, and other accommodations for persons with disabilities are processed administratively in conjunction with the building permit process and are permitted in both of the City’s residential zones. No constraints to housing for persons with disabilities were identified in this analysis. As noted in Chapter 3, the city’s large population of older adults requires ongoing efforts to facilitate retrofitting of existing homes for residents with physical limitations, and their caregivers. Residential Care Facilities and Definition of “Family” The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act requires that small licensed residential care facilities for six of fewer clients be treated as regular residential uses and permitted by right in all residential districts. Care facilities with seven or more clients (e.g., “large” residential care facilities) may be subject to additional requirements but must be treated the same as other residential uses in that zoning district. Cities that require conditional use permits for large residential care facilities are required to mitigate this constraint in their housing elements. At this point in time, the Rolling Hills Zoning Code does not expressly mention or define residential care facilities, nor does it distinguish between “large” and “small” facilities. The Code should be amended to expressly indicate that this use is permitted by right in all zones where housing is allowed, and is subject to the same standards, fees, and procedures as other residential uses in those zones. This is required by State law. As required by California Health and Safety Code Section 1566.2, the City does not collect business taxes, registration fees, or other fees for small residential care facilities. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code includes a definition of “family” in its zoning regulations. Overly restrictive definitions may pose a housing constraint, but in this instance the definition is broad and inclusive. According to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, “family” means: “one or more persons living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding, rooming or lodging house, hotel or club. Family may include domestic servants.” 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts of Land Use Controls State law requires the City to consider not only the impact of individual development standards, but also the cumulative effects of these standards on the cost and supply of housing. For example, it is possible that a particular setback requirement may appear reasonable on its own b ut may limit development opportunities when combined with height and lot coverage limits. Sometimes, the combined effect of different development controls can require more expensive construction or result in frequent zoning variances. Because of the very large lot sizes in Rolling Hills, the zoning standards do not create an adverse cumulative impact on development costs or the housing supply. As previously noted (pages 5-2 548 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-15 and 5-4), a special zoning overlay (OZD-1) was created in 2012 to recognize that some parts of the city have prevailing lot sizes that are smaller than the one-acre minimum required by the RAS- 1 district. Roughly 10 percent of the City’s parcels are covered by this zone, which allows reduced setbacks in order to avoid the need for zoning variances. As noted earlier, the combination of front, rear, and side yard setbacks on a rectangular one-acre lot would still allow for a buildable area of over 16,000 square feet. Most parcels are considerably larger than one acre and have buildable areas that exceed 20,000 square feet. FAR and lot coverage limits likewise allow ample structure coverage, and homes larger than 10,000 square feet can be built without Variances on most lots. The one-story height limit tends to produce building footprints that are quite large—but still within the 20% structure coverage requirement. Each residence is required to have two covered parking spaces (three, if an ADU or guest quarters are on-site). This requirement is modest given the typically large home size and does not constrain building construction. The land use controls also do not present a cumulative constraint to ADU construction. Almost every parcel in the City has the land area or existing built floor area to support an ADU, and many homes already have spaces that could be easily converted to ADUs. The ADU and JADU regulations adopted in 2018 and revised in 2020 were drafted to work in tandem with the controls for the RAS-1 and RAS-2 districts and have laid the foundation for substantial ADU production. There are no cumulative land use constraints to multi-family development. The Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Zone standards have been tested to ensure they are internally consistent and can support housing in the 20-24 unit/acre range. The RDMO Zone allows multi-family housing to be either owner or renter occupied. New housing units in this zone must be affordable. The affordability requirement is not a constraint to development, as the site is publicly owned and represents a unique opportunity for reduced land and construction costs. There are no comparable opportunities in the city, as this is the only property in Rolling Hills that is flat, vacant, served by public sewer, and walking distance from public transit. Prior to August 2022, Oone notable omission from the City’s zoning regulations was a provision for density bonuses. State law requires that the City offer a density bonus for projects that set aside various percentages of units for affordable housing, senior housing, and other types of special needs housing. The number of bonus units is based on a sliding scale and can be up to 50 percent above the base density permitted by zoning. For projects where all units are affordable to low and very low income households, the density bonus rises to 80 percent. A density bonus could be requested for the Rancho Del Mar site, since the overlay requires that any multi-family housing is 100 percent affordable. This would allow 28 units on the site instead of the 16 allowed by the General Plan and zoning. Density bonus provisions were adopted by Rolling Hills in August 2022 and the City is now fully compliant with this requirement. The Housing Element includes a program recommendation that the City amend the Municipal Code to adopt density bonus provisions or adopt the State provisions by reference. 549 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-16 5.2.5 Building Code Standards The City of Rolling Hills adopted the Building Code for Los Angeles County in effect on January 1, 2020 as its Building Code. A number of local amendments to the Code were made. This includes an allowance for the City Council to hold a public hearing to review decisions of the County Board of Appeals, Code Enforcement Appeals Board, or Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board. Other local amendments include a modified definition of “basement” (to avoid the appearance of multi-story buildings), adjusted provisions for grading and cut slopes, limits on driveway slope, and limits on developing slopes over 50 percent. The City has also adopted the Los Angeles County Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, Residential Code, Fire Code, and Green Building Code. Effective July 1, 2008, all land in the City of Rolling Hills was deemed to be a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” (VHFHSZ). As a result, several more restrictive fire safety standards have been adopted. The City also has adopted standards for hours of construction, and requirements for geological surveys and investigations. 5.2.6 Permit Processing Times and Approval Procedures Processing and permit procedures can be a constraint to the production and improvement of housing due to the time they add the development process. Unclear permitting procedures, layered reviews, multiple discretionary review requirements, and costly conditions of approval can increase the cost of housing, create uncertainty in the development process, and increase the financial risk assumed by the developer. In Rolling Hills, the time required to process a project varies depending on the size and complexity of the proposal, and the volume of projects being reviewed. Not every project must complete every possible step in the process. In addition, certain review and approval procedures may run concurrently. For smaller projects, permit processing times tend to be faster than in most cities. Administrative review applications (i.e., those that do not require public hearings) typically take only a few days to process. However, the City’s capacity is limited, requiring that some permit processing functions are contracted out. Even smaller projects that are approved ministerially typically require review by the Rolling Hills Community Association and the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department, in its role as the contracted building authority of the City. The City collects no fees for over the counter review—such fees are assessed when the project is submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Administrative review processes have been created for residential additions less than 1,000 square feet, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, remodels, foundation repair, and re-roofing. Such projects are required to submit two sets of plans, various checklists, and calculations of existing and proposed square footage, lot coverage, and impervious surface coverage. The City’s website provides comprehensive information for applicants seeking permits, including on-line portals for applications, payment, and checking progress on permit status. Larger projects such as new homes take longer, but they are less common. New homes in 550 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-17 Rolling Hills are multi-million dollar projects that often require demolition, site preparation and grading, and new driveways before construction may begin. Larger projects may also require review by the LA County Health Department for the adequacy of the septic system, and the Fire Department for fuel modification. Unless specifically exempted by State law, large projects such as new homes and residential additions of 1,000 square feet or larger are subject to Site Plan Review. An initial consultation with staff is strongly encouraged at the start of the process. Once an application is received, it is reviewed for completeness, including required calculations, elevations, and site plans. When the application is deemed complete, it is forwarded to the Planning Commission for a hearing, including a recommendation from staff. The Site Plan review process typically takes three to six months from start to finish, including a field trip by Planning Commissioners to the project site at the start of the process. The process may be completed in a single hearing but on occasion may take two to three hearings so that issues raised by the Commission and public can be addressed. Additionally, project applicants may modify their site plans after approval and return to the Commission for approval of major revisions. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve Site Plan Review applications. The decision of the Commission is considered final unless an appeal is filed with the City Council or the City Council decides to take the application under its jurisdiction. The decision becomes effective 30 days after adoption of the resolution. Approval of a Site Plan Review application requires findings related to compliance with the General Plan and adopted lot coverage standards, preservation of topography and vegetation, grading that follows natural contours or does not adversely modify natural drainage channels, the use of drought-tolerant landscaping, impacts to pedestrian movement, and compliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission does not expressly perform design review as part of this process, as its findings are principally related to address public health, safety, and welfare. Design review occurs privately, through the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). The RHCA has an Architectural Committee that reviews plans for new homes and large additions to ensure that easements are kept free and clear of structures, including fences and other obstructions.8 Projects are submitted to LA County Building and Safety following RHCA review. RHCA maintains its own design guidelines, covering such topics as roofs, walls, windows, doors, and lighting. Because RCHA is a non-governmental agency, these guidelines are described later in this report under non-governmental constraints (see discussion of CC&Rs on page 5-22). Projects that require Variances to development standards or Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) also require Planning Commission hearings. CUPs are required for large horse stables and corrals, detached garages, tennis courts, and a number of other large-footprint site features. From start to finish, the process from submittal of plans to approval of permits may take six months or longer for 8 School District and City-owned property is exempt from this requirement. Thus, any development in the RDMO Housing Opportunity Zone would not be subject to RHCA review. 551 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-18 a brand new home. Applications for ADUs, major remodels, residential additions, and accessory structures are more common, and are processed more rapidly. ADUs, JADUs, and other ministerially approved projects take approximately two to four weeks to process. The City regularly seeks ways to expedite processing and improve the timeliness of its services. At the present time, permitting and processing time is not considered a constraint and the City complies with the time limit requirements established by Sections 65943 and 65950 of the Government Code. The Site Plan Review requirements and other permitting requirements are not a constraint to the development of multi-family or affordable housing as they would not apply to projects on the Rancho Del Mar site nor would they apply to ADUs that meet the City’s adopted standards. As such, they have no impact on the cost, supply, timing, or approval certainty of these projects. For new single family homes, the review requirements result in processing times that may take several months. However, they do not affect the supply approval certainty. In a review of applications over the past eight years, only one application was denied (requesting a height modification to approved addition in 2017) and another application had a partial denial (for stairs and walls, in 2014). 5.2.7 Site Improvement Requirements The principal site improvements required upon development of a vacant property are the undergrounding of electrical lines to the structure, installation of a septic system, and conformance to the City’s outdoor lighting standards. Road and emergency access (fire safety) improvements may be required for properties that do not have street frontage or have other access constraints. New development in Rolling Hills consists almost entirely of custom homes on existing vacant or previously developed lots, rather than subdivision of “raw land,” which tends to reduce overall improvement requirements. At the Rancho Del Mar affordable housing site, installation of curb and gutter improvements would be required prior to development, but the site already has road access, storm drainage, and water and sewer facilities in place. There would be no special or unique site improvement requirements imposed on development of this site. Projects requiring the subdivision of land would be subject to the standards set forth by the City’s subdivision regulations, which are specified in Title 16 of the Municipal Code. These standards establish a 24-foot road width for streets. A 32-foot turning radius is required on dead-end streets, and grades may not exceed six percent. The standards recognize that all streets in Rolling Hills are private. The City Council has the discretion to require additional site improvements adjacent to sites where land is being subdivided, including widening existing roads to meet neighborhood traffic and drainage needs. The subdivider may also be required to provide drainage improvements, in accordance with standards set by the City Engineer and with the city’s MS4 permit (see P 5-26). The subdivision ordinance further specifies that water mains and fire hydrants may be required when new lots are created, and that easements for gas and electric services may be required. The cost of installing a new septic system is generally not a constraint for brand new homes but can be an impediment for ADUs and smaller additions, particularly for homeowners with limited incomes. At minimum, the County Health Department requires a feasibility study for any project that could result in septic tank capacity being exceeded. Older homes may face costly septic 552 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-19 installation requirements that could render a home addition or ADU infeasible. Programs to assist lower income or senior homeowners with septic tank replacement could be considered, particularly where an ADU is being added. 5.2.8 Development and Permitting Fees Fees are charged by the City and other agencies to cover the costs of processing permits and providing services and facilities, such as utilities, schools, and infrastructure. Most of these fees are assessed through a pro rata system based on the square footage or value of the project, the staff time required for processing, and the magnitude of the project’s impact. If fees become excessive, they can become a constraint on development and make it more difficult to build housing affordably. They can also place a burden on lower income homeowners seeking to modify their homes or add an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Table 5.2: City of Rolling Hills Major Development Fees1 Fee Type Fee Amount Notes Site Plan Review $1,500 Conditional Use Permit $1,500 Variance $1,250 Minor Variance $750 Encroachments from main structure that do not extend more than 5’ into required setbacks Zoning Change or Code Amendment $2,000 General Plan Amendment $2,000 Accessory Dwelling Unit application $375 Major Remodel Review $375 View Impairment Review $2,000 Processing fee for Committee review of impacts on trees and views Water Efficient Landscape Review $1,500 Unused balance refunded Traffic Commission Review $300 Required for new driveways Lot Line Adjustment $1,500 Plus County fee Tentative Parcel Map $1,500 Plus County fee Final Parcel Map -- County fee only Environmental Review Determination $200 Plus Fish and Game Fee Environmental Impact Reports Consultant fee plus 10% Only required as needed Appeal Fee 2/3 of original application fee Only required as needed Source: City of Rolling Hills, 2021. Barry Miller Consulting, 2021 553 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-20 1 This is not a comprehensive list of all fees but covers the major development-related categories in the City’s fee schedule. The fee schedule also covers records searches, inspections, and review of grading plans. A summary of residential development fees charged by the City of Rolling Hills is presented in Table 5.2. Most projects do not require payment of these fees, as they would not typically require use permits, Variances, Zoning changes, General Plan amendments, CEQA review, lot line adjustments, and so on. However, Site Plan Review is commonly required for all new homes and major additions, and ADU permits are required for larger ADUs. For projects complying with City standards and requirements, the fees are not a development constraint. Rolling Hills is one of 13 cities that contracts with the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety (LACDBS) for plan checking, building permits, and building inspection. The County issues building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits on the City’s behalf. The cost schedules for the incorporated cities served by LACDBS are higher than the schedules for the unincorporated area but are comparable to nearby cities with full-service building departments. A residential project with an assessed valuation of $100,000 would be subject to a plan check fee of $3,413 and a permit fee of $4,029. This includes required energy and disabled access checking costs. As the value of a project increases, the fees decline as a percentage of total project costs. They represent 7 percent of a $100,000 project but less than 5 percent of a $500,000 project. The fee schedules for other permits varies by type. Electrical permits are subject to a base fee of $74.70, plus a cost per square foot ($0.20/SF for multi-family and $0.50/SF for single family and duplexes). Separate fees are collected for swimming pools, branch circuits, lighting fixtures, appliances, and electrical plan checking. Mechanical permits are collected for HVAC systems, compression units, boilers, refrigeration systems, etc. Plumbing permits are based on the number of fixtures and also cover projects requiring connection to septic tanks and work such as solar water heaters, sprinkler systems, and backflow protection devices. Relative to the other 12 cities that contract with Los Angeles County, the fee schedule in Rolling Hills is slightly higher. However, the fees are lower in Rolling Hills than in nearby Rolling Hills Estates. The County also collects fees for projects requiring geotechnical review. This would apply to most new housing units in Rolling Hills. The fee ranges from $2,752 to $17,746, with the actual amount based on 0.50% of the value of the proposed structure. Additional fees are charged for geotechnical site inspections and geotechnical review of grading plans. Los Angeles County typically updates its fees annually based on the consumer price index and other factors. The increase in 2021 was 2.2 percent for all cities served by the County. Rolling Hills updates its fee schedule less frequently, although fees are considered as part of the annual budgeting process. Some of the City’s fees—such as the fees for parcel maps and lot line adjustments—have not been updated in many years. There are no local surcharges or special fees associated with multi-family housing. On a per unit basis, permitting costs would be substantially lower for multi-family units than for new single family units. This is due to the smaller size of multi-family units and to multi-family housing being permitted “by right” within the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, with no applicable administrative fees. The City’s fee structure has not historically distinguished between single and multi -family construction, as multi-family housing only recently became a permitted use. 554 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-21 A number of other fees apply in Rolling Hills; these are typically associated with new residences and are intended to offset the additional cost of providing services. These include: • A Park and Recreation Fund Fee, which is equivalent to 2% of the first $100,000 in building evaluation, plus an additional 0.5% of the remaining balance. The fee for a $1 million construction project would be $6,000. This fee is only charged for new primary homes---ADUs are exempt. • A School Impact Fee, which is paid to the Palos Verdes Unified School District. In 2020, the fee was $3.79 per square foot for new residential construction. • A fee collected by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), equivalent to $0.20 per $100 of assessed valuation (i.e., $2,000 for a project with a construction value of $1,000,000) • Additional architectural review fees collected by the RHCA, including a $165 flat fee plus $1 per square foot for new construction, additions and major remodels. In addition, RHCA collects fees ranging from $25 to $500 for individual features such as swimming pools, tennis courts, gazebos, and new roofs. There are no sewer connection fees in the city, since there are no sewers. There is no water connection fee; water service charges are determined by the size of the meter and the number of fixtures, plus the amount of water used. The City likewise has no impact fees for housing, transportation, public art, or other services. Projects in the RDMO Zone would be exempt from the RHCA fee, since they are outside the HOA boundary. In total, fees for a typical new home are roughly equivalent to 7-8 percent of total construction costs. This is comparable to other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, though somewhat higher than in other urbanized parts of Los Angeles County. The higher fees are associated in part with the terrain and hazards in Rolling Hills and the size and complexity of applications for new homes, many of which require extensive grading and multiple inspections. Fees do not constrain development in Rolling Hills, but they do add to the cost of housing, which is already expensive in the City. Programs to reduce processing and permitting fees for ADUs could be considered, as they could incentivize ADU production. 5.2.9 Other Local Ordinances and Disclosure Requirements No other local ordinances were identified that could present potential constraints to housing needs. The City does not have an inclusionary zoning requirement, growth control ordinance or limits on the number of units that may be constructed in a given year, or other locally-imposed requirement impacting the cost of residential development. The City prohibits the rental of rooms and houses for periods of less than 30 days, effectively disallowing short-term rentals. This supports the City’s goal of using Accessory Dwelling Units as rental housing, rather than for transient occupancy. The City also complies with AB 1483 (2019), which requires that agencies publish specific information on their websites starting January 1, 2021. This information includes: • All current fees and exactions applicable to housing 555 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-22 • All zoning ordinances, design and development standards • Current and five previous annual financial reports • An archive of nexus studies for impact fees conducted after January 1, 2018 The City of Rolling Hills maintains a Planning and Community Services landing page on its website that contains all of this information. This landing page includes a link to all planning and development fees, the Zoning Map, the Municipal Code (which includes the zoning ordinance and all applicable development standards), the General Plan, the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Landscape Design Standards, the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Planning and Development forms and application materials, the Planning Commission calendar, technical information for developers (related to stormwater management), permitting requirements, guidelines for equestrian facilities, information on solar panels and rainwater harvesting, and guidance on septic system installation. The City is also updating its environmental programs page. An action program in the Housing Element calls for this information to be reorganized and updated, with new information added on Accessory Dwelling Units and links to the RHCA Design Guidelines. Every annual budget and audited financial report for the City since 2010 is available on the City’s website. There have been no nexus studies for impact fees since 2018, but such studies would be posted if conducted in the future. Disclosure requirements related to SB 35 also apply to Rolling Hills. In 2018, California adopted SB 35, which establishes streamlining provisions for multi-family projects meeting certain criteria related to affordability and payment of prevailing wages to construction workers. As of 2021, projects in Rolling Hills in which 10% of more of the units are affordable are eligible for SB 35. Article III Section 300 (b) of HCD’s Guidelines for SB 35 requires that cities in this situation must provide “information, in a manner readily accessible to the general public, about the locality’s process for applying and receiving ministerial approval, materials required for an application as defined in Section 102(b), and relevant objective standards to be used to evaluate the application.” An action program in this Housing Element recommends creating an SB 35 information sheet and application and including it on the Planning and Community Services Website. 556 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-23 5.3 Non-Governmental Constraints Non-governmental constraints significantly affect the affordability of housing in Rolling Hills. Specifically, the high cost of real estate in the city, its heritage as a rural, gated equestrian community, and its limited infrastructure and severe environmental constraints, make it extremely challenging to build traditional affordable housing units. The city is one of the most expensive and highly constrained communities in California. To be economically viable, affordable housing must be tailored to community context—for example, through accessory dwelling units. 5.3.1 Land Costs Land in Rolling Hills is expensive. The city features dramatic topography, with sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean and Los Angeles basin. Property in the city is marketed as a location for prestigious estates. The supply of acre-plus homesites on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is limited, making demand for such properties very strong. A scan of Zillow.com in Fall 2021 shows two vacant lots for sale in the city—one for $7.5 million and another with geologic constraints for $1 million. Data on recent sales shows a vacant single family parcel that sold for $6.85 million in November 2020 and another that sold for $1.84 million in 2019. These properties have been marketed and sold as sites for large single family homes. The economic viability of affordable housing on these sites is further challenged by the cost of the site improvements that would be required to facilitate safe development. The vacant parcels described above lack public sewer; are accessed by narrow, winding, private roads traversing an area with very high wildfire severity; and have slopes that exceed 50 percent in some cases. The cost of road widening, grading and earth movement, and installation of community-wide sewer and storm drainage construction make most types of multi-family housing economically infeasible. There is no public revenue source to make these improvements. The absence of commercial land uses in the city limits the City’s ability to sponsor programs that would reduce or underwrite land or site improvement costs. 5.3.2 Construction Costs The cost of construction, including labor and materials, is a significant constraint to housing development in Rolling Hills. While high costs have impacted the entire state, Rolling Hills is particularly impacted by the high cost of mitigating environmental constraints, including fire and geologic hazards. New home construction requires grading and earth movement, often with costly retaining walls and engineered drainage systems. Many homes in the city feature high- end finishes, as well as amenities that result in higher costs. The city is also vulnerable to elevated or inflated costs that reflect its reputation as a high-end, high-income market. In 2014, the Rolling Hills Housing Element estimated that construction costs were approximately $330 to $500 per square foot. Based on recent projects in the city, costs have doubled since then. The National Association of Homebuilders estimated that costs increased 26 percent between June 2020 and June 2021 alone. There have been rapid increases in the price of lumber, copper, steel, aluminum, concrete, and other building materials, resulting in some 557 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-24 projects being placed on hold and others being cancelled altogether. Construction costs for home additions now regularly exceed $800 per square foot. Construction of septic tanks represents a unique expense in Rolling Hills that is not common in surrounding cities. Anecdotally, homeowners in the city report costs of well over $25,000 to install new septic systems, which in some cases can be an impediment to adding an accessory dwelling unit or expanding an older home. 5.3.3 Financing Financing is not a constraint to housing development in Rolling Hills, but the high cost of housing makes it infeasible for most households to buy a home in the community. Home mortgage interest rates were low at the time the Housing Element was drafted, with rates at around 3.0 percent for a 30-year mortgage in Fall 2021. Income and down payment requirements have become more stringent than they were following the mortgage crisis of a decade ago, and there are fewer flexible loan programs to bridge the gap between the amount of a required down payment and a potential homeowner’s available funds. Given the very high cost of housing in Rolling Hills, significant capital is required to purchase a home. A 20 percent down-payment on the median priced home in the City would be nearly $750,000, with monthly mortgage payments of nearly $19,000. A very high income would be required to qualify. First time buyers face particular challenges in the city, given the lack of equity from prior home ownership. 5.3.4 Delays Between Approval and Construction Given the high cost of construction and rising interest rates, there may be delays between the time a project is entitled and when it is actually constructed. Applicants may postpone their projects due to high material costs, supply shortages and shipping delays, and a lack of skilled construction workers and contractors. Rising interest rates can also add to the cost of a project, leading to postponement. The economic uncertainty and upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic has also caused some projects to stall over the last two years. In some cases, projects may be cancelled altogether, or the property may be sold to a new owner who may modify or abandon previously approved plans. These factors are out of the City’s control but can have a real impact on housing supply and construction. The City is particularly interested in the completion of permitted ADUs, as these units are critical to achieving affordable housing goals. As noted in Chapter 6, Rolling Hills intends to establish a monitoring program for permitted ADUs to facilitate their construction. This would include reaching out to those who receive ADU permits and monitoring construction progress on those units. The monitoring program includes follow-up conversations with any applicants who do not complete their projects to understand the factors leading to that decision, and any steps the City can take to improve completion rates. Another issue that could potentially hinder housing production is the length of time between receiving approval for a project and issuance of a building permit. As noted in Section 5.2.6, 558 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-25 approval resolutions for projects that require discretionary action do not become final for 30 days. Approval by the RHCA also occurs after City approvals. The total required time between City approval and application for a permit is typically 30 to 90 days. Planning entitlements are valid for two years and may be extended, so this time interval does not hinder construction. The time between submittal of an application for a building permit and issuance of the permit depends on the complexity of the project. As noted in Section 5.2.6, building permits are issued by the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Division (Building and Safety). Typical processing time for complex projects is less than nine months. The City does not receive notification from Building and Safety when permits are issued, and the County’s on-line record-keeping system does not consistently reflect current permit status. An action program in this Housing Element calls for Rolling Hills to work with the County to receive regular updates on active building permits. This will allow the City to track the status of development projects and follow up when necessary. 5.3.5 Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Development in Rolling Hills is controlled through both municipal zoning and privately enforced CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are considered a non-governmental constraint because they are enforced by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), a private entity. The CC&Rs were established by the Palos Verdes Corporation in 1936 upon the initial development of the community. They apply to all property in the city except the City Hall Campus, Tennis Court Facilities, PVP Unified School District site (Rancho Del Mar), and Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center. The RHCA does not have design review or building permit review authority on these sites. Elsewhere in Rolling Hills, the CC&Rs restrict the development and use of property to single family homes and limited public uses. They do not allow multi-family housing, commercial, office or industrial activity. One of the stated purposes of the CC&Rs is to preserve and maintain the rural character of the community, including regulating the architectural design of structures. The CC&Rs authorize the RHCA Board to appoint and maintain a five-member Architectural Review Committee to carry out this objective. The Committee is comprised of three Association members and two licensed architects. The RHCA Board has adopted a Building Regulations manual that is used by homeowners and their architects/ contractors, and by the Committee to evaluate projects. Committee review is required for all new residences and accessory structures, and for all projects that modify the exterior of existing structures. Committee meetings occur twice monthly, on the first and third Tuesdays. The meetings are not considered “public hearings” since RHCA is not a public agency, but they are open to all members of the Association and are subject to Association bylaws. RHCA’s Building Regulations require that all homes under RHCA’s jurisdiction be one-story, ranch-style construction. The Regulations identify three permissible style types: traditional ranch, contemporary ranch, and early California Rancho. Specific standards are provided for each style, including allowable exterior siding materials, roof materials (and colors), roof pitch, 559 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-26 building height (25 feet), and floor to ceiling plate heights (8’6” maximum in at least 50 percent of the structure). Regardless of style, all buildings must be painted white, conform to the natural grade, and have consistently designed doors and windows. A minimum floor area of 1,300 square feet, plus a two-car garage, is required for all residences. The regulations align with the City of Rolling Hills zoning regulations—in fact, the CC&Rs expressly state that the Architectural Committee must comply with applicable provisions of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. This includes allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), which are not mentioned in the Association’s Building Regulations. Under AB 670 and AB 68 (effective January 2020), CC&Rs may not be used to deny ADU applications, and prohibitions on ADUs by homeowner associations are not enforceable. State law does allow homeowner associations to review the design of ADUs, provided their process is fair, reasonable, and expeditious. This has been occurring in Rolling Hills for the last three years with no adverse effects on ADU construction. As noted earlier in this chapter, the City has developed a ministerial process for ADU approval as required by state law. Projects meeting the dimensional requirements in the Municipal Code (which are consistent with State standards) are approved without a public hearing or discretionary review by the City. If an ADU does not affect the exterior of a home (for instance, a Junior ADU entirely within the footprint of an existing home, or the conversion of a detached guest house to an ADU), then no RHCA review is required. The Architectural Committee does review ADUs that modify the exterior, add square footage to a structure, or result in a new accessory structure. The purpose of this review is to verify that the structure meets the objective design requirements in the RHCA Building Regulations rather than to evaluate the merits of the project or its off-site impacts. According to the Committee’s own guidelines, it “will not require modifications to working drawings that materially change the massing of the project.” City staff has worked closely with RHCA staff to ensure that their design review process is coordinated with City permitting, streamlined, and does not impose unreasonable restrictions on applicants. The RHCA office is adjacent to City Hall and there is ongoing coordination between the two entities. When an application for an ADU is submitted to the City, the City advises the applicant to proceed to RHCA immediately afterwards to initiate project review. Projects are typically forwarded to the RHCA Architectural Committee within two weeks and are typically approved at the initial meeting; if modifications are required, the plans are typically approved at the second meeting two weeks later. The review occurs concurrently with the City permitting process, avoiding potential delays. In practice, every ADU application approved by City staff has subsequently been approved by the RHCA Architectural Committee. Nonetheless, an action program in this Element recommends that the City work with RHCA to update the 2017 Building Guidelines to acknowledge ADUs and provide guidance for homeowners seeking to add an ADU. 560 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-27 5.3.6 Infrastructure Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the limited availability of infrastructure, specifically streets, sewer, storm water and water facilities. Streets Rolling Hills has no public roads or streets. Since the 1930s, the community’s internal street network has been designed to establish a rural, equestrian character. This historic aspect of the city’s infrastructure is one of Rolling Hills’ defining features. The road network is typified by winding roads with a 15- to 25-foot paved cross-section and no curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or streetlights. Narrow road width, coupled with steep grades and very low densities, effectively precludes public transit within the city. Access is also gate-controlled at three entry points. The city's circulation infrastructure is not conducive to uses generating high trip volumes, such as higher-density housing. Given the entire city’s designation as a very high wildfire hazard severity area, the capacity to evacuate the population is also a limiting factor. Most streets in the community are “dead ends” without emergency vehicle access alternatives in the event that ingress and egress is blocked. A number of properties—including City Hall, the Retreat Center, and the PVUSD site, are accessed from roads outside the City gates. These parcels are less constrained by street access but could require ingress and egress improvements (resurfacing, driveways, etc.) in the event a change of use was proposed. Such improvements are typical for any development and would not adversely affect expected construction costs. Wastewater Disposal With the exception of the school site and thirteen residences that have individually or collectively (through the creation of a small sewer district) connected to an adjacent jurisdiction's sewer systems, there is no sanitary sewer system in Rolling Hills. Residences are served by individual septic tanks and seepage pits. These systems are designed to serve single family residences and are not conducive to multi-family housing. This is particularly true given the geologic, slope, and soil constraints in Rolling Hills. To meet water quality and runoff requirements, high-density housing typically requires a viable sewer connection. Over the past 35 years, the City has conducted multiple sewer system feasibility studies. In 2019, the City received approval from the Los Angeles County Public Works and Sanitation District to discharge effluent from up to 235 existing homes in Rolling Hills. The City is in the process of completing design drawings for Phase One, which is a 1,585-foot long 8-inch diameter sewer line along Rolling Hills Road/Portuguese Bend Road. This will provide service to City Hall, the RHCA offices, and the Tennis Courts. Future phases of the project could provide service to residences but would require significant grant funding and potentially special assessments. In 2021, the City surveyed all households to determine the level of support for developing a sewer system. Roughly 16 percent of the City’s households participated. The survey found that about three-quarters of the residents’ septic tanks were more than 20 years old. More than 80 561 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-28 percent supported construction of a sewer system, though many responses were contingent on the cost. Past engineering studies have concluded that the terrain and unstable geological conditions in the city make a conventional gravity sewer system infeasible in the city, meaning the cost to property owners could be significant. The Palos Verdes Unified School District site is an exception. It is connected to a wastewater treatment line that was installed when the school was initially constructed. Collection lines were sized to accommodate a school campus with several hundred students, and associated maintenance facilities—a higher level of demand than is associated with current uses on the site. Given the availability of sewer service to this site and the high cost of extending sewer services elsewhere, it is the most suitable property for multi-family housing in the City. In some instances, septic systems may present a constraint to ADU development. This is generally not an issue for JADUs or smaller ADUs that repurpose existing habitable space, but a new detached ADU that adds floor space may require increasing the capacity of a septic system. As noted earlier in this chapter, a program in this Housing Element proposes further evaluation of this constraint, and possible ways to assist homeowners in addressing it. Storm Water Run-off As a rural community without public streets, Rolling Hills does not have a municipal storm sewer system or continuous network of storm drains. Drainage follows topography, with stormwater flowing into steep ravines through the community. Water percolates into the ground along canyon bottoms, with runoff flowing to the ocean, or to larger streams and detention basins downstream, depending on location. To comply with federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and maintain its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, the City is required to screen and monitor its runoff to avoid compromising downstream water quality standards. It also required to implement a number of programs, such as an Illicit Discharge Elimination Program. The City also requires Best Management Practices (BMP) for construction in order to avoid erosion, pollution, sedimentation, and runoff that would degrade water quality. These requirements are not a development constraint but may add to the cost of construction. Moreover, the lack of a municipal storm drainage system represents another constraint to higher density housing in most of the city. The Rancho Del Mar site is outside the area covered by the MS4 monitoring program and drains west toward Rancho Palos Verdes. Unlike the rest of Rolling Hills, it is served by an improved storm drainage system. A 2017 facility evaluation reported the storm drains and inlets on the site as being in good condition. Water Water infrastructure in Rolling Hills is owned, maintained, and operated by California Water Service (CalWater). The city is within CalWater’s Palos Verdes District, which also serves the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Facility planning is governed by an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which evaluates anticipated demand and the water resources available to meet that demand. 562 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-29 Projections of future water use are based in part on expected population growth, which is derived from SCAG forecasts and local general plans. Water demand is projected to increase by 6 percent by 2045, reflecting very slow population and housing growth in the Peninsula cities. Development beyond that anticipated by SCAG forecasts could reduce water pressure, compromise firefighting capabilities, and curtail domestic water availability. This is a problem throughout California, made worse by persistent drought conditions. The UWMP provides water shortage contingency plans, including measures to reduce demand and procure emergency supplies. Water storage facilities and pipelines in Rolling Hills are generally adequate to meet local needs. However, many of the city’s water facilities are aging and the system as a whole is vulnerable to damage during earthquakes and landslides. Storage and distribution facilities reflect the rural density of the city and are not sized to accommodate significant growth. The Palos Verdes Unified School District site provides a unique opportunity in this regard, as its water system was designed for a public school campus with several hundred students. The introduction of ADUs in Rolling Hills could potentially impact water demand in the City. The California Water Company has no plans to upgrade the aging water system. As ADUs are created, it will be important to consider potential impacts on water distribution lines and fire fighting capacity. Several factors work to mitigate the impacts of ADUs on the water system. First, the population of Rolling Hills has declined by roughly 300 since 1980. Thus, the addition of 40 or so ADUs over eight years may not increase the total number of residents in the City. Second, water conservation measures have been implemented—and continue to be implemented—to reduce water flows and water demand. These measures include water- efficient landscaping requirements, as well as requirements for more efficient plumbing fixtures. Dry Utilities Rolling Hills residences are also served by dry utilities. Electric services are generally provided by Southern California Edison while natural gas is provided by Southern California Gas Company. A range of private vendors provide phone, internet, and cable services. Capacity is available to serve new development, and all of the vacant and underutilized sites identified in Chapter 4 would have access to these services if they were developed. The Rancho Del Mar site currently has access to these services as it is a former school. 563 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-30 5.3.7 Environmental Constraints Rolling Hills has severe environmental constraints to development. Slopes exceeding 25 percent are present on almost every remaining undeveloped parcel in the city. Geotechnical studies are required when new homes are constructed, and mitigation is often required to reduce the potential for future damage. The City’s Site Plan Review Process and grading requirements are intended to strictly limit recontouring of existing terrain. Most grading occurs through “cut and fill” procedures that retain materials on site. This adds to local housing costs and limits the viability of multi-family housing on most properties in the city. Landslide Hazards Figure 5.2 shows landslide zones in Rolling Hills, as mapped by the California Geological Survey (CGS). Large portions of the city are considered hazardous and major slides have occurred in the past. This includes the Flying Triangle Landslide, which has impacted roads, homes, and properties in the southern part of the city for the last 50 years. These areas are poorly suited for development and are susceptible to slope failure. Human modifications to slopes (through development) can exacerbate the problem and the risk. Building at the head of a landslide can decrease the bedrock strength along an existing or potential rupture surface and “drive” the landslide down slope. Improper grading practices can also trigger existing landslides. Because of these geologic hazards, the City limits land disturbance and other actions that would exacerbate soil instability. Ground instability would contribute to potential risks to human life as well as to physical structures. The Safety Element of the General Plan sets forth policies to restrict new development and expansion of existing development in areas susceptible to landslides. Earthquake Hazards Like most of Southern California, Rolling Hills is vulnerable to earthquakes. Large earthquakes can cause building damage and collapse, as well as damage to roads and utilities. The City of Rolling Hills is crossed by the Cabrillo Fault, which is part of the Palos Verdes Fault Zone. It is also vulnerable to earthquakes on the Whittier Fault, the Newport-Inglewood Fault, the Malibu Fault, the Santa Monica Fault, the Redondo Canyon Fault. The location of these faults is shown on Figure 5.3. The Whittier and Newport-Inglewood Faults are considered capable of generating earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 7.0 and have the potential to cause catastrophic damage. In the event of a major earthquake on either fault, the city of Rolling Hills would be vulnerable to ground shaking. Secondary hazards include liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and differential settlement. Fault rupture is not a significant hazard in the city, and there are no Alquist Priolo “special studies” zones within the city limits. Wildfire As shown on Figure 5.4, the entire city of Rolling Hills has been designated a “Very High Wildfire Hazard Severity Zone” by CalFire. The city’s terrain creates challenges for vegetation management and presents conditions where a fire can travel quickly up and down canyon 564 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-31 slopes. Despite defensible space requirements, the city’s rural nature and equestrian heritage means that extensive areas are covered by dense scrub and brush. The Palos Verdes Peninsula has a history of destructive wildfire, including fires that destroyed homes in 1973, 1993, 2009, and 2018. The City has taken measures to reduce fire hazards, including preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan in 2020. The Plan outlines measures to harden infrastructure, improve vegetation management, underground electric power lines, and improve inspections and enforcement. It also includes provisions for evacuation. Additionally, the City (and Los Angeles County) require special building safety measures, including standards for roofing, eaves, exterior finishes, and buffer zones that respond to the higher fire hazard levels. Despite these measures, the risks of wildfire cannot be eliminated entirely. Moreover, the city continues to face evacuation constraints resulting from its narrow roads, limited ingress and egress points, and the presence of livestock on many properties. Biological Resources Rolling Hills supports a variety of plant and wildlife species, including some that are listed or under consideration for listing by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These species include the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly, the California Gnatcatcher, the Pacific Pocket Mouse, the San Diego Horned Lizard, and Brackishwater snail. Development that could adversely impact the habitat of these species must undergo review and approval by the overseeing federal and state agencies. Typical mitigation measures include preservation of habitat, further restricting the potential land available for development. This constraint is likely to continue throughout the planning period. 565 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-32 Figure 5.2: Landslide Hazard Areas in Rolling Hills Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2022 566 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-33 Figure 5.3: Earthquake Faults in the Rolling Hills Vicinity Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021 567 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Constraints Page 5-34 Figure 5.4: CalFire “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zones Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021 568 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-1 6. Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Chapter 6 provides the City’s housing plan for the next eight years. The plan has three components: • A statement of the City’s goals and policies for housing. The goals and policies balance State mandates and Government Code requirements with local needs and priorities. • An action program. The action program identifies the specific, measurable steps the City will take during 2021-2029 to implement the policies. • Measurable objectives for housing production. These objectives correspond to the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and also include numeric targets for housing rehabilitation and conservation. 6.1 Goals and Policies The following goals and policies reflect the City’s continued commitment to actively support residential development and plan for the City’s fair share of regional housing needs: GOAL 1: Provide housing opportunities which meet the needs of existing and future Rolling Hills' residents. Policy 1.1: Accommodate Rolling Hills’ share of the region’s housing needs in a way that protects public safety, responds to infrastructure constraints and natural hazards, recognizes market conditions, and respects the historic context and land use pattern in the city. Policy 1.2: Allow the development of a variety of housing types in the city, including multi- family housing. While Rolling Hills will remain a rural equestrian community, housing opportunities will be provided for all income groups as required by State law. Policy 1.3: Facilitate development on the remaining vacant buildable lots in the city in a manner consistent with adopted zoning standards. Policy 1.4: Allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in all residential zones. Maintain objective standards to ensure that ADUs and JADUs are compatible with the community; minimize visual, parking, traffic, and other impacts; and respect neighborhood context. Policy 1.5: Explore incentives to create and maintain Accessory Dwelling Units that are affordable to low and very low income households. Policy 1.6: Encourage the conversion of existing guest houses and other habitable accessory buildings into legal ADUs. 569 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-2 Policy 1.7: Work with other governmental entities and the non-profit community to support the development of affordable or senior housing on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and in nearby South Bay cities. Policy 1.8: Maintain planning and building procedures that maximize efficiency and reduce permit processing times and high fees. Encourage public understanding of the planning and building processes to reduce project costs and delays. GOAL 2: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Rolling Hills. Policy 2.1: Encourage and facilitate the maintenance and improvement of existing homes. Policy 2.2: Ensure that new housing and home improvements comply with building code and fire safety requirements. Policy 2.3: Maintain a code enforcement program, including procedures to remediate violations. Policy 2.4: Require the design of home improvements, additions, ADUs, and infill housing to minimize impacts on existing residences. Include objective standards in the zoning ordinance that protect visual quality, privacy, and community character. Policy 2.5: Mitigate hazards that could potentially cause a loss of housing units in the city, including wildfires, landslides, and earthquakes. Encourage home hardening and defensible space to minimize the potential for housing loss during a natural disaster. Policy 2.6 Prohibit the use of ADUs as short-term rentals in order to maintain their viability as permanent housing units. Policy 2.7: Encourage weatherization, energy conservation, and renewable energy to increase energy efficiency and reduce home energy costs. GOAL 3: Address the housing needs of older adults and others in the community with special housing needs. Policy 3.1: Provide reference and referral services for seniors, such as in-home care and counseling for housing-related issues. Policy 3.2: Support shared housing programs and room rentals as options for seniors to remain in the community without financial hardship. Policy 3.3: Encourage housing opportunities for live-in care givers, domestic employees, and family members who may assist elderly or mobility-impaired residents who wish to age in place. 570 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-3 Policy 3.4: Consider participation in state and federal programs that assist lower income and senior households in home repair and maintenance. Policy 3.5: Strive to meet the needs of extremely low-income Rolling Hills residents, including seniors on fixed incomes. Policy 3.6: Encourage the retrofitting of existing Rolling Hills homes so they are accessible to the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities. Provide reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, and procedures for disabled persons to ensure equal access to housing. Policy 3.7: Participate in countywide programs to meet the needs of unsheltered residents and others who may need emergency housing assistance. GOAL 4: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, disability status, or national origin. Policy 4.1: Affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring that housing opportunities for persons of all income levels, races and ethnicities, and physical abilities are available in Rolling Hills. Policy 4.2: Enforce all applicable laws and policies pertaining to equal housing opportunity and discrimination. Maintain third party agreements to follow-up on and correct alleged violations. Policy 4.3 Make information on fair housing laws available to residents and realtors in the City by providing information on the City’s website and print media at the City Hall public counter. Policy 4.4: Ensure effective and informed community participation in local housing decisions. This should include special efforts to include traditionally underrepresented groups, including persons working or providing services in Rolling Hills. Policy 4.5: Distribute affordable housing opportunities around the city by focusing on ADUs as a housing strategy. Policy 4.6: Participate in regional forums and initiatives to promote fair housing. 571 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-4 6.2 Housing Implementation Plan, 2021-2029 The goals and policies set forth in the Housing Element will be implemented through a series of housing programs. Some of these programs are already underway and others will be implemented over the next eight years. This section of the Housing Element provides a brief description of each program, including measurable objectives, responsible entities, and implementation timeframes. Each of these programs has been developed consistent with HCD guidelines and State Government Code requirements. Program 1: Annual Progress Report As required by State law, the City will prepare and file an annual report on the progress made toward implementing its Housing Element using forms and definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Guidance on the content of the report is provided by the State Office of Planning and Research. It documents the City’s progress toward meeting its share of regional housing needs and efforts to remove government constraints to housing production. The report must be presented to the City Council prior to its submittal (it may be approved as a consent item). Quantified Objective: Provide one report per year Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: File by April 1 of each year Program 2: Rancho Del Mar Opportunity Site Monitoring In February 2021, the City adopted the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone on the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar (RDM) campus owned by the Palos Verdes Unified School District. As documented in Chapter 4 and Appendix B of this Housing Element, large parts of the RDM site are unimproved and vacant. The new zoning permits 16 affordable multi-family units on the site, which may be developed “by right” at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. The City Manager will meet at least once annually with the School Superintendent to discuss the future of the site, including future development opportunities. Next steps to be pursued on the site include: • Subdividing the site to create a separate parcel west of the PVPTA transit facility. This site could potentially be more easily marketed as a development opportunity than the 31- acre site as a whole.1 • Preparation of a “fact sheet” for the site, for review by the School Superintendent and School Board, highlighting the potential for multi-family housing • Further discussions with the School Board regarding opportunities for teacher housing and/or senior housing on the site. 1 Subdivision is not required to develop the site—it can also be developed “as is” in 2022. However, subdivision could provide an incentive for future development during the planning period. 572 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-5 • In collaboration with the School District, make information on the site (e.g., the “Fact Sheet”) available to affordable housing developers. • Further discussions with non-profit developers regarding the opportunity to construct housing on the site, including technical assistance to developers where requested. • Consideration of permit streamlining, CEQA clearance, and fee reductions for future affordable housing development on the site. Multi-family housing is already permitted “by right” subject to objective design standards adopted in February 2021, but further steps could be taken to reduce future development costs. Quantified Objectives: (1) 16 units of affordable housing on the RDM site (2) Annual meeting between the City Manager and School Superintendent Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager Implementation Time Frame: (1) Meeting with School Superintendent by end of 2022 and once annually thereafter (2) Preparation of site “fact sheet” for review by School District and School Board by June 2023 (3) Subdivision creating “western” parcel by end of 2023, subject to School Superintendent and Board approval Program 3: No Net Loss Monitoring and Other Multi-Family Housing Opportunities The City has identified adequate capacity to accommodate 45 units of housing, as required by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Sixteen of these units are on the Rancho Del Mar Site. Five are new single family homes on vacant lots (three of which are already approved). The remainder are Accessory Dwelling Units. Rolling Hills will continue to maintain General Plan and zoning designations that facilitate development of the required number of units and will continue to comply with the Housing Accountability Act in the event projects are proposed. SB 166 (2017) requires that every city maintain “adequate sites” to accommodate its RHNA by income category at all times during the eight-year Housing Element period. If a designated housing opportunity site becomes unavailable, the city must demonstrate that it still has adequate capacity on its remaining sites (e.g., “no net loss”). In the event the Rancho Del Mar site becomes unavailable to produce the housing units envisioned by the overlay zone, the City would need another suitable site to accommodate those units. Cities generally meet the no net loss mandate by providing one or more “buffer” sites in addition to their primary sites. These sites must meet HCD criteria, including the ability to accommodate 16 units at a density of at least 20 units per acre. As demonstrated in Chapter 4, due to the lack of sewer and the community’s natural hazards, Rolling Hills does not have a buffer site available. The City will continue to explore potential housing sites that could supplement the RDM site, particularly where sanitary sewer service could be made available in the future. The City will continue to rely on accessory dwelling units to meet the balance of its lower-income housing assignment, regardless. 573 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-6 Quantified Objectives: No net loss of housing capacity to meet RHNA at all times Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Continuous through 2029 Program 4: Add Definitions of Transitional and Supportive Housing, Residential Care Facilities, and Employee Housing, to Municipal Code This action was completed in August 2022. To comply with Government Code Section 65583(c)(3), the City of Rolling Hills was required to must clarify that residential care facilities, transitional housing, and supportive housing are considered residential uses and are subject to the same restrictions that apply to the other residential uses that are allowed in a given zoning district. In other words, a single family home used as a group home for persons with disabilities is subject to the same planning and zoning requirements that apply to a single family home used by a traditional family. Most local governments have addressed this requirement by adding definitions to their zoning codes for transitional and supportive housing, as well as large and small residential care facilities. The purpose of this program was is to add those definitions to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (Chapter 17). The definitions would acknowledge that such housing is permitted in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone as required by State law. The recent Code amendments also explicitly state that supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including non-residential zones permitting multi-family uses. The Code amendments will ensure that no special requirements are placed on residential care facilities with seven or more occupants, as required by State law. Definitions of low barrier navigation centers also have been will be added to the Code and referenced in other zoning regulations, as required by State law. This program also includeds a Municipal Code Amendment to add a definition for employee housing in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). HSC Section 17021.5 states that employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer people shall be deemed a single family structure with a residential land use designation. It further states that employee housing may not be considered a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or similar term that implies that such housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a single family dwelling. State law precludes a city from requiring a conditional use permit, zoning variance or other zoning variance for such housing, and stipulates that the use of a single family dwelling for six of fewer employees does not constitute a change of occupancy for building code purposes. As of August 2022, the City fully complies with this requirement. Quantified Objectives: Council Action Adopting DefinitionsN/A (program completed) Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Attorney Implementation Time Frame: Completed in August 2022 by December 2022 574 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-7 Program 5: Density Bonus Ordinance This action was completed in August 2022. Section 65915 of the California Government Code establishes mandatory statewide provisions for density bonuses for affordable and senior housing projects. Prior to August 2022, Rolling Hills did does not currently have density bonus provisions in its Municipal Code. Historically, the City has not had multi-family housing, nor any site where multi-family housing could be constructed. With the creation of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, a developer could request a density bonus and related concessions from a developer. State standards would apply in this instance. The City has adopted should adopt provisions in its Municipal Code acknowledging the applicability of State density bonus laws in the event a request is received. Quantified Objectives: Municipal Code amendment related to Density Bonuses Application of density bonus to future affordable rental housing on Rancho Del Mar Overlay site (up to 12 additional units, assuming 100% affordable project on the site) Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Ordinance Adopted in August 2022 Complete by December 2022 Program 6: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Production, Monitoring, and Incentives As noted in Chapter 4, the City intends to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 29 lower income units through a combination of affordable housing on the Rancho Del Mar site (16 units) and privately constructed and rented ADUs on scattered sites throughout the city. At least 13 ADUs should meet affordability thresholds for low and very low income households.2 Creating opportunities for lower income households on scattered sites supports one of the main objectives of the State’s Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements, which is to avoid the concentration of lower income housing in a single location. An ADU-centered strategy also responds to the lack of sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and public streets in Rolling Hills and the community’s rural densities and absence of supportive services. As stated in Chapter 4, the City approved nine ADUs in 2021 alone, including two that are projected to be affordable to lower income households based on their small size. Thus, creating another 11 ADUs affordable to lower income households over the next eight years is an attainable goal. The Annual Housing Progress Report should address the City’s progress toward meeting this goal; if the City is falling short after two years, the strategy should be revisited and additional incentives should be developed. Program 6 includes a number of specific elements, which are listed below: 6.1 Develop Citywide ADU Registryoster of ADUs. The City developed an ADU registry roster in October 2021 and will expand it the roster as new units are created. Currently, the 2 Two ADUs meeting affordability criteria for low/very low are already under construction (see Table 4.1), leaving a balance of 11 needed. 575 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-8 registry roster (or data base) contains fields such as Address, Owner, month approved, square footage, and a description of each unit. This should be expanded to include information on whether the unit is occupied, the number of occupants, and the rent charged—this information would be requested from homeowners on a voluntary basis. Tracking occupancy and affordability is intended to determine how many units are serving very low- and low-income households, and to demonstrate that the City is meeting its RHNA. 6.2 Annual ADU Survey and Monitoring. The City will send an annual letter to households on the ADU roster requesting information on the status of the unit. The information will be used to prepare a summary that can be referenced as part of the City’s Annual Progress Report. As part of this task, the City will also identify instances where very low or extremely low income households (including family members, domestic employees, caregivers, etc.) are residing on Rolling Hills properties and paying below market rent (or no rent). To the extent these households are occupying independent living quarters, this data provides evidence that the City is accommodating its RHNA target for very low income households. As part of this effort, the City will also implement an annual monitoring program to ensure that the Housing Element targets for ADUs are being achieved. A determination of the City’s progress toward meeting its RHNA target of 40 units over 2021-2029 shall be made once per year. In the event the City is not on track to meet its target, it will consider alternative means of meeting its RHNA goals within six months of this determination. These could include additional ADU incentives, modifications to the affordable housing overlay zone, and other actions that would facilitate production of additional affordable units. 6.3 Develop Inventory of Potential ADUs. Over time, the City will develop a parcel data base of potential (or “unintended”) ADUs, which are existing habitable spaces that could potentially be converted into independent dwelling units. This would include guest houses, pool houses, and similar accessory structures that are used by the primary residence. As the inventory is completed, owners would be advised of the opportunity to convert the space into a legal ADU. 6.4 Incentives for ADU Construction. The City will develop incentives for ADU construction. Different incentives may be developed for those building new homes (i.e., reduced fees for including an ADU in a new residence), those adding a new ADU on their property, and those converting existing habitable floor space into an ADU. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Section 65583(c)(7) (effective January 1, 2021), the City will explore the use of State CalHome, LEAP, REAP, and SB 2 funding to help local homeowners build or finance ADUs on their properties. Access to these funds typically requires rents that are affordable to low and very low-income households. 6.5 Pre-Approved ADU Plans. The City will determine its eligibility for State grant funding to develop “pre-approved” plans for ADUs that can be used by Rolling Hills residents. These architect-developed plans would be specifically tailored to meet the RHCA design guidelines and would respond to the topography and access constraints found on most Rolling Hills lots. Enabling homeowners to use pre-approved plans may reduce architectural design costs, and potentially reduce construction costs. This can make ADUs more feasible and allow them to be rented more affordably. 576 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-9 6.6 Coordination with RHCA. The City will coordinate with the Rolling Hills Community Association to ensure that RHCA’s design review practices and procedures do not constrain ADU construction or add to their costs. City staff will meet with RHCA staff and the RHCA Architectural Committee regularly to coordinate review, advise RHCA of State laws relating to ADUs, and address any issues that may arise in the future. The City will also work with the Rolling Hills Community Association to explore reduction of annual HOA fees for property owners agreeing to limit rents on their ADUs. 6.7 Septic Tank Replacement Grants or Financial Assistance. The City will pursue funding for a grant which can be used to assist homeowners with septic tank replacement when paired with the addition of an ADU. The grants would be targeted to lower income seniors who may seek to add an ADU but lack the financial resources to replace their septic tanks. 6.8 Non-Profit Construction of ADUs. The City will explore the possibility of engaging a non- profit housing developer in a program to develop ADUs in partnership with interested Rolling Hills property owners. Participation could be limited to qualifying lower income residents, or to homeowners who agree to limit rents to levels that are affordable to lower income households. Such a program was successfully implemented by the City of Santa Cruz, in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity, and could be considered locally. 6.9 Monitor Best Practices in ADUs. The City will continue to track statewide and national trends in ADU management, incentives, and regulations. The focus will be on cities in California that are comparable to Rolling Hills in density, character, and constraints, with an eye toward cities that are relying on ADUs to meet a substantial share of their RHNA for lower income households. Programs that are potentially transferable to Rolling Hills will be considered for local implementation. The City is currently working with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments on an ADU research study, including a state-funded “ADU Acceleration Project” to explore ways to promote ADUs in southern LA County cities. 6.10 Update Municipal Code Provisions for ADUs. By October 15, 2022, t This action was completed in August 2022. The City has will updated its ADU ordinance to reflect changes to State law made since the last revision to the ordinance in February 2020. This includeds eliminating references to a maximum bedroom count in an ADU and including provisions for complete applications to be deemed approved if they are not acted upon within 60 days. 6.11 Outreach to ADU Permit Recipients. The City will monitor ADU approvals, including six- month “check-ins” with all applicants receiving ADU permits until the units are completed. These check-ins will include status updates on the projects, including whether a building permit has been issued and what progress is being made. In the event an applicant chooses not to follow through on an approved ADU, staff will make an effort to document the reasons and evaluate any changes that might be made to the City’s ADU program to improve completion rates. This information should be part of the City’s annual housing progress report. In addition to the specific measures listed above, City staff will continue to assist homeowners who are interested in adding an ADU, and will work with applicants to facilitate ADU review, permitting, and approval. 577 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-10 Quantified Objectives: (1) Citywide ADU registry oster of 40 ADUs by 2029, including at least 13 ADUs rented at levels meeting affordability criteria for lower income households (2) ADU Survey, administered once a year (3) Inventory of potential ADUs (4) ADU Incentives (5) Two to four pre-approved ADU architectural plans (6) Municipal Code Revisions (see 6.10 above)--Completed (7) 100% completion of ADUs receiving permits Funding Source: City General Fund/ State grants Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Attorney Implementation Time Frame: (1) Rosters and Surveys prepared by 2022 and updated annually (2) ADU incentives by 2023 (3) Approved architectural plans by 2024, or as funding allows (4) Amend Municipal Code Chapter 17.28 (Accessory Dwelling Units) for consistency with State law by August October 15, 2022 (this action has been completed) (5) Establish protocol for 6-month check-ins with ADU permit recipients by January 1, 2023 (6) Annual monitoring report on ADU production 578 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-11 Program 7: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Outreach, Education, and Information Program 7 addresses public outreach, education, and information on ADUs. Like Program 6, it has multiple elements. 7.1 Biennial Mailing. The City will send or help coordinate a mailing to all households in Rolling Hills at least once every two years advising them of the opportunity to create an ADU, the potential benefits of having an ADU, and potential incentives in the event the ADU will be occupied by a household worker, caregiver, family member, or other household meeting the definition of a low or very low income household. The mailing may consist of an article in the City’s monthly newsletter, or could be included as a component of the South Bay Cities COG efforts to encourage ADU production. The City is one of 15 cities participating in this program.. 7.2 Website. The City will develop a landing page on its website with information on ADU opportunities (“Thinking about building an ADU?”). The website landing page will include information on the types of ADUs an owner may consider (detached, attached, junior, etc.), the typical cost and cost considerations, financing options, tax implications, development standards, tenant selection, and so on. The information should also be provided in printed form for interested homeowners. 7.3 RHCA Design Guidelines Update. The City will work with the Rolling Hills Community Association to facilitate an update of the RHCA Design Guidelines so that they address ADUs. Currently, the Guidelines do not acknowledge ADUs at all. The Update would provide objective design standards for ADUs that are consistent with Rolling Hills zoning standards as well as the design guidelines that currently apply. Quantified Objectives: (1) Outreach mailer to 639 Mailings to all Rolling Hills households (at least once every 2 years) (2) Updated City website (3) Updated Design Guidelines document (2) Creation of 40 new ADUs by 2029 (5 per year) Funding Source: City General Fund, State grants Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: (1) First mailing by March 2023 December 2022 (2) Website update by June 2023 (3) Update of design guidelines by 2024 579 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-12 Program 8: Assist Senior and Disabled Households The City will continue to address the housing needs of seniors and persons with disabilities by connecting those in need with social service agencies, non-profits, volunteer organizations, and other service providers, and by coordinating with the RHCA in the services and programs it provides. As noted in the Needs Assessment, more than one-third of the city’s residents are over 65 and about 10 percent have one or more disabilities. The City will work with seniors, especially those on fixed incomes, to evaluate housing needs and resources. Within 18 months of Housing Element adoption, the City Council will convene a study session jointly with the RHCA Needs of Seniors Committee and at least one local non-profit serving seniors (such as Peninsula Seniors) to discuss the needs of Rolling Hills seniors and potential programs to address these needs. Several of the programs listed elsewhere in this Element (shared housing, assistance with home maintenance, reduced utility rates, etc.) are primarily intended to benefit lower income seniors. The City also will support expanded opportunities for persons with disabilities, including the use of universal design principles and accessibility standards in new construction and ADUs. As part of this program, Rolling Hills will also work with the Harbor Regional Center to implement outreach services to Rolling Hills families on services available to persons with developmental disabilities. The City’s website will be updated to include links to housing and supportive services for seniors and disabled persons. Quantified Objectives: Website landing page with senior housing resources Facilitate age-in-place retrofits for 10 senior households City Council study session on needs of seniors and potential actions to assist Rolling Hills seniors Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager Implementation Time Frame: June 2023 (for website) Council Study Session before December 2023 Program 9: Assist Extremely Low-Income Households Extremely Low Income (ELI) households have incomes that 30 percent or less of the County median. In 2021, the income thresholds for ELI were $24,850 for a household of one; $28,400 for a household of two; $31,950 for a household of three; and $34,450 for a household of four. Based on CHAS data, there are 25 ELI households in Rolling Hills, representing about 3.5 percent of the city’s households. The CHAS data indicated that all 25 of these households were homeowners, suggesting they are primarily seniors on fixed incomes. The City will explore ways to assist elder Rolling Hills homeowners on fixed incomes with home maintenance, repair, and retrofit activities. It will also direct these households to appropriate resources, such as shared housing services and programs to reduce utility costs. There are additional ELI households in Rolling Hills that may not be counted in the Census data, including extended family members living in independent quarters on a property, or domestic employees (housekeepers, au pairs, personal assistants, etc.) living in guest houses, accessory 580 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-13 buildings, or in separate quarters within the primary residence. The City will address the needs of these households by prioritizing applications for ADUs and encouraging homeowners to create opportunities for domestic employees and family members to live “on site.” A study sponsored by SCAG in 2020 determined that 15 percent of the ADUs in the coastal Los Angeles area were likely to be available at rents affordable to Extremely Low Income Households.3 A 2018 study further found that 17% of the ADUs in Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver were occupied by a friend or family member for free.4 A 2014 study found that 18% of the ADUs in Portland were occupied for free or extremely low cost.5 A 2012 UC Berkeley publication indicates that up to half of all ADUs are occupied at no cost.6 Based on these analyses, the City is estimating that seven “rent free” or extremely low income rentals will be added to the Rolling Hills housing stock by 2029. It will seek to document and measure progress toward this objective by soliciting voluntary reporting of such units by individual homeowners. As noted in Program 6.2, an annual survey is proposed to be adminstered to all registered ADU owners in the city. This would enable tracking of rent-free or reduced rent ADUs. Quantified Objectives: Provide seven housing units affordable to Extremely Low Income Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Prepare inventory of Extremely Low Income (ELI) units by 2024, update annually Facilitate housing assistance to at least three ELI senior homeowners by 2025 Program 10: Support Regional Efforts to End Homelessness Extremely low-income persons also include those who are homeless or may be at risk of becoming homeless. Although the point-in-time surveys for the last five years have not counted any homeless residents in Rolling Hills, the City recognizes that homelessness is a regional problem that requires regional solutions. Rolling Hills will continue to allow emergency shelters and single room occupancy hotels in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone and will monitor the effectiveness of its regulations in its Annual Housing Progress Report. The City will continue to work with adjacent communities on emergency shelter referrals. As a member of SCAG and the South Bay Cities COG, staff and elected officials participate in forums and discussions of homelessness, and potential programs and resources to end homelessness and increase the supply of shelter, transitional, and supportive housing in Greater Los Angeles. 3 SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, 2020 4 Jumpstarting the Market for ADUs. Terner Center (for ULI), San Francisco, 2018 5 ADUs in Portland OR. Environmental Solutions Management, 2014 6 Scaling Up Secondary Unit Production in the East Bay. Berkeley Institute of Regional Development, 2012 581 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-14 Quantified Objectives: Participation in point in time surveys; participation in at least one regional meeting annually on strategies to end homelessness Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021 through 2029 Program 11: Permit Streamlining The City will continue its efforts to expedite permit processing, ensure efficiency, and reduce administrative and processing costs for new development. This could include provisions for reduced fees for ADUs that are rented at below market levels, or occupied by qualifying lower income households. As part of the annual budgeting process, the City will ensure that fees are appropriate for the services provided, and will consider ways to improve the permitting and entitlement processes. This program includes working with LA County Building and Safety to receive periodic updates on the status of active building permits in Rolling Hills. While this data is available on-line through the County’s website, it is not consistently updated or made available in a format that allows the City to easily track the status of entitled projects. The City will use this data to identify approved housing units (including ADUs) that have been entitled but not yet constructed so that it may follow up with owners in the event of permitting delays. Quantified Objectives: Compliance with all provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees Responsible Agency: City Manager/ Finance Director/ Planning and Community Services Department/ LA County Building and Safety Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021 through 2029 Program 12: Facilitate Communication with Affordable Housing Service Providers, Developers, and Advocates The City of Rolling Hills periodically receives requests from housing advocates, non-profit developers, and service providers to disseminate information on affordable housing needs and opportunities and work collaboratively to address housing issues. City planning staff regularly field requests from for-profit and non-profit developers, participate in regional housing meetings and discussions, and work with other cities to explore creative, effective ways to meet housing needs. In the event a non-profit agency or developer wishes to submit a grant application that will increase housing affordability for senior or low income Rolling Hills residents, staff will provide administrative support wherever possible. Quantified Objective: Hold at least one meeting a year with one or more non-profit housing sponsors to discuss housing opportunities and needs in Rolling Hills See also Programs 8, 13, and 15 Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Convene one meeting before December 2022. Convene additional meetings at least once a year from 2023 to 2029. 582 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-15 Program 13: Shared HousingHome Sharing Shared housing enables homeowners to offset their housing costs by receiving rent, or get additional help in managing housing duties. It also creates a resource for lower income households in the community, including college-aged students and young adults, caregivers, domestic workers, landscapers and building industry workers, child care workers, teachers, and other public service employees. It can also be a resource for seniors, some of whom may no longer wish to live alone or lack the financial resources to live alone. Residents in Rolling Hills have access to two nearby home sharing shared housing programs: Focal Point at the South Bay Senior Services Center in Torrance and the Anderson Senior Center in San Pedro. Both these centers offer resources to assist seniors locate roommates interested in sharing housing. These programs make roommate matches between seniors based on telephone requests. Numerous other home sharing services have emerged over the last decade. These include SHARE! Collaborative Housing, a public-private partnership supporting shared single family housing for persons with disabilities in Los Angeles County; Affordable Living for the Aging, which matches younger single tenants with seniors in Los Angeles County; and Los Angeles County HomeShare, which serves residents of all ages throughout the County. There are also private services such as Silverleaf (Long Beach) that facilitate home sharing for a fee. The City will continue to apprise residents about shared housing programs by providing information at the public counter and online, including an article in the City Newsletter in 2023. It will also proactively meet with at least one non-profit home-sharing service provider in 2023 to discuss opportunities in Rolling Hills. Quantified Objectives: Continue to provide informational brochures advertising shared housing programs at City Hall and on the City’s website At least five Rolling Hills households participating in a non-profit managed home sharing program by 2029 Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Establish website links by December 2022 Provide article and meet with home sharing service in 2023 583 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-16 Program 14: Sewer Feasibility Studies and Phase One Construction As indicated in Section 5.3.5 of this Housing Element, Rolling Hills does not have a sanitary sewer system. With a few exceptions, the entire city is served by private septic systems. Septic system installation is costly and requires customized design to reflect steep terrain. The cost of installing sanitary sewers and storm drains would be even more costly, as it would likely require easements, force mains, and lift stations. The City recently completed design drawings for a sanitary sewer extension through adjacent Rolling Hills Estates that will bring service to Rolling Hills City Hall and the Tennis Courts. A future phase of this project could continue southward along Portuguese Bend Road, allowing some Rolling Hills homes and a number of vacant properties to be served by sewer. A survey done by the City in 2021 indicated there was strong support for a sewer extension project, contingent on the cost to each homeowner. There is currently no funding source for such an extension. Grant funding would be required, as it would reduce the cost burden on homeowners and make the project more feasible. The City will continue to work toward addressing this constraint during the 2021-29 planning period. This includes: • Developing the initial phase of the project, serving City Hall and the Tennis Courts • Conducting feasibility and cost studies for a future phase to serve privately owned homes and parcels in the northern part of Rolling Hills • Pursuing funding for future phases • Continuing to poll Rolling Hills residents on their level of support for the project In addition, the City continues to monitor water quality issues related to its MS 4 permit for stormwater discharge. Efforts to address runoff quality and implement best management practices to reduce pollution are ongoing and will continue. Quantified Objective: (1) Complete 1,585-foot sanitary sewer extension to City Hall/ Tennis Courts (Phase I) (2) Complete feasibility / cost study of sanitary sewer extension (3) Obtain grants for Phase I project construction (4) Updated “Will Serve” letter from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, indicating ability to accept effluent from 235 existing homes upon completion of future phase sewer system Funding Source: General Fund/ State grants Responsible Agency: City Manager Implementation Time Frame: Complete Phase I by 2024 Determine viability of future phases and available grants by 2023 584 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-17 Program 15: Consider Participation in CDBG Urban County ProgramPursue Grants for Minor Home Repair Program At least once every two years, the City should re-evaluate the feasibility of joining the Los Angeles Urban County CDBG program in order to create a funding source for home improvements for qualifying lower income Rolling Hills residents. In the event the City finds that the amount of funding it will receive exceeds the costs of administering the program (including staffing and reporting requirements), the City will participate in the program. Available funds will be used to improve housing conditions for lower income and senior Rolling Hills residents, including: • Grants for minor home repair and rehabilitation projects, including electrical, plumbing, and heating repairs; health and safety improvements; and energy efficiency improvements; • Grants to facilitate “aging in place” for lower income seniors and residents with disabilities; • Grants for septic system repair for lower income homeowners seeking to add an ADU If the City determines that CDBG participation is not viable, it will pursue other funding sources that could support a similar grant program for lower-income Rolling Hills homeowners. This could include administration of home repair grants by another entity (such as South Bay Cities COG) or a local non-profit. The decision should consider the potential amount of funding that could be received by the city, and potential uses for that funding, as well as the administrative costs, reporting requirements, and staff resources required to carry out the program. In the event the City receives CDBG grants, it could consider using the funding to assist qualifying lower income households with energy efficiency improvements, housing rehabilitation and improvements, or septic tank replacement. Quantified Objectives: Prepare staff report to City Council regarding participation in Urban County CDBG program Minor home repair/ age-in-place/ septic tank replacement assistance to at least ten lower-income or senior Rolling Hills households Funding Source: LA Urban County CDBG Program/ State grantsCity General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager/ Finance Director Implementation Time Frame: By 2023, and every two years thereafter 585 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-18 Program 16: Code Enforcement The City will continue code enforcement and nuisance abatement activities to ensure the safety and habitability of housing in Rolling Hills. While property maintenance in Rolling Hills is excellent, there is a need for ongoing enforcement of planning and building codes. The City has a “Code Enforcement” webpage with online forms for reporting suspected violations, including those relating to vegetation management and outdoor lighting as well as unpermitted construction or nuisances. Periodic information on code enforcement resources and requirements is also provided to residents through the City’s monthly newsletter. Quantified Objective: Respond to 100 percent of resident Code Enforcement inquiries Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021-2029 Program 17: Reduce Home Energy Costs Energy bills can be a significant cost burden, particularly for households on fixed incomes with large homes to heat and cool. The City has adopted the Green Building Code and enforces Title 24 energy efficiency requirements through its contract with the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety. New residential projects, including new homes, ADUs, renovations, and additions, will continue to be required to meet Title 24 standards. These requirements result in energy savings which reduce gas and electric consumption and home utility bills. Rolling Hills also works with Southern California Edison to distribute information to residents on energy conservation and weatherization, including information on financial assistance and lower utility rates for low-income customers. The City will provide links on its website to assist lower income residents in accessing information on reduced utility rates. Rolling Hills is also a member of the South Bay Environmental Services Center, which provides information on energy incentives, audits and rebates. These programs will continue in the future. The City will also support resident installation of solar energy systems. A growing number of Rolling Hills homeowners have installed photovoltaic panels, increasing energy independence and resilience while reducing home energy costs. Quantified Objective: (1) Provide links on City website related to energy conservation, weatherization, and financial assistance (2) Adopt updated Building Code standards for energy efficiency Funding Source: General Fund, LIHEAP Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Website Update, with links: Complete by January 2023 586 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-19 Program 18: Facilitate New Construction and Home Improvements The City will continue to work with property owners, architects, and builders to enable new housing to be built in the City. Continued cooperation and communication between City staff, applicants, and neighbors will facilitate the construction of new housing. The City is committed to efficient planning, building, and inspection procedures, and regularly seeks ways to improve the process and reduce delays. With few vacant lots remaining, most construction projects in Rolling Hills consist of home additions, repairs and modernization, or replacement of existing dwellings. Continued investment in Rolling Hills housing stock is strongly encouraged and will continue to be supported in the future. Although the City does not provide direct financial assistance to lower income homeowners, it assists owners in keeping costs down through permit streamlining and fees that are generally below average compared to other cities in Los Angeles County. Quantified Objective: 5 new single family homes (above moderate income) Funding Source: Private Funds (Permitting Fees) Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department, LA County Building and Safety Implementation Time Frame: Objective covers the period from 2021 through 2029 Program 19: Remediate Geologic Hazards The City will continue to explore solutions to ground stability and landslide problems. Grading, new structures and additions typically require a soils and geology report along with grading and building permits. The City has developed strict grading practices that limit grading to no more than 40 percent of the lot and require maintenance of natural slopes. These practices are necessary to safeguard the public against ground instability. The City will support repair work on landslide-damaged homes and hillsides that have been damaged or compromised by past landslides. The City will strive to avoid further loss of its housing stock as a result of natural disasters, including landslides and wildfires. Quantified Objective: Geologic studies for new development and major grading permits Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager Implementation Time Frame: On-going, 2021 to 2029 587 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-20 Program 20: Fair Housing Services Program Administration The City will complete a Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement Options Memorandum to determine options for ensuring that existing and prospective residents have access to fair housing services, and that property owners are apprised of Fair Housing laws and practices. This could include an agreement with a third party fair housing services provider to promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, disability, or other characteristics protected by state and federal fair housing law. Other alternatives for outreach, education, and enforcement also may be considered. Based on the findings of the Memorandum, the City will implement Fair Housing measures, including Programs 21 and 22 described below. Quantified Objective: 100% response rate for any fair housing complaint received by the City Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement Memorandum Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager Implementation Time Frame: Complete memorandum by June 2023December 2022 Program 21: Fair Housing Outreach and Affirmative Marketing The City will provide information on fair housing resources on its website, including links to fair housing services. Other outreach measures to be implemented include posting regulations regarding housing discrimination, as well as phone contacts, at City Hall and periodically providing this information in the City’s newsletter. The City will also provide a referral process for any person who believes they have been denied access to housing because of their race, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status or disability. In the event a complaint is received, the City will refer the party to a fair housing service provider for follow up and work with the complainant to resolve the issue. In addition, the City will affirmatively market future housing opportunities in the city by: • Requiring an affirmative marketing plan for any affordable multi-family development created in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone. Such a plan would be prepared by the project’s developers and would ensure that future units are marketed to attract occupants who are demographically diverse, including lower-income households in other parts of the South Bay and Los Angeles County. • Developing materials for Rolling Hills residents who may be seeking tenants for their ADUs, which will be provided to ADU applicants at the time they apply for a building permit or ADU permit. These affirmative marketing materials will include contact information for housing service providers and non-profit housing organizations that serve lower-income tenants in the surrounding region. Interested residents can use these materials to find prospective tenants in a larger market area than the Palos Verdes Peninsula, including residents of all races, ethnicities, ages, and abilities. 588 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-21 Quantified Objective: Active contract with fair housing services provider (1) At least 50% of future occupants of affordable housing created on the RDMO site are from outside Rolling Hills. (2) At least 50% of future ADU occupants are from outside Rolling Hills (to be measured through the ADU survey described in Program 6.2) Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager, Planning and Community Services Director Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021-2029. Website update by December 2022. Program 22: Fair Housing Training for Staff At least one City staff member will attend an on-line fair housing certification training class on an annual basis. These classes are typically three-hour sessions in which participants are informed and educated about federal and California fair housing laws, compliance, and illegal housing practices. The trainings cover prohibited and best practices, including language guidance for advertising housing for sale or for rent, and protected classes under federal and California law. In addition, the City will regularly evaluate the need for multi-lingual services, including translation of material on its website into other languages. It will also continue to implement its reasonable accommodations ordinance and monitor data on persons with disabilities in the city to ensure that barriers to mobility are eliminated to the greatest extent possible. Quantified Objective: Annual staff training (1) At least one Rolling Hills staff member participates in on-line Fair Housing training each year through 2029 (1)(2) At least one presentation on fair housing is delivered to the City Council in a noticed public hearing, attended by at least 10 residents Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager Implementation Time Frame: 2023 Initiate in 2022 and continue annually through 2029 589 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-22 Program 23: Written Procedures for SB 35 Projects As required by State law, the City will prepare written procedures and application materials for projects seeking to use SB 35. Affordable multi-family housing development on the Rancho Del Mar site would be potentially eligible. The procedures would follow the provisions established by the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, and include the objective standards and application procedures identified when that zone was adopted. Once completed, the information will be included as a PDF link on the Planning and Community Services Department website for easy access. Quantified Objective: Posted information on SB 35, including application form Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Complete by December 31, 2022 Program 24: Updating of Linked Files on Planning and Community Services Department Landing Page AB 1483 requires that every city post current information on fees, zoning standards, design guidelines, processes and procedures, nexus studies and other pertinent information on its website. Although Rolling Hills complies with this requirement today, reorganization of the material could provide greater clarity and easier access to this information. For example, the website could include a link to the RHCA design guidelines, as well as updated flow charts and graphics showing approval processes. As noted under Program 7.2, the website also should include dedicated information about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and the steps residents can take to add an ADU on their property. Quantified Objective: Reorganized and updated Planning and Community Services Department website Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Complete by December 31, 2023 590 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-23 6.3 Summary of 2021-2029 Quantified Objectives Table 6.1 provides quantified objectives for housing construction, rehabilitation, and conservation by income group. The new construction objectives align with the RHNA numbers that appear earlier in the Housing Element. The rehabilitation objective aims to assist 10 very low-income senior households over the eight year period. The conservation and preservation objectives correspond to the approximate number of households in Rolling Hills by income group based on Census data. The objectives aim to preserve housing for 100 percent of these households. There are no housing units in Rolling Hills that are at risk of conversion from affordable to market-rate. Table 6.1: Quantified Objectives by Income Group for Rolling Hills (20 21-2029) Income Category New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation/ Preservation Extremely Low [1] 7 5 25 Very Low 13 5 45 Low 9 45 Moderate 11 25 Above Moderate 5 500 Total Housing Units 45 10 640 Source: SCAG Adopted Regional Housing Needs Determinations (November 2012) [1] City’s RHNA for “Very Low” income is 20 units. This has been allocated proportionally to “Extremely Low” and “Very Low” based on Table 3.8, which indicates the current proportion of “Very Low” income households in these two groups. Extremely low income households represent 35% of the “very low” total. Table 6.2 summarizes the 24 Housing Element programs listed in this chapter. It includes a quantified objective and timeframe for each program, as presented above. 591 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-24 Table 6.2: Housing Element Action Plan Summary # Program Timing Quantified Objective 1 Prepare Annual Progress Report on Housing Element implementation Annually, by April 1 One Report per year 2 Facilitate affordable housing on Rancho Del Mar Housing Opportunity site • Annual meeting with School Superintendent • Subdivision by 2024 16 lower-income units by 2029 3 No net loss monitoring/ other housing opportunities Continuous, through 2029. Address in Annual Report. No net loss of housing capacity for duration of planning period 4 Add definitions of transitional, supportive, employee housing and residential care facilities to Municipal Code December August 2022 Council action adopting definitions and identification of permitted uses (COMPLETED) 5 Adopt density bonus provisions in Municipal Code December August 2022 • Council action adopting density bonus provisions (COMPLETED). • 12 density bonus units by 2029 (on Rancho Del Mar site) 6 Accessory Dwelling Unit production, monitoring, and production • Updated ADU ordinance by August 2022 10/15/22 • ADU Roster in 2021 • Annual ADU survey, starting in 2022 • Pre-approved plans in 2024 • ADU incentives in 2023 • Annual monitoring program (2023) 40 ADUs by 2029, including at least 13 ADUs affordable to lower income households 7 Accessory Dwelling Unit Outreach, Education, and Information • First biennial mailing by end of 2022 • Website update by 6/23 • Update of design guidelines by 2024 • Outreach mailer to 639 households • ADU website landing page • ADU section added to RHCA Guidelines 8 Assist senior and disabled households • Website update by 6/23 • Housing assistance during 2021-2029 Assist 10 lower income senior households with age in place retrofits 9 Assist extremely low income households • Prepare inventory of ELI units by 2024 7 ADUs affordable to ELI households 592 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-25 # Program Timing Quantified Objective 10 Support regional efforts to end homelessness Ongoing • Participate in point-in- time surveys • Attend one mtg a year 11 Permit streamlining Ongoing Compliance with Permit Streamlining Act 12 Facilitate communication with affordable housing service providers, developers, and advocates By December 2022 • Convene at least one meeting a year • See Programs 8, 13, 15 13 Shared housingHome Sharing By December 2022 • Provide information on website, plus print media resources • Five shared housing arrangements 14 Sewer feasibility studies and Phase I construction Phase I construction (serving City Hall) by 2024 • Sewer extension to City Hall/ Tennis Courts • Feasibility study for sewer extension • “Will serve” letter for 235 existing homes 15 Consider participation in Urban County CBDG Program By 2023 Staff report and Council discussion Minor home repair/septic tank replacement assistance to 10 lower income or senior households 16 Code enforcement Ongoing 100% follow up 17 Reduce home energy costs By 2023 Website update 18 Facilitate new construction and home improvements Ongoing 5 market-rate single family homes (including 3 already approved) 19 Remediate geologic hazards Ongoing Geologic studies for new development 20 Fair housing program administration Develop fair housing compliance program by December 2022 Fair Housing Planning Memo100% response to all Fair Housing complaints 21 Fair housing outreach and affirmative marketing Website update by December 2022 • Contract with fair housing service provider • At least 50% of future occupants of affordable housing created on the RDMO site are from outside Rolling Hills • At least 50% of future ADU occupants are from outside Rolling Hills 593 A D O P T I O N D R A F T Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-26 • Website links or landing page 22 Fair housing training for City staff Initiate in 2022 • Training for one staff member annually • Noticed presentation to City Council attended by at least 10 residents Annual training for at least one staff member 23 Prepare written instructions for SB 35 applications Complete by December 31, 2022 Guidance memo and application form 24 Update Planning and Community Services website Complete by December 31, 2023 Updated website 594 FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Prepared for: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Contact: John F. Signo, AICP (310) 377-1521 Prepared by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 600 West Broadway, Suite 250 Glendale, CA 91204 (213) 623-1859 September 2022 595 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .................................................... 1 1.2 AVAILABILITY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENT AND IS/MND ............................................................... 1 SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................ 2 2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 HOUSING ELEMENT OVERVIEW.................................................................................................... 4 2.4 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) ....................................................................... 4 2.5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES ............................................................................... 5 2.5.1 Approved or Pending Development ................................................................................ 5 2.5.2 Vacant Residential Lots .................................................................................................... 5 2.5.3 Rancho Del Mar Site ......................................................................................................... 8 2.5.4 Accessory Dwelling Units ................................................................................................. 8 2.5.5 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA .................................................................................. 8 2.6 2021-2029 GOALS AND POLICIES AND CEQA ANALYSIS ............................................................... 9 2.7 APPROVALS REQUIRED ................................................................................................................. 9 SECTION 3.0 – FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 10 SECTION 4.0 – MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................................. 11 SECTION 5.0 – CIRCULATION .............................................................................................................. 19 SECTION 6.0 – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .......................................................................................... 20 6.1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS .......................................................................... 20 SECTION 7.0 – REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ................................. 26 SECTION 8.0 – FINAL DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ............................. 29 SECTION 9.0 – MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .......................................................................... 30 SECTION 10.0 – REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 31 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A – FINAL DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DETERMINATION APPENDIX B – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 596 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 iii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2-1: Vacant Residential Lots and Realistic Yield .................................................................................. 6 Table 2-2: Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA .............................................................................................. 9 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2-1: Project Location .......................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2-2: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites ................................................................................................ 7 597 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 1 SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1.1 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION On August 8, 2022, the City of Rolling Hills distributed the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (Proposed Project) to public agencies and the general public. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a 30-day public review period for the Draft IS/MND was provided from August 8, 2022 to September 7, 2022. 1.2 AVAILABILITY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENT AND IS/MND The Notices of Intent (NOI) and the IS/MND were available for review at the following locations:  City of Rolling Hills City Hall: Planning and Community Services Department 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274  City of Rolling Hills Website: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/planning_and_community_services/index.php 598 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 2 SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Rolling Hills (City) is a rural, equestrian residential community, consisting entirely of large lot residential parcels of one acre or more. The community encompasses 2.99 square miles of land (approximately 1,910 acres) on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the County of Los Angeles (Figure 2-1). The City’s General Plan was drafted and adopted in 1990. The City is proposing an update to the Housing Element of the General Plan. The 2020 Census indicates a citywide population of 1,739 residents, making the City the fifth smallest of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County. The City is proposing to adopt the Housing Element for the Sixth Cycle planning period from 2021 to 2029. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (HEU or 2021-2029 HEU) is available on the City’s website. The Housing Element, which is part of the City’s General Plan, is a policy document designed to provide the City a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the community. California Government Code Section 65580 states the following regarding the importance of creating housing elements: The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order. Per State law, the housing element has two main purposes: 1. To provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints in meeting these needs; and 2. To provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs. A detailed description of the update is provided below. 2.2 BACKGROUND The City’s Housing Element serves as an integrated part of the General Plan and is subject to detailed statutory requirements, including a requirement to be updated every eight years and mandatory review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This action includes the adoption of the HEU, which is a policy document; no actual development or rezoning of parcels is included as part of the HEU. The proposed HEU is an eight-year plan for the 2021-2029 period. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583, a housing element is required to consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Specifically, a housing element is required to contain the following:  An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs (Government Code Section 65583[a]) 599 CrestRdSilver S purRd I n d i a n P e akRd Palos Verdes Dr N W 1st S t PalosVerdes Dr S Mi ral esteDrPalosVerdesDrERollingHillsRdCrestridge Rd CrenshawBlvdUV107 SanBernardino Kern SanLuisObispo Ventura Santa Barbara RiversideOrange Los Angeles San Diego 1:200,000 1:5,000,000 Figure 1 City of Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Project Location Name: 21330 PLAN Fig 1 Project Location.Mxd Print Date: 6/21/2022 12:21:39 PM Author: pcarlos 0 1,500 3,000750 Feet ´ Project Location Project Location 600 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 4  A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing (Government Code Section 65583[a])  A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation of the policies and to achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element (Government Code Section 65583[c]) Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) began the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process for the Sixth Cycle in Fall 2019, exploring different methodologies for allocating the regional need to individual cities and counties. As other cities began work on their Sixth Cycle Elements, the City was required to first amend its Fifth Cycle Element to accommodate both the current (Fifth) cycle and the prior (Fourth) cycle RHNA allocations due to its noncompliant status. The combined RHNA for the two cycles was 28 units. Accommodating this need meant that City was also required to amend its General Plan and zoning to create additional housing capacity. The Fifth Cycle Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on June 14, 2021 and certified by HCD on July 7, 2021. As a result of the compliance determination, the City does not have to carry over its prior allocation and may plan only for the 45 units identified in the Sixth Cycle RHNA. 2.3 HOUSING ELEMENT OVERVIEW The City’s HEU consists of the following major components:  A review of the prior housing element and goals that were accomplished (Section 2, Evaluation of Prior Housing Element)  An assessment of housing needs in the City including profile and analysis of the City’s demographics, housing characteristics, and existing and future housing needs (Section 3, Housing Needs Assessment)  An assessment of resources available to meet the City’s objectives regarding housing production and preservation. Resources include land available for new construction and redevelopment, as well as financial and administrative resources available (Section 4, Housing Sites)  A review of the constraints to housing production and preservation. Constraints include potential market, governmental policy, and environmental limitations to meeting the City’s identified housing needs (Section 5, Constraints to Housing Production)  A statement of the housing plan to address the City’s identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs (Section 6, Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs) 2.4 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) State housing element law requires housing elements to be updated regularly to reflect a community’s changing housing needs, including preparation of a RHNA plan [Government Code Section 65584(a)]. A critical measure of compliance is the ability of a jurisdiction to accommodate its share of the RHNA prepared by HCD for each Council of Governments in the state that identifies projected housing units 601 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 5 needed for all economic segments based on Department of Finance population estimates. SCAG is responsible for allocating this total to each of the six counties and 191 cities in the SCAG area. This process is known as the RHNA and occurs every eight years. SCAG calculates each city and county’s “fair share” of the regional need using a computer model that weighs factors such as existing population and employment, growth potential, proximity to transit, and social equity. For each jurisdiction, SCAG distributes the RHNA among four different income groups. This ensures that each city or county is planning for housing that meet the needs of all economic segments of the community, including lower income households. For the City, the RHNA for 2021-2029 is 45 units (SCAG 2020). This includes 20 very low income units, 9 low income units, 11 moderate income units, and 5 above moderate income units. The 2021-2029 Housing Element demonstrates that the City has the capacity to accommodate this assignment. 2.5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES The below sections include a discussion of the inventory of potential housing sites in the City and the City’s availability to meet RHNA numbers. 2.5.1 Approved or Pending Development There are 12 housing units in the City that are approved or pending and not yet constructed. All of these units are expected to become available for occupancy during the 2021-2029 period and, therefore, count toward meeting the RHNA. These units include three market-rate single family homes and nine Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). 2.5.2 Vacant Residential Lots There are 34 vacant, residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City, totaling 124.8 acres, as shown in Figure 2-2. Of the 34 sites, 20 are estimated to be developable and 14 are severely constrained and presumed undevelopable for the 2021-2029 planning period. The constrained parcels include five lots that are landlocked with no street frontage and nine that are in the Flying Triangle Landslide Hazard Overlay area. Several of the lots in the landslide area had homes that were destroyed by earth movement in the 1980s and early 1990s. For the 20 remaining vacant lots, Table 2-1 below indicates the “realistic” potential for 20 single family homes. Note that there is a potential for additional units to be provided, however, to take a conservative approach, the realistic yield was utilized. The site locations in the table below, correspond with the locations in Figure 2-2. 602 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 6 Table 2-1: Vacant Residential Lots and Realistic Yield Site APN Zoning General Plan Acres* Realistic Yield, excluding ADUs 1 7567-006-001 RAS-1 LDR 2.27 1 2 7567-006-014 RAS-1 LDR 1.22 0 3 7567-009-007 RAS-1 LDR 1.61 1 4 7567-010-013 RAS-1 LDR 1.24 1 5 7567-010-015 RAS-1 LDR 1.49 0 6 7567-011-017 RAS-2 VLDR 2.67 0 7 7567-012-019 RAS-2 VLDR 0.96 0 8 7567-012-020 RAS-2 VLDR 1.46 0 9 7567-012-026 RAS-2 VLDR 1.82 0 10 7567-012-035 RAS-2 VLDR 1.64 0 11 7567-012-036 RAS-2 VLDR 1.71 0 12 7567-012-038 RAS-2 VLDR 1.84 0 13 7567-013-005 RAS-2 VLDR 19.81 0 14 7567-013-007 RAS-2 VLDR 7.09 0 15 7567-014-005 RAS-1 LDR 2.12 0 16 7567-014-011 RAS-1 LDR 1.66 0 17 7567-014-013 RAS-2 VLDR 3.79 0 18 7567-014-031 RAS-2 VLDR 6.85 1 19 7567-015-036 RAS-2 VLDR 4.56 1 20 7567-017-017 RAS-2 VLDR 3.52 1 21 7567-017-045 RAS-1 VLDR 1.52 1 22 7569-001-020 RAS-1 LDR 1.03 1 23 7569-001-036 RAS-1 LDR 1.00 1 24 7569-004-026 RAS-1 LDR 3.39 1 25 7569-005-008 RAS-1 LDR 6.52 1 26 7569-012-022 RAS-2 VLDR 2.30 1 27 7569-012-025 RAS-2 VLDR 3.51 1 28 7569-013-017 RAS-2 VLDR 2.41 1 29 7569-013-018 RAS-2 VLDR 2.20 1 30 7569-013-020 RAS-2 VLDR 2.13 1 31 7570-024-019 RAS-2 VLDR 6.04 1 32 7570-024-020 RAS-2 VLDR 11.64 1 33 7570-024-021 RAS-2 VLDR 10.10 1 34 7570-025-022 RAS-2 VLDR 1.68 1 Total 124.8 20 Notes: * = Acreages generally exclude unbuildable easements ADU = Accessory Dwelling Unit APN = Assessor Parcel Number RAS-1 = Residential Agriculture–Suburban; minimum lot size 1 acre RAS-2 = Residential Agriculture–Suburban; minimum lot size 2 acres LDR = Low Density Residential VLDR = Very Low Density Residential 603 2 5 6 A 789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 C 1 3 4 18 19 2021 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 31 32 33 34 B Figure 2 City of Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Vacant Residentally Zones Sites Name: 21330 PLAN Fig 2 Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites.Mxd Print Date: 6/21/2022 12:16:46 PM Author: pcarlos 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet ´ Project Location Zoning Vacant lots with approved single family homes Vacant lots with constraints Vacant lots (counted as one SF home each)604 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 8 2.5.3 Rancho Del Mar Site In March 2021, the City adopted an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone on the 31-acre Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) property located at 38 Crest Road (Rancho Del Mar site). Although the site is technically non-vacant, roughly three-quarters of the property (approximately 23 acres) is open space. The remaining areas are underutilized and could be repurposed. The entire Rancho Del Mar site has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and an underlying zoning designation of RAS-2. The designation permits 16 units on the site, based on the site area of 31 acres and the density of one unit per two acres (31/2 = 15.5, rounded up to 16). However, the General Plan (as amended in 2021) requires that the allowable density for this site be transferred to a single location on the property where a density standard of 20-24 units per acre applies. This is reinforced and codified by the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone (RDMO). The RDMO effectively takes the 16 units of housing and transfers it to a single location on the west side of the parcel. The RDMO further mandates that any housing built on the site be 100% affordable to very low and/or low income households. Such development is permitted by right, provided that the development complies with the objective development and design standards contained in the RDMO. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning amendments completed in 2021, the site is viable for 16 units of low/very low income housing. 2.5.4 Accessory Dwelling Units The City of Rolling Hills has estimated the potential for 40 ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) over the eight-year planning period, or approximately five (5) ADUs per year. This projection is based on the permitting of nine ADUs in 2021 alone, and the implementation of Housing Element program that encourage ADUs in the coming years. 2.5.5 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA As shown in Table 2-2 below, the combination of recently approved housing units (expected to be occupied in 2022), future affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs can accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories. The table illustrates a surplus capacity of seven lower income units based on projected ADU production over the planning period. 605 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 9 Table 2-2: Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA Income Category Total Extremely Low/ Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Approved Development – 2 3 7* 12 Vacant Residential Lots – – – 20 20 Rancho Del Mar Site 8 8 – – 16 Accessory Dwelling Units 12 6 8 14 40 TOTALS 20 16 11 41 88 RHNA 20 9 11 5 45 Surplus/Deficit 0 +7 0 +36 +43 Adequate Sites? YES YES YES YES YES Notes: * Includes 3 new homes and 4 ADUs 2.6 2021-2029 GOALS AND POLICIES AND CEQA ANALYSIS The housing goals, policies, objectives, and programs, which can be found in Chapter 6 of the HEU, reflect the City’s continued commitment to actively support residential development and plan for the City’s fair share of regional housing needs. As previously mentioned, and as discussed in the HEU, RHNA allocation in all income categories can be met with approved development, the future Rancho Del Mar Site, and new ADUs; therefore, the 2021-2029 HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residential lots. Thus, this CEQA document evaluates the potential impacts of development on the 20 vacant sites that could offer 20 single family units. Nonetheless, as previously mentioned, based on the City’s ability to meet RHNA allocation as described above, the HEU is a policy document; no actual development nor rezoning of parcels is included as part of the approval. Further, the HEU, in and of itself, does not propose specific projects but puts forth goals and policies that regulate various aspects of new housing development in the City. However, the HEU focuses on development of 20 vacant parcels with 20 single family homes and impacts associated with that potential future development are analyzed here, to the extent possible based on available information. 2.7 APPROVALS REQUIRED Pursuant to State law, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is empowered to review the housing element of each community to ensure its compliance with the provisions of the Government Code related to facilitating the improvement and development of housing in order to make adequate provisions for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. HCD has review but not approval authority. The City Council will need to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Housing Element Update. No other approvals will be required. 606 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 10 SECTION 3.0 – FINDINGS An Initial Study was prepared to assess the Proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment and the significance of those impacts and was incorporated in the Draft MND. Based on the IS / MND, it has been determined that the Proposed Project would not have any significant impacts on the environment once all proposed mitigation measures have been implemented. This conclusion is supported by the following findings:  No potential was found for adverse impacts on Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources associated with the Proposed Project.  Potential adverse impacts resulting from the Proposed Project were found to be less than significant in the following areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.  Full implementation of the proposed mitigation measures included in this MND would reduce potential Project-related adverse impact on Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources to a less-than-significant level.  The proposed Project will not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.  The proposed Project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantially adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 607 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 11 SECTION 4.0 – MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures and project conditions have been incorporated into the scope of work for the Proposed Project and will be fully implemented by the City to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts identified in this MND. These mitigation measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for this Project (Appendix B). BIO-1: Biological Resources Assessment Applicants of future development projects should be required to prepare a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA). The BRA should be prepared by a qualified biologist. A qualified biologist should conduct field surveys of the project site and focused plant and wildlife surveys. Focused species-specific surveys should be required if suitable habitat is present and performed according to established Survey and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] 2022a). The BRA should characterize the biological resources on site, analyze project-specific impacts to biological resources, and propose appropriate mitigation measures to offset those impacts. The BRA should provide the following information: 1) A complete, recent, assessment of rare, threatened, and endangered species, regionally and locally unique species, and sensitive habitats at the project site and within the area of potential effect, including California Species of Special Concern and California Fully Protected Species (Fish & Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380). Seasonal variations in use of land around the project site should also be addressed. A nine-quadrangle search of CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) should be conducted to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat (CDFW 2022b); 2) A thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities following CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). Adjoining habitat areas should be included where project construction and activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts off site; 3) Floristic, alliance- and/or association-based mapping and vegetation impact assessments conducted at the project site and within the area of potential effect. The Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), second edition, should be used to inform this mapping and assessment (Sawyer et al. 2009); 4) A rare plant assessment using online databases for rare, threatened, and endangered plants, including the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022) as well as the Calflora’s Information on Wild California Plants database (Calflora 2022); 5) A discussion regarding project-related indirect impacts on biological resources in nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, riparian ecosystems, and any designated and/or proposed or existing reserve lands [e.g., preserve lands associated with a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & Game Code Section 2800 et. seq.)]; 6) Impacts on, and maintenance of, wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitats in areas adjacent to the project site. 608 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 12 BIO-2: Take of Species Development projects that would impact species listed under California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/or Endangered Species Act (ESA) should be required to obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permit. BIO-3: Rare Plant Species or Sensitive Natural Community If a rare plant species or a Sensitive Natural Community is detected, the project applicant should fully avoid impacts. The project applicant should retain a qualified biologist to develop an avoidance plan. An avoidance plan should be submitted to the City prior to any grading or vegetation removal. If the project cannot feasibly avoid impacts to rare plants and habitat, or sensitive natural communities, either during project activities or over the life of the project, the project applicant should provide compensatory mitigation for the loss of individual plants and habitat acres, which should include impacts due to fuel modification and landslide remediation. Impacts on vegetation due hazard mitigation should also be mitigated as these impacts would result in permanent loss and perpetual impacts on habitat function and quality. The project applicant should provide compensatory so that there is no net loss of rare plants and habitat, or sensitive natural communities. Compensatory mitigation should be appropriate for the extent of permanently disturbed habitat. Compensatory mitigation should be higher for impacts on California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 species, S1 or S2 Sensitive Natural Community, and Sensitive Natural Community with an additional rank of 0.1 or 0.2. Compensatory mitigation should be implemented by a qualified restoration ecologist. A Restoration Plan, at a minimum, should include success criteria and performance standards for measuring the establishment of rare plants and habitat, responsible parties, maintenance techniques and schedule, 5-year monitoring and reporting schedule, adaptive management strategies, and contingencies. A Restoration Plan should be submitted to the City prior to any grading or vegetation removal. BIO-4: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys Where a project site and areas adjacent to the project has suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher, applicants of future development projects should be required to retain a qualified permitted biologist to survey for coastal California gnatcatcher and prepare an impact assessment. The qualified biologist should survey the project site and adjacent areas to determine presence/absence of coastal California gnatcatcher. The qualified biologist should conduct surveys according to USFWS Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines (USFWS 1997). The protocol should be followed for all surveys unless otherwise authorized by the USFWS in writing (USFWS 1997). Survey results should be provided to USFWS per protocol guidance. Survey results, including negative findings, and an impact assessment should be conducted prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permits. BIO-5: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Compensatory Mitigation Applicants of future development projects should be required to provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in addition to mitigation required by USFWS to prevent temporal or permanent habitat loss. 609 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 13 BIO-6: Nesting Birds Future development projects requiring vegetation disturbance and/or removal, and/or are adjacent to suitable nesting habitat should be required to avoid impacts on nesting birds by conducting all project- related activities between September 1 through January 31, outside of the nesting bird season. If construction must occur during the bird nesting season, project applicants should be required to retain a qualified biologist to survey suitable nesting habitat for nesting birds on the project site and within 100 feet from the project site to the extent allowable and accessible. A qualified biologist should conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 7 days prior to any ground and vegetation disturbing activities. If project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 7 days during the nesting bird season, a qualified biologist should repeat nesting bird surveys before the project can recommence. No-disturbance buffers should be established to minimize impacts on any nests and nestlings. No-disturbance buffers should be maintained until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist determines that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. BIO-7: Nesting Bird Habitat Future development projects removing habitat for nesting birds should be required to restore or replace habitat in-kind and on site if feasible to prevent temporal or permanent habitat loss. Projects should provide replacement habitat for both individual trees and habitat acres. BIO-8: Bat Surveys Future development projects in areas with suitable roosting and foraging habitat for bats should be required to retain a qualified bat biologist to conduct a survey for within the project site and within 100 feet from the project site to the extent allowable and accessible. A qualified bat specialist should identify potential daytime, nighttime, wintering, and hibernation roost sites. Surveys should be conducted prior to any ground-disturbing activities and vegetation removal. BIO-9: Tree Removal – Bat Impacts If a project requires tree removal and a qualified bat biologist determines that roosting bats may be present at any time of year and could roost in trees that need to be removed, during tree removal, trees should be pushed down using heavy machinery rather than felling with a chainsaw. To ensure the optimum warning for any roosting bats that may still be present, trees should be pushed lightly two or three times, with a pause of approximately 30 seconds between each nudge to allow bats to become active. The tree should then be pushed to the ground slowly and remain in place until it is inspected by a qualified bat biologist. Trees that are known to be bat roosts or could support roosting bats should not be bucked or mulched immediately. A period of at least 24 hours, and preferable 48 hours, should elapse prior to such operations to allow bats to escape. BIO-10: Roosting Bats If bats roosts are found within the project impact area, the qualified bat biologist should identify the bats to the species level, evaluate the colony to determine its size and significance, and establish a species- specific no-disturbance buffer that should be maintained throughout the duration of the project’s construction. 610 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 14 BIO-11: Maternity Bat Roosts If maternity roosts are found, project-related construction and activities should be scheduled between October 1 and February 28, outside of the maternity roosting season when young bats are present but are yet ready to fly out of the roost (March 1 to September 30). If maternity roosts are found and the project must take place during the maternity roosting season, trees/structures determined to be maternity roosts should be left in place until the end of the maternity season. Project-related construction and activities should not occur within 100 feet of or directly under or adjacent to an active maternity roost. A qualified bat biologist should establish a no-disturbance buffer that should be maintained throughout the duration of the project’s construction or until a qualified bat biologist determines that the roost is no longer active. Project-related construction and activities should also not occur between 30 minutes before sunset and 30 minutes after sunrise. BIO-12: Jurisdictional Delineation Applicants of future development projects that are located adjacent to a river, stream, or lake should be required to prepare a jurisdictional delineation and impact assessment provided along with the project’s Biological Resources Assessment. If such features are present and may be impacted by the future development, then the project should be required to avoid impacts by implementing appropriate vegetative buffers and/or setbacks adjoining the stream or wetland feature to reduce impacts of the project on these resources. If avoidance is not feasible, the project applicant should be required to notify CDFW pursuant to Fish and Game Code 1602 and obtain a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement from CDFW prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permit. The project applicant should comply with the mitigation measures detailed in a LSA Agreement issued by CDFW. The project applicant should also provide compensatory mitigation at no less than 1:1 for the impacted stream and habitat acreage, or at a ratio acceptable to CDFW. CUL-1: Provide Construction Worker Archeological Awareness Training Prior to the start of construction on sites that are currently undeveloped or where excavation would be to deeper levels than previous excavation levels as determined during plan review, the project archaeologist or their designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of archeological resources and the procedures for notifying archeological staff should artifacts be discovered by construction staff. The Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be fulfilled at the time of a pre-construction meeting, which a qualified archaeologist shall attend. This training will include a printed handout that provides examples of potential cultural resources. The WEAP training will be repeated when construction personnel change and periodically renewed if the project has a long duration (more than 3 months.) CUL-2: Conduct Archeological Resources Construction Monitoring Prior to the issuance of a grading permit on sites that are currently undeveloped or where excavation would be to deeper levels than previous excavation levels as determined during plan review, the property owner/developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (United States National Park Service 1983) to be present during all initial subsurface ground-disturbing construction activities. At the commencement of construction activities, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by the qualified archaeologist, construction manager, general contractor, subcontractor, and construction workers associated with ground-disturbing activities. The orientation meeting shall describe the potential of exposing archaeological resources, the 611 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 15 types of resources that may be encountered, and directions on the steps that shall be taken if such a find is encountered. CUL-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects The term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient and historic times, tribal traditions included but were not limited to the burial of associated cultural resources (funerary objects) with the deceased and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act guidance specifically states that the federal agencies will consult with organizations on whose aboriginal lands the remains and cultural items might be discovered, who are reasonably known to have a cultural relationship to the human remains and other cultural items. Therefore, it is appropriate to consult with local Native American groups as recommended by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner. Work shall be stopped and the construction manager or archaeological monitor, if present, shall immediately divert work at a minimum of 50 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The construction manager or the monitor shall then notify an archaeologist who meets the standards of qualification under the guidelines of the Secretary of Interior and the coroner to assess the discovery. Work shall continue to be diverted while the coroner determines if the remains are Native American. The discovery shall be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the remains are Native American, the coroner will notify the California NAHC as mandated by State law who will then appoint a most likely descendent (MLD). The MLD shall provide recommendations as to the treatment and disposition of the human remains within 48 hours of MLD designation. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with a protective casing to prevent further damage or looting. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored in accordance with methods agreed upon between the MLD and the landowner. If the Coroner determines the remains represent a historic non-Native American burial, the burial shall be reburied in an appropriate setting, as determined by the Coroner. If the Coroner determines the remains to be modern, the Coroner will take custody of the remains. GEO-1: Prepare Paleontological Resources Study and Implement Study Recommendations For any development in Rolling Hills that occurs within high sensitivity geologic units, whether they are mapped at the surface or hypothesized to occur in the subsurface, the City shall require a site-specific paleontological study and avoidance and/or mitigation for potential impacts to paleontological resources. The City shall require the following specific requirements for projects that could disturb geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity, whether they are mapped at the surface or hypothesized to occur in the subsurface. 1) Retain a Qualified Paleontologist. Prior to initial ground disturbance within highly sensitive geologic units, the applicant shall retain a project paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards for Qualified Professional Paleontologist, to direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources (SVP 2010). A qualified paleontologist (Principal Paleontologist) is defined by the SVP standards as an 612 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 16 individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is experienced with paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of California, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor for a least 1 year. 2) Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Prior to construction activity, a qualified paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program to be implemented during ground disturbance activity for the proposed project. This program shall outline the procedures for construction staff WEAP training, paleontological monitoring extent and duration, salvage and preparation of fossils, the final mitigation and monitoring report, and paleontological staff qualifications. 3) Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the project paleontologist or his or her designee, shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff shall fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a pre- construction meeting at which a qualified paleontologist shall attend. In the event of a fossil discovery by construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find before restarting work in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is(are) scientifically significant, the qualified paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources. 4) Paleontological Monitoring. Ground disturbing construction activities (including grading, trenching, foundation work and other excavations) at the surface in areas mapped as high paleontological sensitivity and exceeding 5 feet in depth in areas overlying potentially high paleontological sensitivity units shall be monitored on a full-time basis by a qualified paleontological monitor during initial ground disturbance. The Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program shall be supervised by the project paleontologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources. The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the project paleontologist. If the project paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, he or she may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring would be reinstated if any new or unforeseen deeper ground disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension would need to be reconsidered by the supervising paleontologist. Ground disturbing activity that does not occur in areas mapped as high sensitivity or that do not exceed 5 feet in depth in areas overlying potentially high sensitivity units would not require paleontological monitoring. 5) Salvage of Fossils. If significant fossils are discovered, the project paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall recover them. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner. Work may continue outside of a buffer zone around the fossil, usually 50-100 feet (specific distance may be determined by the project paleontologist). 6) Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a 613 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 17 scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the project paleontologist. 7) Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final mitigation and monitoring report outlining the results of the mitigation and monitoring program. The report shall include discussion of the location, duration and methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic sections, any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those fossils, and where fossils were curated. TCR-1: Retain and Utilize a Native American Construction Monitor If tribal cultural resources are identified during future tribal consultation efforts for future specific development projects or during construction of such projects, the project applicant for that project shall obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor(s) during construction-related ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, weed abatement, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) shall be present on-site during the construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The Native American Monitor(s) shall complete monitoring logs daily to provide descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the construction-related ground disturbance activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources. TCR-2: Evaluate Unanticipated Discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources If tribal cultural resources are identified during future tribal consultation efforts for future specific development projects or during construction of such projects, a qualified archaeologist and Native American Monitor shall be present during construction-related ground disturbance activities to identify any unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources. The qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor may be different individuals or the same individual if the City determines that individual qualifies as both a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor. All archaeological resources unearthed by construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Native American Monitor. If the resources are determined to be human remains (see also Mitigation Measure CUL-3) the Coroner shall be notified, and if the human remains are Native American in origin, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC as mandated by State law, who will then appoint an MLD, who shall then coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the MLD will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2(g), the qualified archaeologist shall coordinate with the applicant and the City to develop a formal treatment plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be 614 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 18 curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be donated to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. 615 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 19 SECTION 5.0 – CIRCULATION On August 8, 2022, the City circulated a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, interest groups, and the general public. In accordance with CEQA Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a 30-day public review period for the Final IS/MND was provided from August 8, 2022 to September 7, 2022. Copies of the IS/MND and supporting materials were made available for review at the following locations:  City of Rolling Hills City Hall: Planning and Community Services Department 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274  City of Rolling Hills Website: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/planning_and_community_services/index.php One comment letter was received during the 30-day comment period (Table 5-1). Responses to comments received are provided below in Section 6.0. Table 5-1. Comments from Agencies on the Draft IS/MND Comment Letter No. Commenting Agency Date of Comment 1 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) August 18, 2022 616 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 20 SECTION 6.0 – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (b) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of negative declarations should be, “on the proposed finding that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the Project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) Identify the specific effect; (2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and; (3) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.” In accordance with PRC 21092.5 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency shall notify any public agency which comments on a negative declaration of the public hearing or hearings, if any, on the Project for which the negative declaration was prepared. If notice to the commenting public agency is provided pursuant to Section 21092, the notice shall satisfy the requirement of this subdivision. 6.1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Written comments on the Draft IS/MND are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the letters are coded using numbers (e.g., Comment Letter 1) and each issue raised in the comment letter is assigned a number that correlates with the letter (e.g., 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, etc.). Comment-initiated text revisions to the Draft IS/MND and minor staff-initiated changes are compiled in their entirety and are demarcated with revision marks in Section 7.0. 617 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 21 618 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 22 619 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 23 620 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 24 621 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 25 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 1 Commenter: Frank Wen, Ph.D., Manager - Planning Strategy, SCAG Date of Letter: August 18, 2022 Response 1-1: This comment introduces the comment letter and requests that when available, all project related information be sent over to the commenting agency. This comment is noted, and no further response is required. Response 1-2: This comment summarizes the recommendations provided in the comment letter and notes that the IS / MND does not reference consistency with the goals of the most recently adopted 2020 Connect SoCal and recommends that a consistency analysis is provided. As requested, a consistency analysis was completed for the Project and is included in the Section 7.0, of this Final MND and in the final Draft MND provided in Appendix A. The addition of this language found that the Project is consistent with the goals of the 2020 Connect SoCal Plan. This addition of text does not result in increased impacts and therefore does not require re-circulation. No further analysis is required. Response 1-3: This comment discusses the 2020 Connect SoCal Plan and goals; listing the goals that would be relevant to the Project and recommends that the goals be considered when finalizing the Project. As discussed in Response 1-2, a consistency analysis was completed for the Project and is included in the Section 7.0, of this Final MND and in the final Draft MND provided in Appendix A. The addition of this language found that the Project is consistent with the goals of the 2020 Connect SoCal Plan. This addition of text does not result in increased impacts and therefore does not require re-circulation. No further analysis is required. Response 1-4: This comment discusses the demographics and growth forecasts utilized in the Connect SoCal document and notes that the IS/MND discusses the population, housing and employment trends and forecasts based on the most recently adopted SCAG 2020 Connect SoCal Regional Growth Forecasts. This comment is noted, and no further response is required. Response 1-5: This comment recommends that the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR) for Connect SoCal be review for guidance as appropriate. The Final PEIR was reviewed for guidance and will again be reviewed when projects are constructed under the Housing Element Update. At this time, none of the mitigation measures included in the Final PEIR were found necessary to be included in the Draft MND, however, these measures will also be reviewed for future projects in the City and may be implemented at that time. Response 1-6: This comment discusses the 6th Cycle Final Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and notes the City’s RHNA allocation, noting that the IS/MND indicates the correct RHNA Allocation numbers. This comment is noted, and no further response is required. 622 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 26 SECTION 7.0 – REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This errata section identifies changes made to the Draft MND to correct or clarify the information contained in the document. Changes made to the Draft MND are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and underlined text to signify additions. The following additions were made on page 34 of the Draft MND: Connect SoCal was fully adopted by SCAG Regional Council in September 2020. Also known as the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the plan assists with long-range planning, balancing future mobility and housing needs with goals for the environment, the regional economy, social equity and environmental justice, and public health. The goals included in the plan, and the Project’s consistency with those goals, are provided in Table 5.11-1 below. Table 5.11-2. Connect SoCal Goals Consistency Analysis Connect SoCal Goals Consistency 1 Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness Consistent. The HEU, which is part of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan, is a policy document designed to provide the City with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the community. One of the main goals of the HEU is to conserve existing housing while providing opportunities for new housing that would serve a variety of income levels. 2 Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods Consistent. The HEU would not create new streets or roadways; however, potential future development of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels would construct new private driveways. Furthermore, all future development during the 2021-2029 planning period would be required to adhere to the 2020 LABC and 2019 CBC and to all programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation, including those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 3 Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system Consistent. The City has no public roads or streets; however, all future development (including the 20 residential lots) would be required to adhere to the 2020 LABC and 2019 CBC and to all programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation, including those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 4 Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system Consistent. Direct, public transportation is not provided for the City because all of its roadways are private; however, future development (including the 20 residential lots) would be required to adhere to the 2020 LABC and 2019 CBC and to all programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation, including those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 623 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 27 Connect SoCal Goals Consistency 5 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.3 Air Quality, future development of the 20 vacant residential lots has the potential to generate toxic air contaminants; however, residential development projects are unlikely to exceed local thresholds or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Additionally, the City’s General Plan and the RHMC contain policies and measures related to maintaining air quality in residential neighborhoods, including protecting neighborhoods from air pollution-generating activities through appropriate development buffers. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, projects will be required to comply with the RHMC, LABC, and CBC, including the CALGreen code, which helps reduce GHG emissions through sustainable design and renewable energy considerations. 6 Support healthy and equitable communities Consistent. RHNA in all income categories can be met and exceeded with approved housing units, future affordable housing units on the Rancho Del Mar site, new ADUs (which have been made easier to develop under a series of recently passed legislation), and potential future development of the 20 residential lots. The City has prepared its HEU in accordance with Section 65580 of the Government Code. Additionally, the update is consistent with the City General Plan and the community’s vision of its housing needs and objectives. 7 Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network Consistent. The HEU includes objectives for energy conservation and, furthermore, encourages sustainable development and provides energy conservation recommendations, including adoption of the California Green Building Code. 8 Leverage new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel Consistent. Any future development would be required to adhere to all programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation, including those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the RHMC. 9 Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options Consistent. The combination of recently approved housing units, future affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs, which have been made easier to develop under a series of recently passed legislation, in addition to future projects on the 20 residential lots, can accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories (i.e., very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income) and comprise a variety of housing types. 624 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 28 Connect SoCal Goals Consistency 10 Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats Consistent. The City does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project involves an update to the City’s Housing Element, with no proposed changes to land use designations or zoning of parcels within the City. Applicants of future development projects would be required to prepare a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA), which would characterize the biological resources (e.g., natural habitats, special-status species) on site, analyze project-specific impacts to those resources, and propose appropriate mitigation measures to offset any potential impacts. If a future project cannot feasibly avoid impacts to rare plants and habitat, or sensitive natural communities, either during project activities or over the life of the project, the project applicant would be required to provide compensatory mitigation for the loss of individual plants and habitat acres. Future development projects that would remove habitat for nesting birds would be required to restore or replace habitat in-kind and on site, if feasible, to prevent temporal or permanent habitat loss. 625 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 29 SECTION 8.0 – FINAL DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Final Draft IS/MND is provided in Appendix A. 626 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 30 SECTION 9.0 – MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This document, along with the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and the Notice of Determination, constitute the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update in the City of Rolling Hills, California. Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Rolling Hills has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City of Rolling Hills. The City of Rolling Hills, as lead agency, also confirms that the Project mitigation measures detailed in these documents are feasible and will be implemented as stated in the MND and MMRP. Signature Date Printed Name Title 627 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 31 SECTION 10.0 – REFERENCES Calflora 2022 Calflora Wild California Plants Database. Available online at: https://www.calflora.org/ California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2018 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Available online at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959 2022a Survey and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines. Available online at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols 2022b California Natural Diversity Database. Available online at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 2022 California Native Plant Society Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Available online at: https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-inventory-of- rare-plants Sawyer, J.O., Keeler-Wolf, T., and Evens J.M. 2009 A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition. ISBN 978-0-943460-49-9. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) 2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Available online at: https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020 The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association Of Governments: Connect SoCal. Available online at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_0.pdf?1606001176 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1997 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/survey-protocol-for-coastal- california-gnatcatcher.pdf United States National Parks Service 1983 Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. Available online at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/upload/standards-guidelines- archeology-historic-preservation.pdf 628 APPENDIX A – FINAL DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DETERMINATION 629 DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Prepared for: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Contact: John F. Signo, AICP (310) 377-1521 Prepared by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 600 West Broadway, Suite 250 Glendale, CA 91204 (213) 623-1859 August 2022 630 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1.0 – PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING ............................................................................ 2 2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 HOUSING ELEMENT OVERVIEW.................................................................................................... 4 2.4 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) ....................................................................... 4 2.5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES ............................................................................... 5 2.5.1 Approved or Pending Development ................................................................................ 5 2.5.2 Vacant Residential Lots .................................................................................................... 5 2.5.3 Rancho Del Mar Site ......................................................................................................... 6 2.5.4 Accessory Dwelling Units ................................................................................................. 8 2.5.5 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA .................................................................................. 8 2.6 2021-2029 GOALS AND POLICIES AND CEQA ANALYSIS ............................................................... 8 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ............................................................................ 10 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: .............................................................. 10 3.2 DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................................ 10 SECTION 4.0 – EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .............................................................. 11 SECTION 5.0 – CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ........................................................................ 1 5.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................... 1 5.1.1 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................ 1 5.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 3 5.2.1 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................ 3 5.3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................. 4 5.3.1 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................ 4 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 6 5.4.1 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................ 7 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 14 5.5.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 15 5.6 ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 17 5.6.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 17 5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................. 19 5.7.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 19 5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................................... 25 5.8.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 25 5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................... 27 5.9.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 27 631 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 iii 5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................ 30 5.10.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 31 5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ......................................................................................................... 32 5.11.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 32 5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 35 5.12.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 35 5.13 NOISE .......................................................................................................................................... 36 5.13.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 36 5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................................... 38 5.14.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 38 5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ......................................................................................................................... 39 5.15.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 39 5.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................................................... 41 5.16.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 41 5.17 TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................................... 42 5.17.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 42 5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 43 5.18.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 43 5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 46 5.19.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 46 5.20 WILDFIRE .................................................................................................................................... 49 5.20.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 49 5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................. 51 5.21.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 51 SECTION 6.0 – REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 53 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A – Biological Resources Reconnaissance Assessment APPENDIX B –Tribal Consultation Responses 632 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 iv LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.5-1: Vacant Residential Lots and Realistic Yield ............................................................................... 5 Table 2.5-2: Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA ........................................................................................... 8 Table 5.11-1. Connect SoCal Goals Consistency Analysis ........................................................................... 34 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1-1: Project Location……………………….………………………………………………………………………………………….3 Figure 2.5-1: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites………………………………………………………………………………………….7 633 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 1 SECTION 1.0 – PROJECT OVERVIEW Project Title: City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Project Location: Citywide. Rolling Hills is located in Los Angeles County, on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (See Figure 2.1-1: Project Location.) Lead agency name and address: City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Contact person and phone number: John F. Signo, AICP, Director of Planning and Community Services phone: (310) 377-1521 email: jsigno@cityofrh.net Project sponsor’s name and address: City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 General Plan Description: Citywide Zoning: Citywide; No proposed zoning changes Approvals Required: Pursuant to State law, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is empowered to review the housing element of each community to ensure its compliance with the provisions of the Government Code related to facilitating the improvement and development of housing in order to make adequate provisions for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. HCD is a responsible agency for the Housing Element Update. The City Council will need to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Housing Element Update. No other approvals will be required. Project Description Summary: The Project is the Sixth Cycle, 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan. The Housing Element is a policy update only, and no specific land use changes or development projects are proposed. See further discussion under Section 2.0, “Project Description and Setting.” 634 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 2 SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING 2.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Rolling Hills (City) is a rural, equestrian residential community, consisting entirely of large lot residential parcels of one acre or more. The community encompasses 2.99 square miles of land (approximately 1,910 acres) on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the County of Los Angeles (Figure 2.1-1: Project Location). The City’s General Plan was drafted and adopted in 1990. The City is proposing an update to the Housing Element of the General Plan. The 2020 Census indicates a citywide population of 1,739 residents, making the City the fifth smallest of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County. The City is proposing to adopt the Housing Element for the Sixth Cycle planning period from 2021 to 2029. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (HEU or 2021-2029 HEU) is available on the City’s website. The Housing Element, which is part of the City’s General Plan, is a policy document designed to provide the City a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the community. California Government Code Section 65580 states the following regarding the importance of creating housing elements: The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order. Per State law, the housing element has two main purposes: 1. To provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints in meeting these needs; and 2. To provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs. A detailed description of the update is provided below. 2.2 BACKGROUND The City’s Housing Element serves as an integrated part of the General Plan and is subject to detailed statutory requirements, including a requirement to be updated every eight years and mandatory review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This action includes the adoption of the HEU, which is a policy document; no actual development or rezoning of parcels is included as part of the HEU. The proposed HEU is an eight-year plan for the 2021-2029 period. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583, a housing element is required to consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Specifically, a housing element is required to contain the following:  An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs (Government Code Section 65583[a]) 635 CrestRdSilver S purRd I n d i a n P e akRd Palos Verdes Dr N W 1st S t PalosVerdes Dr S Mi ral esteDrPalosVerdesDrERollingHillsRdCrestridge Rd CrenshawBlvdUV107 SanBernardino Kern SanLuisObispo Ventura Santa Barbara RiversideOrange Los Angeles San Diego 1:200,000 1:5,000,000 Figure 1 City of Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Project Location Name: 21330 PLAN Fig 1 Project Location.Mxd Print Date: 6/21/2022 12:21:39 PM Author: pcarlos 0 1,500 3,000750 Feet ´ Project Location Project Location 636 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 4  A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing (Government Code Section 65583[a])  A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation of the policies and to achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element (Government Code Section 65583[c]) Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) began the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process for the Sixth Cycle in Fall 2019, exploring different methodologies for allocating the regional need to individual cities and counties. As other cities began work on their Sixth Cycle Elements, the City was required to first amend its Fifth Cycle Element to accommodate both the current (Fifth) cycle and the prior (Fourth) cycle RHNA allocations due to its noncompliant status. The combined RHNA for the two cycles was 28 units. Accommodating this need meant that City was also required to amend its General Plan and zoning to create additional housing capacity. The Fifth Cycle Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on June 14, 2021 and certified by HCD on July 7, 2021. As a result of the compliance determination, the City does not have to carry over its prior allocation and may plan only for the 45 units identified in the Sixth Cycle RHNA. 2.3 HOUSING ELEMENT OVERVIEW The City’s HEU consists of the following major components:  A review of the prior housing element and goals that were accomplished (Section 2, Evaluation of Prior Housing Element)  An assessment of housing needs in the City including profile and analysis of the City’s demographics, housing characteristics, and existing and future housing needs (Section 3, Housing Needs Assessment)  An assessment of resources available to meet the City’s objectives regarding housing production and preservation. Resources include land available for new construction and redevelopment, as well as financial and administrative resources available (Section 4, Housing Sites)  A review of the constraints to housing production and preservation. Constraints include potential market, governmental policy, and environmental limitations to meeting the City’s identified housing needs (Section 5, Constraints to Housing Production)  A statement of the housing plan to address the City’s identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs (Section 6, Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs) 2.4 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) State housing element law requires housing elements to be updated regularly to reflect a community’s changing housing needs, including preparation of a RHNA plan [Government Code Section 65584(a)]. A critical measure of compliance is the ability of a jurisdiction to accommodate its share of the RHNA prepared by HCD for each Council of Governments in the state that identifies projected housing units 637 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 5 needed for all economic segments based on Department of Finance population estimates. SCAG is responsible for allocating this total to each of the six counties and 191 cities in the SCAG area. This process is known as the RHNA and occurs every eight years. SCAG calculates each city and county’s “fair share” of the regional need using a computer model that weighs factors such as existing population and employment, growth potential, proximity to transit, and social equity. For each jurisdiction, SCAG distributes the RHNA among four different income groups. This ensures that each city or county is planning for housing that meet the needs of all economic segments of the community, including lower income households. For the City, the RHNA for 2021-2029 is 45 units (SCAG 2020). This includes 20 very low income units, 9 low income units, 11 moderate income units, and 5 above moderate income units. The 2021-2029 Housing Element demonstrates that the City has the capacity to accommodate this assignment. 2.5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES The below sections include a discussion of the inventory of potential housing sites in the City and the City’s availability to meet RHNA numbers. 2.5.1 Approved or Pending Development There are 12 housing units in the City that are approved or pending and not yet constructed. All of these units are expected to become available for occupancy during the 2021-2029 period and, therefore, count toward meeting the RHNA. These units include three market-rate single family homes and nine ADUs. 2.5.2 Vacant Residential Lots There are 34 vacant, residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City, totaling 124.8 acres as shown in Figure 2.5-1: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites. Of the 34 sites, 20 are estimated to be developable and 14 are severely constrained and presumed undevelopable for the 2021-2029 planning period. The constrained parcels include five lots that are landlocked with no street frontage and nine that are in the Flying Triangle Landslide Hazard Overlay area. Several of the lots in the landslide area had homes that were destroyed by earth movement in the 1980s and early 1990s. For the 20 remaining vacant lots, Table 2.5-1 below indicates the “realistic” potential for 20 single family homes. Note that there is a potential for additional units to be provided, however, to take a conservative approach, the realistic yield was utilized. The site locations in the table below, correspond with the locations in Figure 2.5-1. Table 2.5-1: Vacant Residential Lots and Realistic Yield Site APN Zoning General Plan Acres* Realistic Yield, excluding ADUs 1 7567-006-001 RAS-1 LDR 2.27 1 2 7567-006-014 RAS-1 LDR 1.22 0 3 7567-009-007 RAS-1 LDR 1.61 1 4 7567-010-013 RAS-1 LDR 1.24 1 5 7567-010-015 RAS-1 LDR 1.49 0 638 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 6 Site APN Zoning General Plan Acres* Realistic Yield, excluding ADUs 6 7567-011-017 RAS-2 VLDR 2.67 0 7 7567-012-019 RAS-2 VLDR 0.96 0 8 7567-012-020 RAS-2 VLDR 1.46 0 9 7567-012-026 RAS-2 VLDR 1.82 0 10 7567-012-035 RAS-2 VLDR 1.64 0 11 7567-012-036 RAS-2 VLDR 1.71 0 12 7567-012-038 RAS-2 VLDR 1.84 0 13 7567-013-005 RAS-2 VLDR 19.81 0 14 7567-013-007 RAS-2 VLDR 7.09 0 15 7567-014-005 RAS-1 LDR 2.12 0 16 7567-014-011 RAS-1 LDR 1.66 0 17 7567-014-013 RAS-2 VLDR 3.79 0 18 7567-014-031 RAS-2 VLDR 6.85 1 19 7567-015-036 RAS-2 VLDR 4.56 1 20 7567-017-017 RAS-2 VLDR 3.52 1 21 7567-017-045 RAS-1 VLDR 1.52 1 22 7569-001-020 RAS-1 LDR 1.03 1 23 7569-001-036 RAS-1 LDR 1.00 1 24 7569-004-026 RAS-1 LDR 3.39 1 25 7569-005-008 RAS-1 LDR 6.52 1 26 7569-012-022 RAS-2 VLDR 2.30 1 27 7569-012-025 RAS-2 VLDR 3.51 1 28 7569-013-017 RAS-2 VLDR 2.41 1 29 7569-013-018 RAS-2 VLDR 2.20 1 30 7569-013-020 RAS-2 VLDR 2.13 1 31 7570-024-019 RAS-2 VLDR 6.04 1 32 7570-024-020 RAS-2 VLDR 11.64 1 33 7570-024-021 RAS-2 VLDR 10.10 1 34 7570-025-022 RAS-2 VLDR 1.68 1 Total 124.8 20 Notes: *Acreages generally exclude unbuildable easements 2.5.3 Rancho Del Mar Site In March 2021, the City adopted an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone on the 31-acre Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) property located at 38 Crest Road (Rancho Del Mar site). Although the site is technically non-vacant, roughly three-quarters of the property (approximately 23 acres) is open space. The remaining areas are underutilized and could be repurposed. The entire Rancho Del Mar site has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and an underlying zoning designation of RAS-2. The designation permits 16 units on the site, based on the site area of 31 acres and the density of one unit per two acres (31/2 = 15.5, rounded up to 16). However, the General Plan (as amended in 2021) requires that the allowable density for this site be transferred to a single location on the property where a density standard of 20-24 units per acre applies. This is reinforced 639 2 5 6 A 789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 C 1 3 4 18 19 2021 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 31 32 33 34 B Figure 2 City of Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Vacant Residentally Zones Sites Name: 21330 PLAN Fig 2 Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites.Mxd Print Date: 6/21/2022 12:16:46 PM Author: pcarlos 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet ´ Project Location Zoning Vacant lots with approved single family homes Vacant lots with constraints Vacant lots (counted as one SF home each)640 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 8 and codified by the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone (RDMO). The RDMO effectively takes the 16 units of housing and transfers it to a single location on the west side of the parcel. The RDMO further mandates that any housing built on the site be 100% affordable to very low and/or low income households. Such development is permitted by right, provided that the development complies with the objective development and design standards contained in the RDMO. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning amendments completed in 2021, the site is viable for 16 units of low/very low income housing. 2.5.4 Accessory Dwelling Units The City of Rolling Hills has estimated the potential for 40 ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) over the eight-year planning period, or approximately five (5) ADUs per year. This projection is based on the permitting of nine ADUs in 2021 alone, and the implementation of Housing Element program that encourage ADUs in the coming years. 2.5.5 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA As shown in Table 2.5-2 below, the combination of recently approved housing units (expected to be occupied in 2022), future affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs can accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories. The table illustrates a surplus capacity of seven lower income units based on projected ADU production over the planning period. Table 2.5-2: Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA Income Category Total Extremely Low/ Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Approved Development – 2 3 7* 12 Vacant Residential Lots – – – 20 20 Rancho Del Mar Site 8 8 – – 16 Accessory Dwelling Units 12 6 8 14 40 TOTALS 20 16 11 41 88 RHNA 20 9 11 5 45 Surplus/Deficit 0 +7 0 +36 +43 Adequate Sites? YES YES YES YES YES Notes: * Includes 3 new homes and 4 ADUs 2.6 2021-2029 GOALS AND POLICIES AND CEQA ANALYSIS The housing goals, policies, objectives, and programs which can be found in Chapter 6 of the HEU reflect the City’s continued commitment to actively support residential development and plan for the City’s fair share of regional housing needs. As previously mentioned, and as discussed in the HEU, RHNA allocation in all income categories can be met with approved development, the future Rancho Del Mar Site, and new ADUs; therefore, the 2021-2029 HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residential lots. 641 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 9 Thus, this CEQA document evaluates the potential impacts of development on the 20 vacant sites that could offer 20 single family units. Nonetheless, as previously mentioned, based on the City’s ability to meet RHNA allocation as described above, the HEU is a policy document; no actual development nor rezoning of parcels is included as part of the approval. Further, the HEU, in and of itself, does not propose specific projects but puts forth goals and policies that regulate various aspects of new housing development in the City. However, the HEU focuses on development of 20 vacant parcels with 20 single family homes and impacts associated with that potential future development are analyzed here, to the extent possible based on available information. 642 643 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 11 SECTION 4.0 – EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if substantial evidence exists that an effect may be significant. If one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries are marked when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 644 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 12 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 645 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 1 SECTION 5.0 – CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 5.1 AESTHETICS 1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 5.1.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant. The 2021-2029 HEU is a policy document and does not include any changes to land use designations, zoning, building heights and intensities, or residential densities. Further, the Housing Element includes policies intended to continue to make the City a safe and desirable place to work and live. As noted in Section 2.6 above, the City’s HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City. These 20 vacant lots have the potential to be developed during the 2021-2029 planning period, although no projects are currently proposed or would be approved with approval of the proposed Project. If development of the 20 vacant lots occurs, it is assumed that development would adhere to the City’s zoning and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) requirements for development standards. If any development standards stray from the requirements in the zoning and the RHMC, it is assumed a variance would be required and further environmental evaluation would be required. With adherence to the zoning and the RHMC, if development of the 20 vacant lots were to occur, it is assumed impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. No officially designated State scenic highway is located within the City. The nearest eligible scenic highway, Route 5 (South of San Juan Capistrano)/Route 19 (Near Long Beach), is located more 646 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 2 than 10 miles to the east of the City and the City is therefore outside of the scenic highway’s viewshed (Caltrans 2021). The Project would result in no impacts to scenic vistas or scenic resources within a State scenic highway. c) Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than Significant. As previously mentioned, the Project would implement policies intended to continue to make the City a safe and desirable place to work and live. The City’s current Zoning Code contains standards intended to preserve the natural beauty of the City and to maintain visual orderliness, including provisions related to building standards (height, setbacks, intensities), screening of utilities in development, and outdoor improvements. All future development in the City, which may include the 20 vacant residential lots, would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Zoning Code and undergo project-specific environmental evaluation in order to determine any potential impacts. Furthermore, future development of the 20 vacant residential lots would occur in urbanized areas within the City, would comply with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and would be consistent with the visual character of the surrounding residential areas. If any development standards stray from the requirements in the zoning and the RHMC, it is assumed a variance would be required and further environmental evaluation would be required. With adherence to the zoning and the RHMC, if development of the 20 vacant lots were to occur, it is assumed impacts would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant. Sources of light present throughout the City include residential uses of both interior and exterior lighting and vehicular traffic, while sources of glare include highly finished building materials such as glass, and roadway traffic. The Project consists of a policy document and would not directly enable construction or development. Nevertheless, all future residential development enabled by the City’s General Plan, including the 20 vacant residentially zoned sites in the City’s HEU, are anticipated to introduce light and glare sources typical of development; and all future development in the City would be subject to the zoning requirements pertaining to lighting and glare and the RHMC (Section 17.16.190E Outdoor Lighting). The Zoning Code contains lighting requirements intended to maintain public health, safety, and welfare from noxious or offensive illumination, glare, or similar effects. All future development in the City, including the 20 vacant residential lots, would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Zoning Code. If any development standards specific to lighting and glare stray from the requirements in the zoning code, it is assumed a variance would be required and further environmental evaluation would be required. With adherence to the code, if development of the 20 vacant lots were to occur, it is assumed impacts in regards to the creation of light or glare that would adversely affect views, would be less than significant. 647 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 3 5.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES 2. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES. (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 5.2.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 648 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 4 e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The City does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2021a). Additionally, no land within the City is under a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2017). The Project involves an update to the City’s Housing Element, with no proposed changes to land use designations or zoning of parcels within the City. The City is a residential community, and no provisions contained in the Housing Element Update would convert Prime Farmland or any farmland of unique or Statewide importance. Further, no development is proposed on forestland or timber property zoned Timberland Production. Any future development proposals, including future development of the previously mentioned 20 vacant, residential lots, would not conflict with an existing Williamson Act contract and would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use or result in conversion or loss of forest land. Nonetheless, any future development on properties, including the 20 vacant lots identified in Section 2.6, would be analyzed in a future site-specific environmental document and any potentially significant impacts identified would be addressed through mitigation measures specific to the impact. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural or forestry resources would occur. 5.3 AIR QUALITY 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? 5.3.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant. The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin), which includes all of Orange County and the non-desert regions of Los Angeles County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County. The Air Basin is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. As the local air quality management agency, SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that state and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the 649 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 5 standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the Air Basin is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” Under State law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-attainment. SCAQMD is in nonattainment for the State and federal ozone standards, the State and federal PM2.5 (particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in size) standards, and the State PM10 (particulate matter up to 10 microns in size) standards, and the federal lead standards. It must, therefore, prepare a plan for improvement (SCAQMD 2016). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) prepared an air quality management plan (AQMP) for both pollutants in 2016 and is currently working on the 2022 AQMP (SCAQMD 2021). The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), PM10 and PM2.5, sulfur dioxide, and lead.1 Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROG and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog). Short-term air quality impacts resulting from construction activities, such as dust generated by clearing and grading activities, exhaust emissions from gas- and diesel-powered construction equipment, and vehicular emissions associated with the commuting of construction workers, will be subject to SCAQMD air quality management plans identified above and all other relevant SCAQMD rules and regulations. Long term impacts associated with single family residential uses in small quantities doesn’t typically result in significant air quality emissions. The Project would not directly result in construction or development activity, nor would it enable development beyond that which is currently provided for in the City’s General Plan. The number of residential units that could be developed under the HEU, including the 20 vacant residential lots, is consistent with the City’s current General Plan and zoning designations. Additionally, the 20 vacant lots, if developed, may result in 20 single family homes, which are not expected to generate a significant air quality impact. Thus, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to implementation of any applicable air quality plan and there will be no cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. 1 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term ROG is used in this IS-MND. 650 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 6 c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant. As mentioned, the HEU is a policy document and does not include any changes to land use designations or zoning. Future development of the previously mentioned 20 vacant residential lots has the potential to generate toxic air contaminants (TACs); however, residential development projects are unlikely to exceed local NOx, CO, PM10, or PM2.5 thresholds or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Additionally, the City’s General Plan and the RHMC contain policies and measures related to maintaining air quality in residential neighborhoods, including protecting neighborhoods from air pollution-generating activities through appropriate development buffers. Thus, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. Impacts would be considered potentially significant if the Project were to result in the creation of objectionable odors with the potential to affect substantial numbers of people, or if construction or operation of the Project would result in the creation of nuisance odors that would be noxious to a substantial number of people. The City’s General Plan and the RHMC contain policies and measures related to maintaining air quality in residential neighborhoods, including protecting neighborhoods from odor-generating activities through site-specific environmental review and appropriate development buffers. The Project would not directly enable construction or development activities upon implementation. However, if future development of the 20 vacant residential lots were to occur, temporary and minor emissions generated by construction equipment and vehicles would occur; however, residential developments, such as that described in the HEU, are not a land use typically associated with odor complaints or noxious emissions. The Project would therefore not result in impacts related to emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people. 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 651 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 7 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5.4.1 Impact Analysis Chambers Group conducted a literature review and biological reconnaissance level survey of the City’s 20 vacant parcels (Survey Area) on June 9 and 10, 2022 to identify vegetation communities, the potential for occurrence of special status species, and/or habitats that could support special status wildlife species. The full report is provided in Appendix A: Biological Resources Reconnaissance Assessment. The following is a summary of results from the report: Hydrology The Project site is located within the Alamitos Bay-San Pedro Bay and Frontal Santa Monica Bay-San Pedro Bay watersheds within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone. Several National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapped bluelines occur within the Survey Area. The Survey Area is not within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard zones. Site 21 is immediately west of an Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard. No other sites are within or adjacent to Flood Hazard Zones. Site 28 had an erosional feature (non-jurisdictional), originating from the residential home just south of site 28, that was dry during the field survey. The erosional feature (non-jurisdictional) appears to flow northwest along the western boundary end of site 28 and ultimately terminating outside the property boundary. All sites except for 21, 25, 28, and 34 contain ephemeral drainages within the property boundaries. The features within sites 3, 4, and 20 flow southwest through the property; and ultimately terminating in the Pacific Ocean. The features within sites 1, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 flow northeast through the property; however, they do not appear to connect to any tributaries and appear to terminate right outside the property boundary. Water features were observed at all the sites except for 21, 25, 28, and 34. Special Status Plant Species 652 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 8 Following the literature review and after the assessment of the various habitat types in the Survey Area, it was determined that 24 special status plant species are known to historically occur within the Survey Area. Due to a lack of suitable soils and habitats, 20 of these species were considered absent within the Survey Area. Four species were found to have a moderate to high potential to occur within one or more of the Survey Areas. Lewis’ evening-primrose, Catalina crossosoma, and Lyon’s pentachaeta have potential to occur in Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Southern tarplant has potential to occur in Survey Areas 18 and 19. No special status species were found during the biological reconnaissance survey. Special Status Wildlife Species Following the literature review and the assessment of the various habitat types in the Survey Area, it was determined that of the 29 special status wildlife species known to occur within the Project area, 19 species are considered absent from the Survey Area, seven species (cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), western mastiff batt (Eumops perotis californicus), El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni), Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni)) are considered to have a low potential to occur, one species (southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi)) is considered to have a moderate potential to occur, and two species (coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)) are considered to have a high potential to occur. The three wildlife species with a moderate or high potential to occur are federally or state listed threatened or endangered species. Although, these species were not detected during the biological reconnaissance survey. While there is no specific time for accuracy of the prepared biological reconnaissance level survey and report, it is assumed that regarding special status plants and species, that the report would be valid for any construction occurring over the next two years from certification of this document. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As noted in Section 2.6 above, the City’s HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City. These 20 vacant lots have the potential to be developed during the 2021-2029 planning period, although no projects are currently proposed or would be approved with approval of the proposed Project. A biological reconnaissance level survey and report was prepared for the 20 vacant sites (Survey Area). While no special status plant or wildlife species were found on site during the survey, if future development of the 20 vacant lots occurs during the HEU period, a potential to impact special status plant or wildlife species may exist. Implementation of MM BIO-1 would require future development projects complete a biological resources assessment and MM BIO-2 would require that if any species 653 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 9 are listed under CESA and/or ESA and impacted by future development, that proper take authorization is obtained. Additionally, the potential for rare plant species or a Sensitive Natural Community, may exist on any of the sites if they are developed. Implementation of MM BIO-3 would require that rare plant species or a Sensitive Natural Community be avoided during development, and if they cannot be feasibly avoided, that appropriate compensatory mitigation is provided. The coastal California gnatcatcher also has the potential to occur within the City. If future development were to occur, impacts may exist. With implementation of MM BIO-4, which requires that coastal California gnatcatcher surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist, and MM BIO-5 which requires compensatory mitigation for any impacts for the coastal California gnatcatcher, impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher would be less than significant. Additionally, if development of the 20 vacant sites occurs during the nesting bird season, there is a potential to impact nesting birds protected under the MBTA. Implementation of MM BIO-6 would ensure that construction occurs outside the nesting season or avoids nesting birds. If any nesting bird habitat is impacted by future development MM BIO-7 would require that the habitat is appropriately replaced. With implementation of these two measures, impacts to any nesting birds and nesting bird habitat would remain less than significant. Vegetation found in all 20 developable sites could provide suitable roosting habitat for bats. Some of these sites may contain riparian and oak woodland habitats. Construction would create elevated levels of noise, human activity, dust, ground vibrations, and vegetation disturbance. Where a development project would occur within or adjacent to suitable habitat, the Project could impact bats and roosts. Implementation of MM BIO-8 would require that future development projects in areas with suitable habitat for roosting and foraging, conduct surveys by a qualified biologist. MM BIO-9 would require that if trees on site need to be removed, that appropriate measures are taken to allow the bats to escape. MM BIO-10 requires that if bat roosts are found, a qualified biologist shall help to establish a species-specific no-disturbance buffer that is maintained throughout construction. Additionally, MM BIO-11 would require that if any maternity roosts are found, that construction occur outside of the maternity roosting season and if not, that trees are left in place with a buffer until maternity season ends and that construction not occur during certain times of the day to allow for bat activities to continue. With implementation of these measures, impacts to bats would remain less than significant. BIO – 1: Biological Resources Assessment Applicants of future development projects should be required to prepare a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA). The BRA should be prepared by a qualified biologist. A qualified biologist should conduct field surveys of the project site and focused plant and wildlife surveys. Focused species-specific surveys should be required if suitable habitat is present and performed according to established Survey and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines (CDFW 2021c). The BRA should characterize the biological resources on site, analyze project-specific impacts to biological resources, and propose appropriate mitigation measures to offset those impacts. The BRA should provide the following information: 654 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 10 1) A complete, recent, assessment of rare, threatened, and endangered species, regionally and locally unique species, and sensitive habitats at the project site and within the area of potential effect, including California Species of Special Concern and California Fully Protected Species (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Seasonal variations in use of land around the project site should also be addressed. A nine-quadrangle search of CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) should be conducted to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat (CDFW 2022d); 2) A thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities following CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). Adjoining habitat areas should be included where project construction and activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts off site; 3) Floristic, alliance- and/or association-based mapping and vegetation impact assessments conducted at the project site and within the area of potential effect. The Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), second edition, should be used to inform this mapping and assessment (Sawyer et al. 2009); 4) A rare plant assessment using online databases for rare, threatened, and endangered plants, including the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022b) as well as the Calflora’s Information on Wild California Plants database (Calflora 2022); 5) A discussion regarding project-related indirect impacts on biological resources in nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, riparian ecosystems, and any designated and/or proposed or existing reserve lands [e.g., preserve lands associated with a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, § 2800 et. seq.)]; 6) Impacts on, and maintenance of, wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitats in areas adjacent to the project site. BIO – 2: Take of Species Development projects that would impact species listed under CESA and/or ESA should be required to obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW and/or USFWS prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permit. BIO – 3: Rare Plant Species or Sensitive Natural Community If a rare plant species or a Sensitive Natural Community is detected, the project applicant should fully avoided impacts. The project applicant should retain a qualified biologist to develop an avoidance plan. An avoidance plan should be submitted to the City prior to any grading or vegetation removal. 655 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 11 If the project cannot feasibly avoid impacts to rare plants and habitat, or sensitive natural communities, either during project activities or over the life of the project, the project applicant should provide compensatory mitigation for the loss of individual plants and habitat acres, which should include impacts due to fuel modification and landslide remediation. Impacts on vegetation due hazard mitigation should also be mitigated as these impacts would result in permanent loss and perpetual impacts on habitat function and quality. The project applicant should provide compensatory so that there is no net loss of rare plants and habitat, or sensitive natural communities. Compensatory mitigation should be appropriate for the extent of permanently disturbed habitat. Compensatory mitigation should be higher for impacts on CRPR 1 species, S1 or S2 Sensitive Natural Community, and Sensitive Natural Community with an additional rank of 0.1 or 0.2. Compensatory mitigation should be implemented by a qualified restoration ecologist. A Restoration Plan, at a minimum, should include success criteria and performance standards for measuring the establishment of rare plants and habitat, responsible parties, maintenance techniques and schedule, 5-year monitoring and reporting schedule, adaptive management strategies, and contingencies. A Restoration Plan should be submitted to the City prior to any grading or vegetation removal. BIO – 4: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys Where a project site and areas adjacent to the project has suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher, applicants of future development projects should be required to retain a qualified permitted biologist to survey for coastal California gnatcatcher and prepare an impact assessment. The qualified biologist should survey the project site and adjacent areas to determine presence/absence of coastal California gnatcatcher. The qualified biologist should conduct surveys according to USFWS Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines (USFWS 1997). The protocol should be followed for all surveys unless otherwise authorized by the USFWS in writing (USFWS 1997). Survey results should be provided to USFWS per protocol guidance. Survey results, including negative findings, and an impact assessment should be conducted prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permits. BIO – 5: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Compensatory Mitigation Applicants of future development projects should be required to provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in addition to mitigation required by USFWS to prevent temporal or permanent habitat loss. BIO – 6: Nesting Birds Future development projects requiring vegetation disturbance and/or removal, and/or are adjacent to suitable nesting habitat should be required to avoid impacts on nesting birds by conducting all project-related activities between September 1 through January 31, outside of the nesting bird season. If construction must occur during the bird nesting season, project applicants should be required to retain a qualified biologist to survey suitable nesting habitat for nesting birds on the project site and within 100 feet from the project site to the extent allowable and accessible. A qualified biologist should conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 7 days prior to any ground and vegetation disturbing activities. If project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 7 days during the nesting bird season, a qualified biologist should repeat nesting bird surveys before the project can recommence. No-disturbance buffers should be established to 656 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 12 minimize impacts on any nests and nestlings. No-disturbance buffers should be maintained until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist determines that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. BIO – 7: Nesting Bird Habitat Future development projects removing habitat for nesting birds should be required to restore or replace habitat in-kind and on site if feasible to prevent temporal or permanent habitat loss. Projects should provide replacement habitat for both individual trees and habitat acres. BIO – 8: Bat Surveys Future development projects in areas with suitable roosting and foraging habitat for bats should be required to retain a qualified bat biologist to conduct a survey for within the project site and within 100 feet from the project site to the extent allowable and accessible. A qualified bat specialist should identify potential daytime, nighttime, wintering, and hibernation roost sites. Surveys should be conducted prior to any ground-disturbing activities and vegetation removal. BIO – 9: Tree Removal – Bat Impacts If a project requires tree removal and a qualified bat biologist determines that roosting bats may be present at any time of year and could roost in trees that need to be removed, during tree removal, trees should be pushed down using heavy machinery rather than felling with a chainsaw. To ensure the optimum warning for any roosting bats that may still be present, trees should be pushed lightly two or three times, with a pause of approximately 30 seconds between each nudge to allow bats to become active. The tree should then be pushed to the ground slowly and remain in place until it is inspected by a qualified bat biologist. Trees that are known to be bat roosts or could support roosting bats should not be bucked or mulched immediately. A period of at least 24 hours, and preferable 48 hours, should elapse prior to such operations to allow bats to escape. BIO – 10: Roosting Bats If bats roosts are found within the project impact area, the qualified bat biologist should identify the bats to the species level, evaluate the colony to determine its size and significance, and establish a species-specific no-disturbance buffer that should be maintained throughout the duration of the project’s construction. BIO – 11: Maternity Bat Roosts If maternity roosts are found, project-related construction and activities should be scheduled between October 1 and February 28, outside of the maternity roosting season when young bats are present but are yet ready to fly out of the roost (March 1 to September 30). If maternity roosts are found and the project must take place during the maternity roosting season, trees/structures determined to be maternity roosts should be left in place until the end of the maternity season. Project-related construction and activities should not occur within 100 feet of or directly under or adjacent to an active maternity roost. A qualified bat biologist should establish a no-disturbance buffer that should be maintained throughout the duration of the project’s construction or until a qualified bat biologist determines that the roost is no longer active. Project-related construction 657 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 13 and activities should also not occur between 30 minutes before sunset and 30 minutes after sunrise. Implementation of MM BIO – 1 through BIO – 11 would reduce potential impacts to special status species to a less-than-significant level. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As previously mentioned, while the HEU does not directly allow or approve any developments, the HEU focuses on the potential development of 20 vacant parcels. The Survey Area is not within FEMA Flood Hazard zones. Site 21 is immediately west of an Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard. No other sites are within or adjacent to Flood Hazard Zones. Several aquatic features were observed within the various sites during the biological survey. All sites except for 21, 25, 28, and 34 contain ephemeral drainages within the property boundaries. However, these features all occur in lower lying portions of the sites and do not occur in the proposed impact areas. No work is anticipated to occur within or directly adjacent to these features and all the features can likely be avoided with the use of Best Management Practices including straw wattle and/or silt fencing. Nonetheless, if development of the 20 sites were to occur, a potential impact to jurisdictional waters may occur. With implementation of MM BIO-12, any sites that may have the potential to contain jurisdictional features, would require a Jurisdictional Delineation prior to the start of construction. BIO – 12: Jurisdictional Delineation Applicants of future development projects that are located adjacent to a river, stream, or lake should be required to prepare a jurisdictional delineation and impact assessment provided along with the project’s Biological Resources Assessment. If such features are present and may be impacted by the future development, then the project should be required to avoid impacts by implementing appropriate vegetative buffers and/or setbacks adjoining the stream or wetland feature to reduce impacts of the project on these resources. If avoidance is not feasible, the project applicant should be required to notify CDFW pursuant to Fish and Game Code 1602 and obtain an LSA Agreement from CDFW prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permit. The project applicant should comply with the mitigation measures detailed in a LSA Agreement issued by CDFW. The project applicant should also provide compensatory mitigation at no less than 1:1 for the impacted stream and habitat acreage, or at a ratio acceptable to CDFW. Implementation of MM BIO – 12 would reduce potential impacts to riparian habitat and wetlands to a less-than-significant level. 658 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 14 d) Would the project Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The City is a heavily landscaped residential community interspersed with undeveloped steep hillsides and canyons (City 1990). The HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City. These parcels have the potential to each be developed with a single family home, and are scattered throughout the City, most of which would be considered infill development. Within these undeveloped areas, the potential exists for nesting birds, bats, and other species to occur. However, the Project would implement MM BIO-6 through BIO-11 which would require that construction occur outside nesting/roosting seasons or require appropriate avoidance or compensatory mitigation for all nesting birds and bats. Implementation of MM BIO – 6 through BIO - 11 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and bats to a less than significant level. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservancy Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less than Significant. The County of Los Angeles’s Significant Ecological Area (SEA) Program was originally established as a part of the 1980 County General Plan, to help conserve the genetic and physical diversity in the County. The SEA Ordinance, which codified the SEA Program, establishes the permitting, design standards and review process for development within SEAs. The City contains portions of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Coastline SEA; however, only areas within unincorporated Los Angeles County are subject to this ordinance. Additionally, the City’s Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan, has a few policies to preserve natural resources within the City including: Policy 1.1: Encourage the retention of natural habitat for wildlife through the preservation of existing vegetation. Policy 1.2: Encourage the reintroduction of native wildlife onto the Peninsula. Policy 1.7: Encourage the preservation of watershed areas in their natural state. Further, policies and programs of the HEU promote infill housing including ADUs. Any future development, that occurs pursuant to HEU would be required to adhere to these policies. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts in regards to conflicting with any local policies, ordinances, or plans protecting biological resources. 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 659 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 15 (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 5.5.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project involves adoption of a policy document, the HEU, which does not directly propose any ground disturbance. However, the HEU focuses on the possible development of the 20 vacant parcels. If development were to occur, since the sites are vacant, no historical resources are expected to be disturbed. However, the potential for archaeological or pre-historic resources to be discovered during the grading and excavation process exists and is considered potentially significant. If archaeological resources are identified, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, a project site would require treatment in accordance with the provisions of that law, as appropriate. This could include stopping work and evaluating the find, preserving the find, and waiting for site release by a qualified archaeologist to resume work. To ensure construction workers are aware of potential impacts and can identify them, MM CUL-1 would be required for future projects implemented under the 2021-2029 Housing Element that are currently undeveloped or where excavation would be to deeper levels than previous excavation levels, as determined during plan review. As previously mentioned, while the HEU does not directly allow or approve any developments, the HEU focuses on the potential development of 20 vacant parcels. If development were to occur, ground disturbance would be required on the 20 vacant sites that have not previously been developed, which would have the potential for construction activities to damage or destroy previously unknown historic or prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface. Consequently, damage to or destruction of previously unknown sub-surface cultural resources could occur because of development implemented under the 2021-2029 Housing Element. This represents a potentially significant impact. If the site is determined to be sensitive through the archaeological investigation as part of the permitting process, MM CUL-2 would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant. CUL-1 Provide Construction Worker Archeological Awareness Training Prior to the start of construction on sites that are currently undeveloped or where excavation would be to deeper levels than previous excavation levels as determined during plan review, the project archaeologist or their designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of archeological resources and the procedures for notifying archeological staff should artifacts be discovered by construction staff. The Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be fulfilled at the time of a pre-construction meeting, which a qualified archaeologist 660 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 16 shall attend. This training will include a printed handout that provides examples of potential cultural resources. The WEAP training will be repeated when construction personnel change and periodically renewed if the project has a long duration (more than 3 months.) CUL-2 Conduct Archeological Resources Construction Monitoring Prior to the issuance of a grading permit on sites that are currently undeveloped or where excavation would be to deeper levels than previous excavation levels as determined during plan review, the property owner/developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) to be present during all initial subsurface ground-disturbing construction activities. At the commencement of construction activities, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by the qualified archaeologist, construction manager, general contractor, subcontractor, and construction workers associated with ground- disturbing activities. The orientation meeting shall describe the potential of exposing archaeological resources, the types of resources that may be encountered, and directions on the steps that shall be taken if such a find is encountered. With implementation of MM’s CUL-1 and CUL-2, impacts related to archeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Human burials outside of formal cemeteries often occur in prehistoric archaeological contexts. Although much of the City is built out, the potential still exists for these resources to be present. Excavation during construction activities in the City would have the potential to disturb these resources, including Native American burials. Although no development is proposed with implementation of the HEU, if the 20 vacant sites were to be developed, impacts from unanticipated human remains may exist. The 1990 General Plan EIR has no provisions for the preservation of cultural resources, including Native American burials. Nonetheless, the City must comply with State law on this topic. If human remains are unearthed, the State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. and implementation of MM CUL-3 would be required. CUL-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects The term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient and historic times, tribal traditions included but were not limited to the burial of associated cultural resources (funerary objects) with the deceased and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act guidance specifically states that the federal agencies will consult with organizations on whose aboriginal lands the remains and cultural items might be discovered, who are reasonably known to have a cultural relationship to the human remains and other cultural items. Therefore, it is appropriate to consult with local Native American groups as recommended by the California NAHC. 661 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 17 Any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner. Work shall be stopped and the construction manager or archaeological monitor, if present, shall immediately divert work at a minimum of 50 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The construction manager or the monitor shall then notify an archaeologist meeting standards of qualification under the guidelines of the Secretary of Interior and the coroner to assess the discovery. Work shall continue to be diverted while the coroner determines if the remains are Native American. The discovery shall be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the remains are Native American, the coroner will notify the California NAHC as mandated by State law who will then appoint a most likely descendent (MLD). The MLD shall provide recommendations as to the treatment and disposition of the human remains within 48 hours of MLD designation. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with a protective casing to prevent further damage or looting. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored in accordance with methods agreed upon between the MLD and the landowner. If the Coroner determines the remains represent a historic non-Native American burial, the burial shall be reburied in an appropriate setting, as determined by the Coroner. If the Coroner determines the remains to be modern, the Coroner will take custody of the remains. Implementation of MM CUL-3 would reduce potential impacts to human remains to a less-than-significant level. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources are also discussed in Section 5.18, Tribal Cultural Resources of this IS MND. 5.6 ENERGY 6. ENERGY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? 5.6.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant. The HEU is consistent with the City’s General Plan and contains policies to conserve energy resources. The HEU also seeks to conserve energy through public education on the reduction of residential energy use. Any future development, including potential development of the previously identified 20 vacant residential lots, would also be subject to individual review for compliance with federal, State, and local regulatory requirements related to energy efficiency. If the 20 vacant sites were to be constructed with 20 singles family homes, energy use during construction would be in the form of fuel consumption (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) to operate heavy 662 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 18 equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators for lighting. Energy use during the construction would be temporary in nature, and equipment used would be typical of construction projects in the region. Construction contractors would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable CARB regulations that restrict the idling of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles and govern the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment. Construction activities would be required to utilize fuel-efficient equipment consistent with State and federal regulations and would comply with State measures to reduce the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. These practices would result in efficient use of energy during construction of future development. Additionally, if the 20 single family homes were to be built, they would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings), the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated commercial and residential buildings constructed in California. This code applies to the building envelope, space-conditioning systems, and water-heating and lighting systems of buildings and appliances and provides guidance on construction techniques to maximize energy conservation. Minimum efficiency standards are given for a variety of building elements, including appliances; water and space heating and cooling equipment; and insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings. The code emphasizes saving energy at peak periods and seasons and improving the quality of installation of energy efficiency measures. CALGreen sets targets for energy efficiency, water consumption, dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water, diversion of construction waste from landfills, and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including ecofriendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation, and acoustical wall and ceiling panels. As a result, operation of 20 single family homes would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant. Any future development in the City, including the 20 vacant properties, would be subject to federal, State, and local regulatory requirements related to energy efficiency. Additionally, goals, policies, and programs related to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (as discussed in Section 5.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions) are closely related to reducing energy consumption through the use of alternative forms of energy or sustainable design features. Proposed projects related to implementation of the HEU would be required to comply with City and State energy-efficiency regulations and standards, including CALGreen building code requirements, and compliance with these requirements would be assessed during the project permitting and review process. This would ensure that individual projects implemented under the HEU would not conflict with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans adopted by the City. As such, reasonably foreseeable development under the HEU would not conflict with or obstruct a plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant. 663 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 19 5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? 5.7.1 Impact Analysis a) i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? 664 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 20 Less Than Significant. Rolling Hills is in a seismically active region of southern California, with the Whittier fault, Newport-Inglewood fault, Palos Verdes fault, Malibu Coast fault, Cabrillo fault, Santa Monica fault, and Redondo Canyon fault all within 50 miles of the City. The closest active fault to the City is the Palos Verdes Fault, located within the City boundaries. While there are a number of seismically active faults in the City and region, there are no active faults with the potential for ground rupture, defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The closest Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone is the Newport-Inglewood Fault approximately nine miles northeast of the City (City 1990). Potential development projects proposed on the 20 vacant residential lots during implementation of the HEU would be subject to the City’s General Plan including the newly adopted Safety Element, goals and policies and the provisions in the RHMC, which adopted the Los Angeles County Building Code (LABC) as of 2020. The 2020 LABC adopts and amends the 2018 International Building Code and the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) requirements to reduce seismic impacts. The Safety Element contains important policies that aim to protect the community from loss of life, injury, property damage, and destruction from earthquakes and geologic hazards. All potential projects built on the 20 vacant residential lots would be required to comply with the RHMC’s building regulations and engineering practices. This, and adherence to the goals and policies in the Safety Element of the General Plan, would reduce impacts due to potential seismic ground shaking to less-than-significant levels. Landslides can occur because of ground shaking from an earthquake in loosely consolidated, wet soil and/or rocks on steep sloping terrain. The most common earthquake-induced landslides include shallow, disrupted landslides such as rock falls, rockslides, and soil slides. Much of the existing development in Rolling Hills is located on hilly terrain that is highly susceptible to landslide risks, and potential future development of the 20 vacant residential lots would similarly be located on steep terrain. Residential development implemented under the HEU would be required to adhere to the RHMC, which includes provisions in the 2020 LABC that regulate building design and would address risks from landslides. Through compliance with the latest codes and the requirements of the Safety Element, projects developed under the 2021-2029 HEU would have less than significant impacts relative to landslides. The potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading, and seismically induced dynamic settlement within the City, including the 20 vacant residential lots, is low (City 1990). Liquefaction occurs when seismic waves pass through water-saturated granular soil, causing some of the empty spaces between granules to collapse, resulting in a loss of ground strength and a near-liquid state. Liquefaction causes horizontal movements commonly 10 to 15 feet, but up to 100 feet, soil flows, and loss of bearing strength, all of which could cause structures to settle or tip. Liquefaction can cause severe damage to property. The City does not contain any mapped liquefactions zones (DOC 2022) and, therefore, projects developed under the 2021-2029 HEU would have less than significant impacts relative to liquefaction. Overall, compliance with the RHMC, LABC and CBC, and the City’s General Plan Safety Element goals and policies, as described above, would ensure that impacts related to seismic activity, including shaking, landslide, and liquefaction would be less than significant. 665 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 21 b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant. Rolling Hills is a developed city with no commercial agricultural uses and, therefore, has minimal potential for erosion or topsoil loss due to further development. The 20 vacant residential lots identified in the 2021-2029 HEU would comprise new residential development and would not rezone agricultural land where topsoil is a concern. Demolition and construction activities would be required to comply with LABC and the CBC, Appendix Section J110, Erosion Control standards, which ensures appropriate erosion and stormwater pollution control during grading and construction activities. Construction activities that occur on more than one acre are required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit. NPDES requires the development of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which includes best management practices (BMP) to reduce erosion and topsoil loss from stormwater runoff. Development projects proposed under the 2021-2029 HEU would adhere to grading and erosion controls listed in RHMC, which includes a requirement for the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site properties. The Project involves adoption of a policy document, the HEU, which does not directly propose any ground disturbance. However, the HEU focuses on the possible development of the 20 vacant parcels. Therefore, project components such as amount of grading, excavation, vegetation removal, necessary for specific future projects is unknown. Nonetheless, projects proposed on any of the 20 vacant residential lots that total 1 acre or more will be required to prepare a SWPPP as part of the NPDES requirements, both of which include BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control. BMP examples generally include an effective combination of erosion and sediment controls, which include barriers such as silt fences, hay bales, drain inlet protection, or gravel bags. RHMC Section 13.18 requires that a grading plan be submitted as part of the landscape plan, which is required for any applicant proposing landscaping, unless exempted pursuant to Section 13.18.050. The project applicant would be required to submit a grading plan that includes the finished configurations and elevations of the landscape area including height of graded slopes, drainage patterns, pad elevations, finish grade, and stormwater retention improvements, if applicable. In addition, to prevent excessive erosion and runoff, project applicants are encouraged to prepare a grading plan that does the following: grades so that all irrigation and normal rainfall remains within property lines and does not drain on to non-permeable hardscapes; avoids disruption of natural drainage patterns and undisturbed soil; and avoids soil compaction in landscape areas. Development facilitated by implementation of the 2021-2029 HEU would be subject to these conditions and, therefore, impacts to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would less than significant. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant. As previously discussed, much of the existing development in Rolling Hills is located on hilly terrain; and many of the City’s canyons exhibit steep slopes with little vegetation coverage. These areas are highly susceptible to landslide risks. However, the City generally lacks the thick, loose, sandy soils which lead to liquefaction and ground failure hazards. Thus, the potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading, and seismically induced dynamic settlement is low (City 1990). Impacts related to landslides and liquefaction are addressed in detain under Impact Discussion a) above; 666 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 22 therefore, this discussion focuses on impacts related to unstable soils due to lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Lateral spreading occurs because of liquefaction; accordingly, liquefaction- prone areas would also be susceptible to lateral spreading. Subsidence occurs at great depths below the surface when subsurface pressure is reduced by the withdrawal of fluids (e.g., groundwater, natural gas, or oil) resulting in sinking of the ground. The Project involves adoption of a policy document, the 2021-2029 HEU, which does not directly propose any projects or developments. However, the HEU focuses on the possible development of the 20 vacant residential lots. All of these sites are undeveloped and zoned for residential use, and new development would primarily be new residential development where underlying unstable soils could exist. The General Plan Safety Element includes goals and policies designed to address potential geologic impacts. As discussed under Threshold a), above, conformance with the 2020 LABC which is amended from the 2019 CBC, would also be required. With compliance with the existing codes, the Project would have less than significant impacts related to location on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant. Expansive soils are characterized as fine-grained, such as silts and clays or soils with variable amounts of expansive clay minerals that can change in volume due to changes in water content. According to the General Plan, soil types within the City consist predominantly of fertile clays with some loams and shales (City 1990). The potential for soil to shrink and swell depends on the amount and types of clay in the soil. Highly expansive soils can cause structural damage to foundations and roads without proper structural engineering and are less suitable or desirable for development than non-expansive soils because of the necessity for detailed geologic investigations and costlier grading applications. The General Plan Safety Element includes goals and policies designed to address potential geologic impacts. As discussed under Threshold a), above, conformance with the 2020 LABC which is amended from the 2019 CBC, would also be required. The City’s HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City. These 20 vacant lots have the potential to be developed during the 2021- 2029 planning period, although no projects are currently proposed or would be approved with approval of the Proposed Project. When proposed, projects associated with the 20 vacant residential lots would be required to comply with existing codes that would ensure potential impacts from expansive soils such that substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property, would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, impacts would to less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Less than Significant. With the exception of the Rancho Del Mar site and 13 residences that have individually or collectively (through the creation of a small sewer district) connected to an adjacent jurisdiction’s sewer systems, no sanitary sewer system exists in Rolling Hills. Residences are served by individual septic tanks and seepage pits. These systems are designed to serve single-family residences 667 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 23 and are not conducive to multi-family housing; particularly given the geologic, slope, and soil constraints in Rolling Hills. As noted in Section 2.6 above, the City’s HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City. These 20 vacant lots have the potential to be developed during the 2021-2029 planning period, although no projects are currently proposed or would be approved with approval of the proposed Project. If development of the 20 vacant lots occurs, it is assumed that development would adhere to the City’s zoning and the RHMC requirements for development standards of sewer interconnections, and septic tank and seepage pit installation. When proposed, projects associated with the 20 vacant residential lots would be required to adhere for the 2020 LABC, the 2019 CBC, and the RHMC for installation of septic systems. Plans would be required to be approved by Building and Safety to ensure that the potential for projects to occur on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available would be avoided to the greatest extent practicable. The Project would have less than significant impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Rolling Hills lies within the Los Angeles Basin, a sedimentary basin formed by the Peninsular Ranges and the Transverse Ranges in Southern California. Much of this area is known to have high potential for fossil-rich sedimentary rocks. As noted in Section 2.6 above, the City’s HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City. These 20 vacant lots have the potential to be developed during the 2021-2029 planning period, although no projects are currently proposed or would be approved with approval of the proposed Project. The 20 residential lots are undeveloped; therefore, paleontological resources may be present in fossil-bearing sediments and geologic units below the ground surface and could be unearthed during excavation for new development. Ground- disturbing activities in geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present. Therefore, activities resulting from implementation of the 2021-2029 HEU, including development of the 20 vacant lots, could damage or destroy fossils in these geologic units resulting in a significant impact. Effects on paleontological resources would only become evident once a specific project has been proposed, because the effects greatly depend on the individual project’s site conditions (in this case, the geologic setting) and the characteristics and extent of the proposed ground-disturbing activity. However, to ensure development on the 20 vacant residential lots does not have an adverse effect on paleontological resources, each project will need to be assessed as it is proposed in terms of the potential for paleontological resources to be present. Neither the City’s General Plan nor the RHMC address the discovery or conservation of paleontological resources. Projects would be required to comply with regulatory standards enumerated under in PRC Section 5097.574, which sets the protocol for proper handling and projects implemented during the 2021-2029 planning period would be subject to MM GEO-1 described below. GEO-1 Prepare Paleontological Resources Study and Implement Study Recommendations 668 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 24 For any development in Rolling Hills that occurs within high sensitivity geologic units, whether they are mapped at the surface or hypothesized to occur in the subsurface, the City shall require a site- specific paleontological study and avoidance and/or mitigation for potential impacts to paleontological resources. The City shall require the following specific requirements for projects that could disturb geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity, whether they are mapped at the surface or hypothesized to occur in the subsurface. 1. Retain a Qualified Paleontologist. Prior to initial ground disturbance within highly sensitive geologic units, the applicant shall retain a project paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards for Qualified Professional Paleontologist, to direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources (SVP 2010). A qualified paleontologist (Principal Paleontologist) is defined by the SVP standards as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is experienced with paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of California, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor for a least 1 year. 2. Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Prior to construction activity, a qualified paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program to be implemented during ground disturbance activity for the proposed project. This program shall outline the procedures for construction staff Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, paleontological monitoring extent and duration, salvage and preparation of fossils, the final mitigation and monitoring report, and paleontological staff qualifications. 3. Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the project paleontologist or his or her designee, shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff shall fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a pre- construction meeting at which a qualified paleontologist shall attend. In the event of a fossil discovery by construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find before restarting work in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is(are) scientifically significant, the qualified paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources. 4. Paleontological Monitoring. Ground disturbing construction activities (including grading, trenching, foundation work and other excavations) at the surface in areas mapped as high paleontological sensitivity and exceeding 5 feet in depth in areas overlying potentially high paleontological sensitivity units shall be monitored on a full-time basis by a qualified paleontological monitor during initial ground disturbance. The Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program shall be supervised by the project paleontologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources. The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the project paleontologist. If the project paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, he or she may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring would be reinstated if any new or unforeseen deeper ground disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension would need to be reconsidered by the supervising paleontologist. Ground disturbing activity that does not occur in areas mapped as high sensitivity or that do not exceed 5 feet in depth in areas overlying potentially high sensitivity units would not require paleontological monitoring. 669 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 25 5. Salvage of Fossils. If significant fossils are discovered, the project paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall recover them. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner. Work may continue outside of a buffer zone around the fossil, usually 50-100 feet (specific distance may be determined by the project paleontologist). 6. Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the project paleontologist. 7. Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final mitigation and monitoring report outlining the results of the mitigation and monitoring program. The report shall include discussion of the location, duration and methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic sections, any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those fossils, and where fossils were curated. With implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant. 5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 5.8.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant. Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gasses (GHG). The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human- induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), 670 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 26 fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP), which are the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the GHG emissions, referred to as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. CO2 has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, CH4 has a GWP of 28, meaning its global warming effect is 28 times greater than that of CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2014. In response to climate change, California implemented AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 requires the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 emissions levels (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels) by 2020 and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions. On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed SB 32 into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 (aimed at reducing short-lived climate pollutants including methane, hydrofluorocarbon gases, and anthropogenic black carbon) and SB 100 (discussed further below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of 6 metric tons (MT) of CO2e by 2030 and two MT of CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017). The HEU includes objectives for energy conservation and, furthermore, encourages sustainable development and provides energy conservation recommendations, including adoption of the California Green Building Code. Development under the 2021-2029 HEU, including the 20 vacant residential lots, would not conflict with an existing plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Residential development, such as potential future development of the 20 vacant residential lots, is generally not associated with ongoing or significant GHG emissions; however, construction activities would generate GHG emissions from construction vehicles and equipment; these impacts would be temporary. Projects will be required to comply with the RHMC, LABC, and CBC, including the CALGreen code, which helps reduce GHG emissions through sustainable design and renewable energy considerations. Compliance with these regulations will ensure impacts are less than significant. 671 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 27 5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? 5.9.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant. Quantities of hazardous materials are generated, stored, or transported within Rolling Hills. Hazardous-related transportation incidents from fixed facilities (such as an accidental spill or accident at a manufacturing facility) or from pipelines, and dumping may occur. Additionally, as the entire City is likely to experience ground shaking during an earthquake, all sites in the City may be subject to seismic activity during such an event (California State Water Resources Control Board 2021). The LAFD is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) that provides regulatory oversight over hazardous materials and hazardous waste programs in both Los Angeles and Rolling Hills. Additionally, the Safety Element contains goals and policies designed to protect residents and businesses from 672 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 28 hazardous materials and to minimize community exposure to hazardous and potentially hazardous materials. The HEU is a policy document consistent with the City’s General Plan and does not, in and of itself, directly propose physical changes in the environment or enable future development. However, the HEU does focus on development of 20 vacant residential sites. If these 20 sites were to be developed, during construction, construction equipment would require the use of fuel and petroleum-based lubricants and would require regular maintenance of equipment as required by SWRCB and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). However, construction would be temporary and material would be in relatively small quantities. During operation, the 20 vacant residential lots, may contain household hazardous materials such as paint, herbicides/pesticides, diesel fuel, and cleaning products that have the potential to spill; however, residential uses typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials. All new development would be required to adhere to federal, State, and local regulations regarding handling hazardous materials and cleanup standards in case of a spill during construction and operation of all projects implemented under the 2021-2029 HEU. If development of the 20 vacant lots occurs, it is assumed that development would adhere to federal, State, and local regulations and standard protocols during the storage, transportation, and usage of any hazardous materials, as well as compliance with 2021-2029 HEU and Safety Element Policies, which would minimize and avoid the potential for significant upset and accident condition impacts. With adherence to the regulations mentioned above, if development of the 20 vacant lots were to occur, it is assumed impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant. One school, Rancho Del Mar High School, is currently in place and operational in the City and is within 0.25 mile of one of the 20 vacant residential lots. The 2021-2029 HEU would facilitate new residential development throughout Rolling Hills on sites that could be located near or adjacent to schools. Residential uses could involve use and transport of very small quantities of hazardous materials in the form of fertilizer or household cleaning products and would, therefore, not emit or handle hazardous materials in such a way that it would impact those outside the home or property. However, construction activities related to the development of residential structures could result in hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of an existing school. Projects proposed under the 2021-2029 HEU, including development of the 20 vacant residential lots, would be subject to State and federal regulations that apply to the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials with 0.25 mile of a school. With compliance to these regulations, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. No potential hazardous waste sites are under evaluation in Rolling Hills (DTSC 2021; SWRCB 2021). The City and surrounding area do not contain heavy industrial uses that would create a hazardous material risk in the event of a spill, release, or natural disaster. Additionally, the City is 673 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 29 not located near any major transit routes involving transport of a substantial quantity of hazardous material through the City (City 1990). The Project involves a policy document and does not directly propose physical changes in the environment. Development on the 20 vacant residential lots identified in the 2021-2029 HEU does not have the potential to encounter sites previously developed with uses that could include hazardous materials (e.g., automotive repair facilities, dry cleaners, gas stations) because the lots have not been previously developed. Furthermore, future development would be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements concerning the proper handling, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials. The Project would result in no impacts related to location on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant Impact. The HEU is a policy document that analyzes housing needs in the City. The City is within 2 miles of the Torrance Airport, which is approximately 1.4 miles from the northern boundary of the City. However, the City is not located within the airport or airfield safety hazard zone (ALUC 2003). If development of the 20 vacant lots occurs, it will be subject to State and local regulations regarding the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and to City planning, engineering, and building requirements. Furthermore, residential development is not generally associated with excessive noise or safety hazards. Temporary noise increases would occur during construction; however, these increases would be temporary, intermittent, and typical of residential construction. Less than significant impacts relative to noise hazards are expected to occur as a result of the Project and potential development of the 20 vacant lots. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant. The City’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) identifies the potential evacuation routes listed below, which include options for rapid egress from areas within the City if threatened by a wildfire.  Main Gate at Rolling Hills Road and Palos Verdes Drive North  Crest Gate at Crest Road near Crenshaw Boulevard  Eastfield Gate at Eastfield Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East  Crest Road East (emergency access only) Development of the 20 vacant residential lots would involve construction of single family homes scattered throughout the City. Development is expected to occur during the planning years of 2021- 2029 and therefore not all development would take place at one time. Additionally, construction of single family homes does not typically require street closure for any reasons. However, if street closures are required, the City would review construction timing and ensure that adequate alternative routes were available throughout the City. Therefore, development facilitated by implementation of 674 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 30 the 2021-2029 HEU would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Less than Significant. As discussed in Section 5.20 Wildfire, the entire City is designated a VHFHSZ by CAL FIRE, and a substantial amount of land in the City is steep hillsides and canyons (CAL FIRE 2011). The City recently adopted their Safety Element Update which includes measures to mitigate the risk of fire hazards. Although the HEU itself does not entitle development, future development in the City, including development of the 20 vacant parcels would be required to adhere to the policies in the Safety Element Update and the CWPP. Implementation of these policies would minimize potential project impacts. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with wildland fires. 5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flood on- or off-site; iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? 675 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 31 5.10.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources or polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Impact. Rolling Hills is under the jurisdiction of the LARWQCB, which is responsible for the preparation and implementation of the water quality control plan for the region. The RHMC requires owners or developers to implement stormwater pollution control requirements for construction activities. Provisions of the federal and State Clean Water Act require compliance with the NPDES storm water permit during construction for projects developing more than 1 acre. Operators of a construction site would be responsible for preparing and implementing a SWPPP that outlines project-specific BMPs to control erosion, sediment release, and otherwise reduce the potential for discharge of pollutants into the stormwater drainage system. The NPDES also requires post-construction BMPs. Typical BMPs include covering stockpiled soils, installing silt fences and erosion control blankets, and handling and disposing of wastes properly. RHMC Section 8.32 states that new development and redevelopment projects are required to control pollutants and runoff volume from the project site by minimizing the impervious surface area and controlling runoff through infiltration, bioretention, and/or rainfall harvest and use, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit. The 2021-2029 HEU does not propose specific development projects. Therefore, components for specific proposal square footage, paved surfaces, and number of units are unknown. Future development under the 2021-2029 HEU would be required to comply with the LID requirements as outlined in the RHMC and pursuant with NPDES Permit requirements, as described above for projects on 1 acre or more. For projects on smaller parcels, if more than 10 units or up to 10,000 square feet of impermeable surface area would be involved, they would be subject to RHMC Section 8.32 and design would include the runoff control measures described above. With adherence to the RHMC and General Plan goals and policies, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less than Significant Impact. As further discussed in Section 5.19 Utilities and Service Systems, the City is located within the West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD) service area. According to the 2020 UWMP, the District’s only source of water supply is imported, purchased water from the 676 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 32 WBMWD and groundwater is not being used as a source of supply (CalWater 2021). The WBMWD Draft 2020 UWMP states that it will be able to serve 100 percent of projected demands in normal, single-dry and multiple-dry years. As such, the District expects that, under all hydrologic conditions, purchased water supplies (in combination with the future recycled supplies) will fully serve future potable demands (CalWater 2021). The projected demand for 2025 for the District is 151,521 acre- feet per year (AFY). The water demand associated with development of the 20 vacant lots would be 9.24 AFY, which represents a nominal increase in the projected demand. Any future development that occurs pursuant to the HEU in the City, including the 20 vacant residential lots, will be subject to State and local regulations regarding water quality, run-off, and hydrology and to City planning, engineering and building requirements. Since the City doesn’t utilize groundwater and with compliance to the existing regulations, impacts to groundwater would be less than significant. d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels 06037C2026G, 06037C2027G, and 06037C1940F, the City is not located in a flood hazard area and currently has a less than 0.2 percent annual chance to be inundated by flood waters as a result of a storm event (FEMA 2021). Additionally, the City is not located within a tsunami or seiche zone (DOC 2021b; DWR 2021). If development of the 20 vacant lots occurs, adherence to the 2020 LABC which amends the 2019 CBC, would be required. Compliance with the code would ensure that no development would occur in a flood hazard zone. Therefore, impacts related to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones would be less than significant. 5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING 11. LAND USE/PLANNING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Physically divide an established community? (b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 5.11.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City. These parcels have the potential to each be developed with a single family home, and are scattered throughout the City, most of which would be considered infill development. Development of these sites with single family homes would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impacts would occur. 677 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 33 b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant. The City has prepared its HEU in accordance with Section 65580 of the Government Code. The update has also been prepared consistent with the City General Plan and the community’s vision of its housing needs and objectives. Accordingly, the HEU examines the City’s housing needs as they exist today and projects future housing needs based on RHNA allocation. No change to the land use plan or zoning map is proposed as part of the HEU. Additionally, as discussed in Section 5.14 Population and Housing, the additional population associated with potential development of the 20 vacant parcels, would be consistent with SCAG and the City’s RHNA allocation. Connect SoCal was fully adopted by SCAG Regional Council in September 2020. Also known as the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the plan assists with long-range planning, balancing future mobility and housing needs with goals for the environment, the regional economy, social equity and environmental justice, and public health. The goals included in the plan, and the Project’s consistency with those goals, are provided in Table 5.11-1 below. Table 5.11-3. Connect SoCal Goals Consistency Analysis Connect SoCal Goals Consistency 1 Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness Consistent. The HEU, which is part of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan, is a policy document designed to provide the City with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the community. One of the main goals of the HEU is to conserve existing housing while providing opportunities for new housing that would serve a variety of income levels. 2 Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods Consistent. The HEU would not create new streets or roadways; however, potential future development of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels would construct new private driveways. Furthermore, all future development during the 2021-2029 planning period would be required to adhere to the 2020 LABC and 2019 CBC and to all programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation, including those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 3 Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system Consistent. The City has no public roads or streets; however, all future development (including the 20 residential lots) would be required to adhere to the 2020 LABC and 2019 CBC and to all programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation, including those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 4 Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system Consistent. Direct, public transportation is not provided for the City because all of its roadways are private; however, future development (including the 20 residential lots) would be required to adhere to the 2020 LABC and 2019 CBC and to all programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation, including those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 678 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 34 Connect SoCal Goals Consistency 5 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.3 Air Quality, future development of the 20 vacant residential lots has the potential to generate toxic air contaminants; however, residential development projects are unlikely to exceed local thresholds or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Additionally, the City’s General Plan and the RHMC contain policies and measures related to maintaining air quality in residential neighborhoods, including protecting neighborhoods from air pollution-generating activities through appropriate development buffers. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, projects will be required to comply with the RHMC, LABC, and CBC, including the CALGreen code, which helps reduce GHG emissions through sustainable design and renewable energy considerations. 6 Support healthy and equitable communities Consistent. RHNA in all income categories can be met and exceeded with approved housing units, future affordable housing units on the Rancho Del Mar site, new ADUs (which have been made easier to develop under a series of recently passed legislation), and potential future development of the 20 residential lots. The City has prepared its HEU in accordance with Section 65580 of the Government Code. Additionally, the update is consistent with the City General Plan and the community’s vision of its housing needs and objectives. 7 Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network Consistent. The HEU includes objectives for energy conservation and, furthermore, encourages sustainable development and provides energy conservation recommendations, including adoption of the California Green Building Code. 8 Leverage new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel Consistent. Any future development would be required to adhere to all programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation, including those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the RHMC. 9 Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options Consistent. The combination of recently approved housing units, future affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs, which have been made easier to develop under a series of recently passed legislation, in addition to future projects on the 20 residential lots, can accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories (i.e., very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income) and comprise a variety of housing types. 679 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 35 Connect SoCal Goals Consistency 10 Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats Consistent. The City does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project involves an update to the City’s Housing Element, with no proposed changes to land use designations or zoning of parcels within the City. Applicants of future development projects would be required to prepare a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA), which would characterize the biological resources (e.g., natural habitats, special-status species) on site, analyze project-specific impacts to those resources, and propose appropriate mitigation measures to offset any potential impacts. If a future project cannot feasibly avoid impacts to rare plants and habitat, or sensitive natural communities, either during project activities or over the life of the project, the project applicant would be required to provide compensatory mitigation for the loss of individual plants and habitat acres. Future development projects that would remove habitat for nesting birds would be required to restore or replace habitat in-kind and on site, if feasible, to prevent temporal or permanent habitat loss. All future development in the City, including the 20 vacant sites, would be required to comply with existing land use plans, policies, and regulations. If any developments would conflict with any of these plans, policies, or regulation, further environmental evaluation would be required. With adherence to the City’s zoning and the RHMC, if development of the 20 vacant lots were to occur, it is assumed impacts would be less than significant. 5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES 12. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 5.12.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The City is not designated as having any known mineral resources. Although mineral resources exist in the area, they are outside the City limits and outside the boundaries of the General 680 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 36 Plan (City 1990). The City’s HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City. No land use or zoning changes are proposed. Therefore, the Project would have no impacts on the availability of any known resources or locally important mineral resource recovery sites. 5.13 NOISE 13. NOISE Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 5.13.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant. Noise is unwanted sound that disturbs human activity. Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time, and different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Noise level measurements include intensity, frequency, and duration, as well as time of occurrence. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from point sources (such as construction equipment). Noise from lightly traveled roads typically attenuates at a rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily traveled roads typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance, while noise from a point source typically attenuates at about 6 dBA per doubling of distance. The HEU, in and of itself, does not propose specific projects but puts forth goals and policies that regulate various aspects of new housing development in the City. However as previously mentioned, the HEU focuses on development of 20 vacant parcels with 20 single family homes and impacts associated with that potential future development are analyzed here to the extent possible based on available information. Development facilitated under the HEU would be required to be consistent with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Section 15.36.020 of the RHMC requires that no work of improvement or the operation of mechanical equipment used in connection with work of improvement shall occur 681 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 37 within the territorial limits of the City except on Monday through Saturday of each week, commencing at the hour of seven a.m. and ending at the hour of six p.m. on each day. Residential uses are not substantial generators of noise, because noise from the structures themselves is self-contained. Furthermore, residential land uses do not involve manufacturing, processing, or generation of large amounts of traffic that could produce substantial, temporary, or periodic increases in ambient noise, and infrastructure uses would be subject to established City noise ordinances. Therefore, impacts to related to a substantial increase in ambient noise would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant. While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as groundborne noise. Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses. Long-term operation of future housing development permitted under the HEU would not result in any groundborne vibration or excessive groundborne noise, although construction activities may result in temporary groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels. New development implemented under the HEU would not exceed permitted noise levels following existing standards in the 2020 LABC which amends the 2019 CBC. All new development or redevelopment is required to comply with the standards, which would reduce potential impacts. Therefore, implementation of the HEU would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and would have result in less than significant impacts. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public us airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The City is within just over one mile of the Torrance Airport but is not within the airport influence area or airfield safety hazard zone (ALUC 2003). The HEU would not create additional residential opportunities within an airport noise contour. Therefore, no impact would occur. 682 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 38 5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 5.14.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant. As the regional planning agency for the Los Angeles region, SCAG is responsible for preparing jurisdiction-level forecasts for each city and county in the region. The latest forecasts were adopted in September 2020 and describe conditions in a base year (2016) and forecast year (2045). SCAG forecasts indicate that City growth will be flat through 2045, with the latest published forecasts showing 700 households in 2016 and 700 households in 2045. Population in the City over the equivalent period is shown as increasing from 1,900 to 2,000, a growth rate of about 5 percent over 29 years (SCAG 2020). The 2021-2029 RHNA allocation for the City is 45 units, including 20 very low income units, 9 low income units, 11 moderate income units, and 5 above moderate income units. As previously shown in Table 2.5-2, the combination of recently approved housing units (expected to be occupied in 2022), future affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs, which have been made easier to develop under a series of recently passed legislation, can accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories. The table illustrates a surplus capacity of seven lower income units based on projected ADU production over the planning period. Any subsequent development accomplished pursuant to the HEU will be consistent with State and regional growth mandates. As of January 2022, the City had a population of 1,684, a decrease from the previous year of 1,703 persons (DOF 2022a). As of 2021, the City’s average household size was 2.71 persons per household (DOF 2022b). Based on this average household size if all 20 vacant lots were to be constructed, an additional 55 persons would be expected to be added to the City. Based on this additional number of persons, the City’s population would be 1,739, well below the SCAG estimates for 2045. Based on the population being below the SCAG estimates, and addition of the housing units being consistent with the RHNA allocation, impacts to population and housing would be less than significant. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 683 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 39 No Impact. As noted in Section 2.6 above, the City’s HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City. The Project would not displace any people or housing, rather, would construct housing consistent with the City’s RHNA allocation. Therefore, no impacts would occur. 5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES 15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? ii) Police Protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? 5.15.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? Less than Significant. The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LAFD) provides fire protection services to the City. Fire Station 56, located at 12 Crest Road West, serves the City under Battalion 14. Since the City is within the CAL FIRE VHFHSZ, the City recently adopted their Safety Element Update which includes policies to enforce VHFHSZ-specific standards during development. Compliance with these standards reduces the fire vulnerability of new structures built in the City. The HEU would not expand the LAFD service area but would facilitate additional structures and population within the existing service area. As described in Section 14, Population and Housing, the HEU has the potential to develop 20 single family, which may result in an increase of 55 residents. The minimal increase in residents is not expected to result in a significant increase for fire protection services. Additionally, future development associated with the HEU would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of fire protection services, including adequate fire access, fire flows, and number of hydrants, such as the 2019 California Fire Code and the LABC adopted in 2020 which amends the 2019 CBC. The 2019 California Fire Code 684 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 40 contains project-specific requirements such as construction standards in new structures and remodels, road widths and configurations designed to accommodate the passage of fire trucks and engines, and requirements for minimum fire flow rates for water mains. The Building Code requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and hydrants, and would be subject to review and approval. All development plans are reviewed by the LAFD prior to construction to ensure that adequate fire flows are maintained and that an adequate number of fire hydrants are provided in the appropriate locations in compliance with the California Fire Code. Additionally, any future development would be required to pay application and permit fees that would help offset any required fire protection services. Therefore, HEU impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? Less than Significant. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) is contracted with the City to provide police services and protection. The Lomita Station of the Sheriff’s Department is located at 26123 Narbonne Avenue. The City recently adopted their Safety Element Update, which implements policies to promote maintenance of acceptable service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for police protection. The HEU would not expand the LASD service area but would facilitate additional structures and population within the existing service area. As described in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the HEU has the potential to develop 20 single family, which may result in an increase of 55 residents. The minimal increase in residents is not expected to result in a significant increase for police protection services. Additionally, any future development would be required to pay application and permit fees that would help offset any required police protection services. Therefore, the HEU would not result in significant environmental impacts associated with the need for the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities. Impacts related to police protection services would be less than significant. c) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? Less than Significant. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) serves the City. School-related impacts depend upon the location and intensity of a project, students generated per household, and the capacity of facilities in a given attendance area. As described in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the HEU has the potential to develop 20 single family, which may result in an increase of 55 residents. Of these 55 residents, a conservative estimate of school aged children would be 19, however, the actual number would likely be much lower given the City’s general demographic including a median age of 55 (Data USA 2022). The minimal increase in potential students is not expected to result in a significant increase on school facilities. Additionally, any future development would be required to pay application and permit fees, as well as school fees to PVPUSD that would 685 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 41 help offset any school facilities and/or services. Therefore, impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? Less than Significant. There is one public park, numerous trails, open space areas, three tennis courts, and two equestrian facilities located throughout the City. As described in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the HEU has the potential to develop 20 single family, which may result in an increase of 55 residents. The minimal increase in residents is not expected to result in a significant increase park usage that would result in an increase for additional park facilities. Additionally, any future development would be required to pay development impact fees that would help offset any required need for additional parks or park services. Therefore, impacts related to park services would be less than significant. e) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? Less than Significant. The HEU is a policy document and does not authorize future development. As described in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the HEU has the potential to develop 20 single family, which may result in an increase of 55 residents. The minimal increase in residents is not expected to result in a significant increase in any additional public facilities, including library services, and therefore impacts would be less than significant. 5.16 RECREATION 16. RECREATION. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 5.16.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 686 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 42 Less than Significant. There is one public park, numerous trails, open space areas, three tennis courts, and two equestrian facilities located throughout the City. As mentioned in Section 5.14 Population and Housing, the Project would have a potential to add approximately 55 new residents to the City, resulting in a total population of 1,739 persons which is well below the SCAG estimates for 2045. Additionally, over the last year, the City has seen a decline in population. Additionally, any future development would be required to pay development impact fees that would help offset any required need for additional parks or park services. With the overall minimal increase in population, consistent with the SCAG projections, and payment of the development impact fees, the Project is not expected to result in a substantial increase in the use of recreational facilities. Impacts would therefore be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Project proposes adoption of the HEU which is a policy document. Although the HEU doesn't include any development, the HEU focuses on housing within the City and would not include any recreational facilities or require construction or expansion of any recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur. 5.17 TRANSPORTATION 17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 5.17.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant. Rolling Hills has no public roads or streets; thus the City's circulation infrastructure is not conducive to uses generating high trip volumes (City 2014). As mentioned previously, while the HEU does not approve any specific developments, it does focus on the possible development of 20 vacant residentially zoned lots, the development of which may result in an additional 55 residents to the City. With 55 additional residents, this would result in approximately 110 trips per day. The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has a technical advisory for analyzing VMT impacts, which states that projects that generate fewer than 110 trips per day, generally may be 687 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 43 assumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Additionally, any future development would be required to adhere to all programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation, including those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the RHMC. Thus, circulation-related impacts would be considered less than significant. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant. As mentioned previously, while the HEU does not approve any specific developments, it does focus on the possible development of 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City. These parcels have the potential to each be developed with a single family home, and are scattered throughout the City, most of which would be considered infill development. If these lots were to be developed, no new streets or roadways would be required, only private driveways. Additionally, all future development would be required to adhere to the 2020 LABC and 2019 CBC. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous designs or inadequate emergency access would be less than significant. 5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or (b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 5.18.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? 688 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 44 b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the California PRC Section 21084, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if the project “may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.” Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) specifies that a project with the potential for adverse effects on tribal cultural resources may be considered a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires a government-to- government consultation process initiated by the local governmental agency prior to adoption or amendment of a General or Specific Plan. The City, as the Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA and as required by AB 52 and SB 18, has consulted with the local Native American Tribes in the Project Area. Tribes that are located regionally include: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrielino /Tongva Nation, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. Letters were sent to these Tribes on December 13, 2021. Tribes were requested to respond to AB 52 by January 12, 2022, and SB 18 by January 27, 2022. At that time, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation responded with two separate letters on December 21, 2021 noting that they had no comments or concerns and no additional information to provide, but requesting consultation for any and all future projects with ground disturbance as shown in Appendix B: Tribal Consultation Response. Additionally, the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California responded noting that the City is a highly culturally sensitive area and expressed interest in finding out more information regarding the project, however, after review of the project, they submitted a follow up email stating that they have no concerns, but requested notification on future projects. Since the initial consultation, the City decided to revise the environmental document associated for this Project. The revision itself resulted in no changes in policy perspectives to the HEU and all legislative actions remained the same. The City sent a follow up letter to both tribes making them aware of this change on June 13, 2022. On June 14, 2022, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation responded noting that if there is not going to be ground disturbances, there is no need for consultation. On July 18, 2022, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California responded to keep them involved for further activity. The HEU is a policy document that would not result in direct development or construction. Similar to the Project, future projects including development of the 20 vacant parcels, would be required comply with the CEQA process and if not exempt from CEQA may require tribal consultation through AB 52 and/or SB 18. However, in order to ensure impacts to any potential Tribal Cultural Resources would remain less than significant, all future development associated with the HEU that is not exempt from CEQA, shall at minimum implement MM TCR-1 and TCR-2. 689 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 45 TCR-1 Retain and Utilize a Native American Construction Monitor If tribal cultural resources are identified during future tribal consultation efforts for future specific development projects or during construction of such projects, the project applicant for that project shall obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor(s) during construction-related ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, weed abatement, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) shall be present on-site during the construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The Native American Monitor(s) shall complete monitoring logs daily to provide descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the construction-related ground disturbance activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources. TCR-2 Evaluate Unanticipated Discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources If tribal cultural resources are identified during future tribal consultation efforts for future specific development projects or during construction of such projects, a qualified archaeologist and Native American Monitor shall be present during construction-related ground disturbance activities to identify any unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources. The qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor may be different individuals or the same individual if the City determines that individual qualifies as both a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor. All archaeological resources unearthed by construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Native American Monitor. If the resources are determined to be human remains (see also Mitigation Measure CUL-3) the Coroner shall be notified, and if the human remains are Native American in origin, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC as mandated by State law, who will then appoint an MLD, who shall then coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the MLD will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2(g), the qualified archaeologist shall coordinate with the applicant and the City to develop a formal treatment plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be donated to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. With implementation of MM’s TCR-1 and TCR-2, impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 690 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 46 5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 19. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid wastes? 5.19.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or expansion of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant. Reasonably foreseeable development under the 2021-2029 Housing Element would occur in urban areas that are served by existing utilities infrastructure, including water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, electrical power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. Water and wastewater are further discussed in Thresholds b and c below. Stormwater is under the jurisdiction of the LARWQCB, electric is provided by Southern California Edison, and natural gas is provided by Southern California Gas Company. As mentioned previously, while the HEU does not approve any specific developments, it does focus on the possible development of 20 vacant residentially zoned lots, the development of which may result in an additional 55 residents to the City. These lots are scattered throughout the existing development in the City which would allow for easy connections to existing utility lines. Rolling Hills is under the jurisdiction of the LARWQCB, which is responsible for the preparation and implementation of the water quality control plan for the region. The RHMC requires owners or developers to implement stormwater pollution control requirements for construction activities. The 691 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 47 addition of 20 single family homes would not result in a significant of increase to stormwater generation. The increase in electricity and natural gas for 20 single family homes, or 55 additional residents, would be considered nominal. Additionally, if the 20 single family homes were to be built, they would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings), the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated commercial and residential buildings constructed in California. This code applies to the building envelope, space-conditioning systems, and water-heating and lighting systems of buildings and appliances and provides guidance on construction techniques to maximize energy conservation. Therefore, the Project would have no impacts regarding the construction or expansion of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant. The City is located within the West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD) service area. As mentioned previously, while the HEU does not approve any specific developments, it does focus on the possible development of 20 vacant residentially zoned lots, the development of which may result in an additional 55 residents to the City. The WBMWD Draft 2020 UWMP states that the 2020 weighted average per capita water use is roughly 150 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) (CalWater 2021). This would equate to a yearly additional water use of 3,011,250 gallons per year or 9.24 AFY. According to the 2020 UWMP, the District’s only source of water supply is imported, purchased water from the WBMWD (CalWater 2021). The WBMWD Draft 2020 UWMP states that it will be able to serve 100 percent of projected demands in normal, single-dry and multiple-dry years. As such, the District expects that, under all hydrologic conditions, purchased water supplies (in combination with the future recycled supplies) will fully serve future potable demands (CalWater 2021). The projected demand for 2025 for the District is 151,521 AFY. The water demand associated with development of the 20 vacant lots represents a nominal increase in the projected demand. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to water supply availability. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than Significant. Wastewater treatment in the City generally occurs through private septic tanks, as only several parcels on the western periphery of the City have access to sanitary sewer. For these several parcels, the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) owns, operates, and maintains the sewer system consisting of gravity sewers, pumping stations, and force mains to collect wastewater from the Palos Verdes District service area (Sanitation District #5). The LACSD’s Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) provides the wastewater service for the District service area. It provides advanced primary and partial secondary treatment for 400 million gallons per day (MGD) 692 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 48 of wastewater and serves a population of approximately 4.8 million people (LACSD 2021). This plant currently processes 260 MGD; thus, the system has adequate capacity for the Project (CalWater 2021). If the 20 vacant lots were to be developed, it is likely that the 20 single family homes would contain separate septic systems. However, if all systems were to be connected to wastewater, wastewater generation would be approximately 0.006 (MGD)2. This amount would represent a nominal increase in wastewater generation for the District. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to wastewater treatment. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant. As mentioned previously, while the HEU does not approve any specific developments, it does focus on the possible development of 20 vacant residentially zoned lots, the development of which may result in an additional 55 residents to the City. According to CalRecycle, a conservative estimate for single family waste generation is 12.23 pounds per household per day (CalRecycle 2022a). This would result in 673 total pounds per day or 0.3 tons per day. The closest landfill to the City is the Savage Canyon Landfill in Whittier, California. This landfill has a remaining capacity of 9,510,833 tons with a max permitted throughput of 3,350 tons per day and is not expected to close until 2055 (CalRecycle 2022b). Development of the 20 vacant sites with 20 single family homes would result in a nominal increase to the max permitted throughput and remaining capacity. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant. A significant impact could occur if the 2021-2029 HEU would conflict with any statutes and regulations governing solid waste. In compliance with State legislation, any development project facilitated by the 2021-2029 HEU would be required to implement a Solid Waste Diversion Program and divert at least 75 percent of the solid waste generated from the applicable landfill site. Reasonably foreseeable development under the 2021-2029 HEU would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, such as the California Waste Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), the Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan, and the City’s recycling program. Since future projects facilitated by the 2021-2029 HEU would comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations involving solid waste, 2021-2029 HEU impacts related to conflict with statutes and regulations governing solid waste would be less than significant. 2 Wastewater generation generally equates to 75 percent of water demand. Water demand is 55 residents * 150 GPCD = 8,250 gallons per day * 0.75 = 6,187.5 gallons per day. 693 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 49 5.20 WILDFIRE 20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 5.20.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant. The entire City is designated as a VHFHSZ by CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE 2011). As mentioned in Section 5.9, the City’s CWPP identifies the potential evacuation routes described below, which include options for rapid egress from areas within the City if threatened by a wildfire.  Main Gate at Rolling Hills Road and Palos Verdes Drive North  Crest Gate at Crest Road near Crenshaw Boulevard  Eastfield Gate at Eastfield Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East  Crest Road East (emergency access only) The City recently adopted their Safety Element Update which addresses the protection of the existing and future population and development from both natural and man-made hazards through a number of goals, policies, implementation programs, principles, and standards. Among these are measures to mitigate the risk from the hazards of fire. The HEU is a policy level document that does not grant entitlements for development that would have the potential to directly cause wildfire. However, future development in the City, including development of the 20 vacant parcels would be required to adhere to the policies in the Safety Element Update and the CWPP. Implementation of these policies would minimize potential project impacts. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with impairing an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 694 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 50 b) Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less than Significant. As mentioned above, the entire City is designated a VHFHSZ by CAL FIRE, and a substantial amount of land in the City is steep hillsides and canyons (CAL FIRE 2011). The City recently adopted their Safety Element Update which includes measures to mitigate the risk of fire hazards. Although the HEU itself does not entitle development, future development in the City, including development of the 20 vacant parcels would be required to adhere to the policies in the Safety Element Update and the CWPP. Implementation of these policies would minimize potential project impacts. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with exacerbating wildfire risks. c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less than Significant. Principal site improvements required upon development of a vacant property in the City are the undergrounding of electrical lines to the structure, installation of a septic system, and conformance to the City’s outdoor lighting standards. The entire City is designated a VHFHSZ by CAL FIRE; however, the City recently adopted their Safety Element Update which includes measures to mitigate the risk of fire hazards. Although the HEU itself does not entitle development, future development in the City, including development of the 20 vacant parcels would be required to adhere to the policies in the Safety Element Update and the CWPP. Implementation of these policies would minimize potential project impacts. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with installation of associated infrastructure. d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes? Less than Significant. As mentioned above, the entire City is designated a VHFHSZ by CAL FIRE, and a substantial amount of land in the City is steep hillsides and canyons highly susceptible to landslide risks (CAL FIRE 2011). The City recently adopted their Safety Element Update which includes measures to mitigate the risk of fire hazards. Although the HEU itself does not entitle development, future development in the City, including development of the 20 vacant parcels would be required to adhere to the policies in the Safety Element Update and the CWPP. Implementation of these policies would minimize potential project impacts. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with exposure of people or structures to the risk of downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes. 695 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 51 5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) (c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 5.21.1 Impact Analysis a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The intent of the 2021-2029 HEU is to update the Housing Element to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA, and ensure that a safe, decent supply of housing is provided for current and future Rolling Hills residents. The 2021-2029 HEU would not facilitate development that would eliminate or threaten wildlife habitats or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Furthermore, this IS MND proposes mitigation that will address nesting birds, jurisdictional features, and pre-construction surveys, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources. Therefore, as discussed in more detail in Sections 5.4, Biological Resources, 5.5, Cultural Resources, and 5.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the 2021-2029 HEU would result in a less-than-significant impact related to biological and cultural resources. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the 2021-2029 HEU would result in beneficial housing cumulative impacts across the City. Mitigation included in this IS MND 696 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 52 would ensure that impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources would be reduced to less than significant. Furthermore, implementation of the 2021-2029 HEU would be consistent with General Plan policies aimed at improving housing in the City for current and future residents. Therefore, the 2021-2029 HEU would result in an overall less than significant cumulative impact related to all CEQA topics addressed within this document. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As demonstrated throughout this document, the Project would have less than significant impacts to Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfires. Furthermore, mitigation measures included in this IS MND would ensure impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources would remain less than significant. The 2021-2029 HEU would not result in adverse effects on human beings. Rather, as discussed throughout this document, the 2021-2029 HEU would serve as a pathway to improve housing and ensure that a safe, decent supply of housing is provided for current and future Rolling Hills residents. Therefore, the Project would have no impacts or cumulatively considerable impacts on the environment or human beings. 697 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 53 SECTION 6.0 – REFERENCES Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) 2003 Torrance Airport, Airport Influence Area adopted May 13, 2003. Available online at: https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-torrance.pdf. California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2017 California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available online at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.p df California Department of Conservation (DOC) 2017 State of California Williamson Act Contract Land. Available online at: https://planning.lacity.org/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initi al%20Study/Attachment%20B%20References/California%20Department%20of%20Cons ervation%20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf. 2021a California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed December 2021. Available online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. 2021b Tsunami Hazard Area Map. Accessed December 2021. Available online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/?extent=- 13249590.3641%2C3986280.7635%2C- 13132183.0887%2C4038410.8168%2C102100&utm_source=cgs+active&utm_content=l osangeles. 2022 Regulatory Maps Geo Application. Available online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ California Department of Finance (DOF) 2022a E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State with Annual Percent Change - January 1, 2021 to 2022. Accessed online at: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/ 2022b E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022. Accessed online at: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5- population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) 2011 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA: Rolling Hills. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5840/rolling_hills.pdf. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2022a Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed July 2022. Available online at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates. 698 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 54 2022b SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Savage Canyon Landfill (19-AH-0001). Accessed July 2022. Available online at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3494?siteID=1399. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 2021 EnviroStor. Accessed December 2021. Available online at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=rolling+hills%2C+CA. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2021 California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed December 2021. Available online at: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46c c8e8057116f1aacaa. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) 2021 California Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher. Accessed December 2021. Available online at: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2. California Water Service (CalWater) 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: Palos Verdes District. Available online at: https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/PV_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. June. City of Rolling Hills (City) 1990 City of Rolling Hills General Plan. Available online at: https://www.rolling- hills.org/government/planning_and_community_services/index.php. 2014 2014-2021 Update of the Housing Element of the General Plan. Available online at: https://cms5.revize.com/revize/rollinghillsca/Goverment/Planning%20And%20Commun ity%20Services/Housing%20Element%202014%20_201402111636398968.pdf. Data USA 2022 Rolling Hills, CA Data. Available online at: https://datausa.io/profile/geo/rolling-hills-ca. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2021 National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Accessed December 2021. Available online at: https://hazards- fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338 b5529aa9cd. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014 The Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Available online at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) 2003 Torrance Airport. Available online at: https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-torrance.pdf. 699 City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21330 55 Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) 2021 Wastewater Treatment Process at JWPCP. Accessed on December 23, 2021, at: https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-sewage/facilities/joint-water-pollution- control-plant/wastewater-treatment-process-at-jwpcp. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 1999 Map of Jurisdiction. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/default-document-library/map-of-jurisdiction.pdf. 2016 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air- plans/air-qualitymanagement-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=14. 2021 2022 AQMP. Accessed December 2021. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan#. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020 The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association Of Governments: Connect SoCal. Available online at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_0.pdf?1606001176. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 2021 GeoTracker. Accessed December 2021. Available online at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=rolling+hills %2C+CA. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2021 National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed December 2021. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html. 700 APPENDIX A – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE ASSESSMENT 701 1 July 19, 2022 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750 Santa Ana, CA 92707 City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Subject: Biological Resources Reconnaissance Assessment for the City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Chambers Group, Inc. (Chambers Group) was retained by the City of Rolling Hills to conduct a literature review and biological reconnaissance-level survey for the City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update (HEU) Project (Project). The City’s HEU includes a total of 34 vacant sites within the City, but focuses on only 20 vacant residentially zoned lots that have the ability to be developed. The purpose of this survey was to document existing vegetation communities, identify special status species with a potential for occurrence, and map habitats that could support special status plant and wildlife species as well as evaluate potential impacts to these resources, for the 20 vacant sites, as part of the Project. Project Site Location and Description The Project sites evaluated as part of the Project consist of 20 vacant undeveloped sites of one acre or more, totaling approximately 113.4 acres (Survey Area) and is located in the City of Rolling Hills, within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) San Pedro and Torrance, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. The 20 vacant sites are numbered and are located within an equestrian residential community on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County (Attachment 1: Figure 2 Survey Area). Palos Verde Drive North borders the northern portion of the site, Crenshaw Boulevard borders the western portion, Palos Verdes Drive East borders the eastern boundary, and Palo s Verde Drive South borders the southern portion of the site. The vacant lots within the Project site are surrounded by open space vegetated hillsides, residential roads, and residential homes. A map of the Project Location and Project Vicinity is provided in Attachment 1: Figure 1. Methods The Survey Area encompasses the 113.4-acre Project site which includes the entirety of 20 vacant lots, variously numbered as shown in Attachment 1: Figure 2 – Survey Area. Literature Review Prior to performing the biological reconnaissance survey, Chambers Group staff conducted a literature review for soils, jurisdictional water features that contribute to hydrology, and special status species known to occur within the vicinity (approximately 5 miles) of the Survey Area. Soils Prior to performing the biological reconnaissance survey, soil maps for the Survey Area were referenced in accordance with categories set forth by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2022). 702 2 Hydrology A general assessment of waters potentially regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) was conducted for the Survey Area. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The State of California (State) regulates discharge of material into waters of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Division 7, §13000 et seq.). Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600 -1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Code, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. A desktop assessment was conducted of available data prior to the biological reconnaissance survey in the field. Special Status Habitats and Species The most recent records of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) managed by CDFW (2022) and the California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2022) were reviewed for the following quadrangles containing and surrounding the Project: San Pedro, Torrance, Redondo Beach, Venice, Inglewood, South Gate, and Long Beach, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles. These databases contain records of reported occurrences of federally or State-listed endangered or threatened species, California Species of Concern (SSC), or otherwise special status species or habitats that may occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the Survey Area (Attachment 1: Figure 3 – CNDDB Occurrences Map). Biological Reconnaissance Survey The biological reconnaissance survey was conducted on foot within the Survey Area. During the survey, the biologists identified and mapped all vegetation communities found within the Survey Area onto aerial photographs (Attachment 2: Vegetation Communities Map). Plant communities were determined in accordance with the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant nomenclature follows that of The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). Plant and wildlife species observed or detected within the Survey Area were recorded (Attachments 3: Plants Species Observed and 4: Wildlife Species Observed/Detected, respectively). In addition, site photographs were taken depicting current site conditions (Attachment 5: Site Photographs). Results Chambers Group biologists Mauricio Gomez and Jessica Calvillo conducted the biological reconnaissance survey within the Survey Area to identify vegetation communities, the potential for occurrence of special status species, and/or habitats that could support special status wildlife species. The survey was conducted on foot between 0630 and 1730 hours on June 9 and 10, 2022. Weather conditions included temperatures from 61 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit (oF), wind speeds from 0 to 4 miles per hour, cloud cover of 0 to 100 percent throughout the day, and no precipitation throughout the survey. Biological Site Conditions Soils According to the results from the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2022), the Project site is located in the Los Angeles County (CA696) southeastern part of the soil map. Three soil types are known to occur within and/or adjacent to the Project site (Attachment 1: Figure 5 – USDA Soils Map). These soil types are described below. Dapplegray-Urban Land-Lunada complex, 20 to 55 percent slopes. This soil type occurs on hillslopes and canyons at elevations of 290 to 1,370 feet. This soil exhibits very high runoff and has a low to high water supply availability. Parent 703 3 material is human-transported material consisting of mostly colluvium from calcareous shale (USDA 2022). This soil type occurs at all 20 Survey Areas. Lunada-Zaca complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes. This soil type occurs on hillslopes and canyons at elevations of 80 to 1,400 feet. These soils exhibit very high runoff and have a low to moderate water supply availability. Parent material is colluvium derived from calcareous shale (USDA 2022). This soil type occurs at the following Survey Areas within the Project area: 1, 18, 19, 25, 31, 32, and 33. Haploxerepts, 10 to 35 percent slopes. This soil type occurs on hillslopes and landslides at elevations of 0 to 1,210 feet. These soils exhibit high runoff and have a moderate water supply availability. Parent material is composed of mixed slide deposits derived mostly from calcareous shale (USDA 2022). This soil type occurs at Survey Area 21. Hydrology The Project site is located within the Alamitos Bay-San Pedro Bay and Frontal Santa Monica Bay-San Pedro Bay watersheds within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone (Hydrologic Unit Codes [HUC10] 1807010607 and 1807010405, respectively) (Attachment 1: Figure 6 – Watersheds). The Alamitos Bay-San Pedro Bay watershed is bordered by the San Gabriel River in Seal Beach to the east, and it encompasses a large portion of southern and southeastern cities in Los Angeles County. The Frontal Santa Monica Bay-San Pedro Bay watershed is bordered by the Ballona Creek in Santa Monica to the northwest and the Los Angeles Harbor in San Pedro to the east. Both watersheds primarily facilitate urbanized run-off and nuisance water and ultimately terminate in the Pacific Ocean. Several NWI mapped bluelines occur within the Survey Area. The Survey Area is not within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard zones. Site 21 is immediately west of an Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard (Attachment 1: Figure 7 – FEMA Flood Hazard Zones). No other sites are within or adjacent to Flood Hazard Zones. Site 28 had an erosional feature (non-jurisdictional), originating from the residential home just south of site 28, that was dry during the field survey. The erosional feature (non-jurisdictional) appears to flow northwest along the western boundary end of site 28 and ultimately terminating outside the property boundary. All sites except for 21, 25, 28, and 34 contain ephemeral drainages within the property boundaries. The features within sites 3, 4, and 20 flow southwest through the property; and ultimately terminating in the Pacific Ocean. The features within sites 1, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 flow northeast through the property; however, they do not appear to connect to any tributaries and appear to terminate right outside the property boundary (Attachment 1: Figure 8 – Jurisdictional Waters NWI and NHD). Water features were observed at all the sites except for 21, 25, 28, and 34 (Attachment 1: Figure 8 – Jurisdictional Waters NWI and NHD). However, all the features occur in the lower portion of each site, outside of the proposed impact areas. Work activities are not anticipated to occur within or directly adjacent to any of the features and no impacts to any features are anticipated to occur as a result of Project activities. Vegetation Communities and Other Areas Seven native vegetation communities and six non-native or other land types were mapped within the Survey Area during the biological reconnaissance survey. The communities are described in the following subsections. Native Vegetation Communities Arroyo Willow Thickets Arroyo Willow Thickets are found along stream banks, slope seeps, and drainages (Sawyer et al. 2009). Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) is dominant or co-dominant in the tall shrub or low tree canopy with big leaf maple (Acer 704 4 macrophyllum), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willows (Salix spp.) and blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana). As a shrubland, emergent trees may be present at low cover. Areas with Arroyo Willow Thickets vegetation are present within approximately 0.50 acre of the Project site within Survey Area 18. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community include California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), arroyo willow, and black willow (Salix gooddingii). Ashy Buckwheat – California Sagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub Ashy Buckwheat – California Sagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub is found on steep slopes of variable aspects with alluvial or colluvial derived soils (Sawyer et al. 2009). California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), Ashy Buckwheat (Eriogonum cinereum) and/or purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), are dominant or co-dominant in the shrub canopy with chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), coyote brush, orange bush monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), California bush sunflower (Encelia californica), buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.), interior golden bush (Ericameria linearifolia), golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), coast golden bush (Isocoma menziesii), southern honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), coast prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), sage (Salvia spp.), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Emergent trees or tall shrubs may be present at low cover, including southern California black walnut (Juglans californica), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and blue elderberry. Areas with Ashy Buckwheat – California Sagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub vegetation are present within approximately 1.02 acres of the Project site within Survey Areas 18, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 32. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community include California sagebrush, orange bush monkeyflower, California bush sunflower, ashy buckwheat (Eriogonum cinereum), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), and black sage (Salvia mellifera). Black Sage Scrub Black Sage Scrub is found along dry slopes and alluvial fans with shallow soils (Sawyer et al. 2009). Black sage is dominant or co-dominant in the shrub canopy with chamise, California sagebrush, coyote brush, orange bush monkeyflower, California bush sunflower, buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.) deerweed (Lotus scoparius), Chaparral bush mallow (Malacothamnus fasciculatus), laurel sumac, prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), and lemonade berry. Emergent trees may be present at low cover. Areas with Black Sage Scrub vegetation are present within approximately 0.82 acre of the Project site within Survey Area 20. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community include California sagebrush, California bush sunflower, California buckwheat, and black sage. Giant Wild Rye Grassland Giant Wild Rye Grassland is found on moderately steep slopes at low elevations with loam soils (Sawyer et al. 2009). Giant wild rye (Elymus condensatus) is dominant or co-dominant in the herbaceous layer with non-native wild oat (Avena fatua), black mustard (Brassica nigra), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), field mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and cliff aster (Malacothrix saxatilis). Native shrubs include California sagebrush, coyote brush, and purple sage. Emergent trees may be present at low cover, including trees southern California black walnut and coast live oak. Areas with Giant Wild Rye Grassland vegetation are present within approximately 0.39 acre of the Project site within Survey Area 20. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community include giant wild 705 5 rye and coyote brush. Non-native species include black mustard, foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis subsp. madritensis), and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis). Holly Leaf Cherry – Toyon Chaparral Holly Leaf Cherry – Toyon Chaparral is found along steep north facing slopes with soils derived from bedrock or colluvium (Sawyer et al. 2009). Holly leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) is dominant or co-dominant in the shrub canopy with California sagebrush, Chaparral clematis (Clematis lasiantha), orange bush monkeyflower, California buckwheat, California ash (Fraxinus dipetala), chaparral beard tongue (Keckiella spp.), oak (Quercus spp.) and black sage. Emergent trees may be present at low cover, including southern California black walnut and coast live oak. Areas with Holly Leaf Cherry – Toyon Chaparral vegetation are present within approximately 0.22 acre of the Project site within Survey Areas 23 and 27. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), laurel sumac, California man-root (Marah fabacea), and holly leaf cherry. Laurel Sumac Scrub Laurel Sumac Scrub is found along often steep slopes with soils that are shallow and fine textured (Sawyer et al. 2009). Laurel sumac dominant or co-dominant in the shrub canopy with California sagebrush, orange bush monkey flower, California bush sunflower, buckwheat, toyon, lemonade berry, and poison oak. Emergent trees or tall shrubs may be present at low cover, including southern California black walnut, western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), coast live oak, and blue elderberry. Areas with Laurel Sumac Scrub vegetation are present within approximately 0.05 acre of the Project site within Survey Area 18. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community included laurel sumac and coyote brush. Lemonade Berry Scrub Lemonade Berry Scrub is found along gentle to abrupt slopes and coastal bluffs of variable aspects with loam and clay soils (Sawyer et al. 2009). Lemonade berry is dominant or co-dominant in the shrub canopy with chamise, California sagebrush, orange bush monkeyflower, California bush sunflower, ashy buckwheat, California buckwheat, chaparral Yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei), toyon, chaparral bush mallow, laurel sumac, sage (Salvia spp.), and blue elderberry. Shrubs are typically less than 16 feet in height. Emergent trees may be present at low cover, including southern California black walnut and coast live oak. Canopy is open to continuous, two tiered with an open herbaceous layer. Areas with Lemonade Berry Scrub vegetation are present within approximately 59.84 acres of the Project site within Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community included California sagebrush, orange bush monkeyflower, toyon, purple sage, and blue elderberry. Non-Native Vegetation Communities and Other Areas Himalayan Blackberry Brambles Himalayan Blackberry Brambles are found in a variety of habitat types including pastures, roadsides, streams, fence lines, and mesic disturbed areas (Sawyer et al. 2009). Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) is dominant or co- dominant in the shrub canopy. Emergent trees may be present at low cover, including white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), Fremont cottonwood, coast live oak and red willow (Salix laevigata). Areas with Himalayan Blackberry Brambles vegetation are present within approximately 0.08 acre of the Project site within Survey Areas 18 and 19. No other plants were observed within this vegetation community. 706 6 Ornamental Landscaping Ornamental Landscaping includes areas where the vegetation is dominated by non-native horticultural plants (Gray and Bramlet 1992). Typically, the species composition consists of introduced trees, shrubs, flowers and turf grass. Areas with Ornamental Landscaping are present within approximately 12.38 acres of the Project site within Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 34. Pla nt species found on the project site typical of this community include: Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), oleander (Nerium oleander), English ivy (Hedera helix), jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia), cyclops acacia (Acacia cyclops), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), bougainvillea (Bougainvillea sp.), Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei), pomegranate (Punica granatum), Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). Native species including lemonade berry, laurel sumac, or toyon were also observed. Ruderal Areas classified as Ruderal tend to be dominated by pioneering herbaceous species that readily colonize disturbed ground and that are typically found in temporary, often frequently disturbed habitats (Barbour et al. 1999). The soils in ruderal areas are typically characterized as heavily compacted or frequently disturbed. The vegetation in these areas is adapted to living in compact soils where water does not readily penetrate the soil. Often, Ruderal areas are dominated by species of the Centaurea, Brassica, Malva, Salsola, Eremocarpus, Amaranthus, and Atriplex genera. There were approximately 34.24 acres of Ruderal vegetation present within Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Plant species found on the project site include: Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus subsp. pycnocephalus), tocalote, prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper subsp. asper), black mustard, shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), giant reed (Arundo donax), ripgut grass, and foxtail chess. Shamel Ash Grove Shamel Ash Groves are found within disturbed riparian corridors with alluvial soils. Shamel Ash is the dominant species in the tree canopy. Shamal Ash is native to Mexico and currently listed on the California Invasive Plant Councils Assessment list (Cal-IPC 2022). Shamel Ash Groves are present within approximately 0.91 acre of the Project site within Survey Areas 26, 32, and 33. No native plant species were observed within this plant community on site. Barren Barren areas, as described by (Gray and Bramlet 1992), are devoid or mostly devoid of vegetation due to disking, grading, or other human activities. Barren areas are present within approximately 1.24 acres of the Project site within Survey Areas 18, 19, 26, 28, and 31. Developed Developed areas are areas that have been altered by humans and now display man-made structures such as houses, paved roads, buildings, parks, and other maintained areas. Developed areas are present within approximately 1.65 acres of the Project site within Survey Areas 3, 4, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30. General Plants A total of 85 plant species were observed within the Survey Area during the biological reconnaissance survey (Attachment 3: Plant Species Observed). Plant species observed during the survey were representative of the existing Survey Area conditions. No special status plant species were observed during the survey. 707 7 General Wildlife A total of 15 wildlife species were observed within the Survey Area during the biological reconnaissance survey. Wildlife species observed or detected during the survey were characteristic of the existing Survey Area conditions. No sensitive wildlife was observed during the survey effort. A complete list of wildlife species observed or detected is provided in Attachment 4: Wildlife Species Observed/Detected List. Sensitive Species Special Status Species The following information is a list of abbreviations used to help determine special status biological resources potentially occurring in the Survey Area. CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California. 1B = Plants rare and endangered in California and throughout their range. 2 = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere in their range. 3 = Plants about which we need more information, a review list. 4 = Plants of limited distribution; a watch list. CRPR Extensions 0.1 = Seriously endangered in California (greater than 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat). 0.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened). 0.3 = Not very endangered in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened). Federal FE = Federally listed; Endangered FT = Federally listed; Threatened State ST = State listed; Threatened SE = State listed; Endangered RARE = State listed; Rare (Listed “Rare” animals have been re-designated as Threatened, but Rare plants have retained the Rare designation.) SSC = State Species of Special Concern WL = CDFW Watch List FP = CDFW Fully Protected The following information was used to determine biological resources potentially occurring within the Survey Area. The location of prior CNDDB and USFWS records of occurrence were used as additional data, but since the CNDDB is a positive-sighting database; this data was used only in support of the analysis from the previously identified factors. The PFO was determined through a combination of these databases and habitat quality identified during field survey efforts. The criteria used to evaluate the potential for special status species to occur within the Survey Area are outlined in Table 1. 708 8 Table 1: Criteria for Evaluating Special Status Species Potential for Occurrence (PFO) PFO* CRITERIA Absent: Species is restricted to habitats or environmental conditions that do not occur within the Project site. Low: Historical records for this species do not exist within the vicinity (approximately 5 miles) of the Project site, and/or habitats or environmental conditions needed to support the species are of poor quality. Moderate: Either a historical record exists of the species within the vicinity of the Project site (approximately 5 miles) and marginal habitat exists on the Survey Area, or the habitat requirements or environmental conditions associated with the species occur within the Survey Area, but no historical records exist within 5 miles of the Project site. High: Both a historical record exists of the species within the Survey Area or its immediate vicinity (approximately 1 mile), and the habitat requirements and environmental conditions associated with the species occur within the Survey Area. Present: Species was detected within the Survey Area at the time of the survey. *PFO: Potential for Occurrence Special Status Plant Species Database searches (CDFW 2022; CNPS 2022) resulted in a list of 24 federally and/or state-listed threatened, endangered, CRPR 1 through 3, or otherwise special status plant species documented to historically occur within the vicinity of the Survey Area. Of the 24 plant species that resulted from the database search, it was determined that 20 species are considered absent from the Survey Area due to lack of suitable habitat. Four special status plant species have a moderate to high potential to occur on site. No special status plant species were found during the biological reconnaissance survey. The following 18 plant species are considered Absent from the Survey Area due to lack of sandy soils and suitable marsh, alkali scrub, vernal pool, coastal dune, coast bluff scrub habitat: • aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides) – CRPR 1B.2 • Coulter’s saltbush (Atriplex coulteri) – CRPR 1B.2 • south coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) – CRPR 1B.2 • Parish's brittlescale (Atriplex parishii) – CRPR 1B.1 • Davidson’s saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii) – CRPR 1B.2 • smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens subsp. laevis) – CRPR 1B.1 • salt marsh bird’s beak (Chloropyron maritimum subsp. maritimum) – FE, CE, CRPR 1B.2 • island green dudleya (Dudleya virens subsp. insularis) – CRPR 1B.2 • San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) – FE, CE, CRPR 1B.1 709 9 • mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula) – CRPR 1B.1 • decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens) – CRPR 1B.2 • Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata subsp. coulteri) – CRPR 1B.1 • Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn (Lycium brevipes var. hassei) – CRPR 3.1 • mud nama (Nama stenocarpa) – CRPR 2B.2 • prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata) – CRPR 1B.2 • coast woolly-heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata) – CRPR 1B.2 • Brand's star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) – CRPR 1B.1 • estuary seablite (Suaeda esteroa) – CRPR 1B.2 • salt spring checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana) – CRPR 2B.2 • San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum) – CRPR 1B.2 The following four special status plant species have a Moderate to High potential to occur within one or more of the Survey Areas on site: • Lewis' evening-primrose (Camissoniopsis lewisii) – CRPR 3 • southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. australis) – CRPR 1B.1 • Catalina crossosoma (Crossosoma californicum) – CRPR 1B.2 • Lyon's pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii) – FE, CE, CRPR 1B.1 Lewis’ evening-primrose (Camissoniopsis lewisii) – CRPR 3 Lewis’ evening-primrose is a CRPR 3 species in the Onagraceae family. This annual herb flowers between March and May and has been known to flower as late as June. Habitats include sandy areas or clay soils of coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands at elevations upwards of 1,000 feet amsl. Known ranges include Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego counties, and Baja California. Although there have not been any historical occurrences of this species found within 5 miles of the Survey Area, there is a moderate potential for this species to be found within one or more of the following habitats onsite: Ashy Buckwheat – California Sagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub, Black Sage Scrub, Lemonade Berry Scrub, and/or Giant Wild Rye Grassland. These habitat types occur within Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) – CRPR 1B.1 Southern tarplant is a CRPR 1B.1 species in the Asteraceae family. This annual herb flowers between May and November in seasonally moist saline soils of marshes and swamps, vernal pools, and valley and foothill grasslands at elevations upwards to 1,575 feet amsl. Known ranges include: Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Ventura counties, Santa Catalina Island, and Baja California. This species has been known to grow intertwined with slender tarweed (Deinandra fasiculata), a common tarweed that can look similar to the untrained eye. Threats to southern tarplant include: urbanization, vehicles, development, and foot traffic. This species has been historically known to occur within 3 miles of the Survey Area and there is a high potential for this species to be found within the understory of the Arroyo Willow Thickets in Survey Area 18 or 19. Catalina crossosoma (Crossosoma californicum) – CRPR 1B.1 710 10 Catalina crossosoma is a CRPR 1B.2 species in the Crossosomataceae family. This deciduous shrub flowers between February and May in dry, rocky soils and canyons of chaparral and coastal scrub at elevations upwards to 1,640 feet amsl. Known ranges include: Los Angeles County, San Clemente and Santa Catalina islands, and Isla Guadalupe in Baja California. Catalina crossosoma is threatened by development on the mainland, but it is recovering on San Clemente Island. This species has been historically known to occur within 5 miles of the Survey Area and there is a high potential for this species to be found within one or more of the following habitats onsite: Ashy Buckwheat – California Sagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub, Black Sage Scrub, Holly Leaf Cherry – Toyon Chaparral, Laurel Sumac Scrub, and/or Lemonade Berry Scrub. These habitat types occur within Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Lyon’s pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii) – FE, CE, CRPR 1B.1 Lyon’s pentachaeta is a federal- and state-listed endangered and CRPR 1B.1 species in the Asteraceae family. This annual herb flowers between March and August on dry coastal habitats. Habitat includes chaparral openings, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands at elevations between 100 to 2,265 feet amsl. The known range of this species exists in Los Angeles and Ventura counties and Santa Catalina Island. This species has been historically known to occur within 5 miles of the Survey Area and there is a high potential for this species to be found within one or more of the following habitats onsite: Ashy Buckwheat – California Sagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub, Black Sage Scrub, Holly Leaf Cherry – Toyon Chaparral, Laurel Sumac Scrub, Lemonade Berry Scrub, and/or Giant Wild Rye Grassland. These habitat types occur within Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Special Status Wildlife Species Database searches (CDFW 2022; USFWS 2022c) resulted in a list of 29 federally and/or state listed endangered or threatened, State Species of Concern, or otherwise special status wildlife species documented to occur within the Survey Area. After a literature review and the assessment of the various habitat types within the Survey Area, it was determined that 19 special status wildlife species are considered absent, seven species are considered to have a low potential to occur, one species is considered to have a moderate potential to occur, and two species are considered to have a high potential to occur. The following 19 wildlife species are considered Absent from the Survey Area due to the absence of suitable habitat present within the site: • tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) - ST, SSC • burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) – SSC • western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) - FT, SSC • yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) - SSC • southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) - FE, SE • western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) - SSC • American badger (Taxidea taxus) - SSC • California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) - ST, FP • south coast marsh vole (Microtus californicus stephensi) - SSC • San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) - SSC • pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus) - SSC • big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis) - SSC 711 11 • Belding’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) - SE • Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) - FE, SSC • bank swallow (Riparia riparia) - ST • Mohave tui chub (Siphateles bicolor mohavensis) - FE, SE • southern California saltmarsh shrew (Sorex ornatus salicornicus) - SSC • western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) – SSC • California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) - FE, SE The analysis of the CNDDB search and field survey resulted in seven species with a low potential to occur on the Project site: • cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) • western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) - FT, SE • western mastiff batt (Eumops perotis californicus) - SSC • El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) – FE • Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis) • coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) - SSC • Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) - FE The analysis of the CNDDB search and field survey resulted in one species with a moderate potential to occur on the Project site. The southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) has a moderate potential to occur and is described below: The southern California legless lizard is an SSC and can be found in a wide variety of habitats, which include broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub. This species can generally be found in moist loose soils, preferring soils with high moisture content (CNDDB 2022). Moderate suitable habitat is present within the Ashy Buckwheat – California Sagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub, Black Sage Scrub, Holly Leaf Cherry – Toyon Chaparral, Laurel Sumac Scrub, and Lemonade Berry Scrub communities within sites 1, 3, 4, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32 and 33, and historical records show this species within 3 miles of the Project site. Therefore, this species has a moderate potential to occur on the Project site. The analysis of the CNDDB search and the field survey resulted in two species with a high potential to occur within the Project site. The coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) have a high potential to occur and are described below: The coastal California gnatcatcher is a FT and SSC species. Its range extends from southern Ventura County, California south to Baja California, Mexico (USFWS 1997). This species is found in scrub dominated plant communities, specially known as a permanent resident in coastal sage scrub communities below 2,500 feet in southern California (CNDDB 2022). Moderate suitable habitat is present within the coastal sage scrub at sites 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 31, and 33. In addition, this species has been recorded within one mile of the Project site, with multiple occurrences recorded as close as 0.5 miles of the Project site. Therefore, this species has a high potential to occur on the Project site. The least Bell’s vireo is a FE and SE species. This species winters in southern Mexico and breeds in southern California, beginning to arrive mid-March to early April (USFWS 2001). This species is found in riparian forests, riparian woodlands, and riparian scrub. This species can be found near dry river bottoms and in low riparian areas near water (CNDDB 2022). 712 12 Suitable habitat is present within the riparian habitat occurring at the edges of sites 4, 18, 19, 28, 29, 30, 32, and 33. Although no water was present during the survey, these areas can potentially provide quality habitat during the breeding season. In addition, this species has been recorded within one mile of the Project site. Therefore, this species has a high potential to occur within the Project site. United States Fish Wildlife Service Critical Habitat Critical Habitat is defined as areas of land, water, and air space containing the physical and biological features essential for the survival and recovery of endangered and threatened species. Designated Critical Habitat includes sites for breeding and rearing, movement or migration, feeding, roosting, cover, and shelter. Designated Critical Habitats require special management and protection of existing resources, including water quality and quantity, host animals and plants, food availability, pollinators, sunlight, and specific soil types. Designated Critical Habitat delineates all suitable habitat, occupied or not, that is essential to the survival and recovery of the species. According to the USFWS Critical Habitat WebGIS map, the Project site occurs within designated coastal California gnatcatcher Critical Habitat (USFWS 2022b and 2022c). In addition, Critical Habitat for the Palos Verdes blue butterfly is present within 1.4 miles of the Project site to the west and 1.25 miles southeast of the Project site (Attachment 1: Figure 4 – USFWS Critical Habitat Map). Survey Areas 20 and 21 are located along the designated boundaries of the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP); however, the sites are contained within the City of Rolling Hills and immediately outside of the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP boundary. Conclusions and Recommendations Hydrology Several aquatic features were observed within the various sites in the Survey Area. All sites except for 21, 25, 28, and 34 contain ephemeral drainages within the property boundaries. However, these features all occur in lower lying portions of the sites and do not occur in the proposed impact areas. No work is anticipated to occur within or directly adjacent to these features and all the features can be avoided with the use of Best Management Practices including straw wattle and/or silt fencing. If any construction activities associated with the development of this Project could potentially impact any of the features, a Jurisdictional Delineation must be conducted to determine agency jurisdiction, and applications for a USACE 404 permit, State 401 certification, or CDFW State Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required for Project authorization. Special Status Plant Species Following the literature review and after the assessment of the various habitat types in the Survey Area, it was determined that 24 special status plant species are known to historically occur within the Survey Area. Due to a lack of suitable soils and habitats, 20 of these species were considered absent within the Survey Area. Four species were found to have a moderate to high potential to occur within one or more of the Survey Areas. Lewis’ evening-primrose, Catalina crossosoma, and Lyon’s pentachaeta have potential to occur in Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Southern tarplant has potential to occur in Survey Areas 18 and 19. No special status species were found during the biological reconnaissance survey. Several of the plant species would have been flowering at the time of the survey; however, only a reconnaissance-level survey was conducted and to confirm presence or absence of these species, protocol-level focused plant surveys may be required. The focused plant surveys within suitable habitats should be conducted during the appropriate blooming period for each of the species with a moderate or high potential to occur. All of these species are protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and one is a federal and state-listed as endangered species. Mitigation is likely required should one or more of these special status plant species be found to occur during focused surveys within 713 13 the proposed impact areas: southern tarplant, Catalina crossosoma or Lyon’s pentachaeta. Focused plant surveys are also recommended for Lewis’ evening-primrose, though not required as the rare plant ranking for this species is a 3, a plant about which more information is needed. Special Status Wildlife Species Following the literature review and the assessment of the various habitat types in the Survey Area, it was determined that of the 29 special status wildlife species known to occur within the Project area, 19 species are considered absent from the Survey Area, seven species are considered to have a low potential to occur, one species is considered to have a moderate potential to occur, and two species are considered to have a high potential to occur. Three of the wildlife species with a moderate or high potential to occur are federally or state listed threatened or endangered species. Although, these species were not detected during the biological reconnaissance survey; presence/absence surveys are recommended for each species. Although impacts to aquatic features and associated riparian habitat is not anticipated, focused surveys for least Bell’s vireo should be completed at the following Survey Areas within the Project site prior to start of construction activities: sites 4, 18, 19, 28, 29, 30, 32, and 33. Focused surveys should be conducted during the breeding season between April 10 to July 31 in accordance with the Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2001). Although no formal protocol exists for the southern California legless lizard, preconstruction clearance surveys for this species should be conducted at the following Survey Areas prior to the start of construction: sites 1, 3, 4, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32 and 33. This may include full coverage presence/absence surveys within suitable habitat, and raking surveys (i.e., hand raking in areas of sandy, loose and moist soils typically under sparse vegetation) for legless lizards. Because sites 1, 3, 4, 18-21, 25-28, and 31-34 occur within designated coastal California gnatcatcher Critical Habitat, focused surveys will be required and completed within the Project site prior to the start of construction activities. Focused surveys should be conducted during breeding season (February 15 to August 31) in accordance with the USFWS Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines (USFWS 1997). If California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and southern California legless lizard are detected during the surveys, coordination with USFWS and/or CDFW will be required prior to the start of construction. To minimize potential impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), construction activities should take place outside of nesting season (February 15 to September 1), to the greatest extent practicable. If construction activities occur during nesting season, preconstruction surveys and biological monitoring should be conducted. A qualified biologist should conduct and submit a migratory nesting bird and raptor survey report. The survey should occur no more than seven days prior to initiation of Project activities, and any occupied passerine and/or raptor nests occurring within or adjacent to the impact area should be delineated. Additional follow-up surveys may be required by the resource agencies. To the maximum extent practicable, a minimum buffer zone around occupied nests should be maintained during physical ground-disturbing activities. The buffer zone should be sufficient in size to prevent impacts to the nest. Once nesting has ceased, the buffer may be removed. 714 14 Please contact me at (949) 261-5414 ext. 7232 if you have any questions or concerns regarding this memo report. Sincerely, CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. Heather Franklin Project Biologist hfranklin@chambersgroupinc.com (949) 261-5414 ext. 7232 Attachments Attachment 1: Figure 1 – Project Location and Vicinity Map Figure 2 – Survey Area Map Figure 3 – CNDDB Occurrences Map Figure 4 – USFWS Critical Habitat Map Figure 5 – USDA Soils Map Figure 6 – Watersheds Map Figure 7 – FEMA Flood Hazard Map Figure 8 – Jurisdictional Waters Map Attachment 2: Vegetation Communities Attachment 3: Plant Species Observed Attachment 4: Wildlife Species Observed/Detected Attachment 5: Site Photographs 715 15 References Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (editors) 2012 The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gilliam, and M.W. Schwartz 1999 Terrestrial Plant Ecology, Third Edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Menlo Park, California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2022 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind Version 3.1.0. Database Query for the San Pedro, Torrance, Redondo Beach, Venice, Inglewood, South Gate, and Long Beach, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 2022 Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Rare Plant Program, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Accessed July 2021 from https://www.rareplants.cnps.org for the Torrance and San Pedro, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) 2022 California Invasive Plant Council Inventory. www.cal-ipc.org. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. Gray, J. and D. Bramlet 1992 Habitat Classification System, Natural Resources, Geographic Information System (GIS) Project. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Santa Ana, CA. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens 2009 A Manual of California Vegetation Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2022 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions Accessed July 2022 from https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1997 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica): Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. Unpublished Paper. Sacramento, CA. 2001 Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, CA. 3pp. 2022a National Wetland Inventory (NWI). http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed July 2022. 716 16 2022b Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Accessed online at: https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https://services.arcgis.com/QVENGdaPbd 4LUkLV/ArcGIS/rest/services/USFWS_Critical_Habitat/FeatureServer&source=sd July 2022. 2022c Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) List. Accessed July 2022 from https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ZALE5YY4IFD43LVU6XKDY5CUDI/resources. 717 ATTACHMENT 1 – FIGURES 718 CrestRdSilver S purRd I n d i a n P e akRd Palos Verdes Dr N W 1st S t PalosVerdes Dr S Mi ral esteDrPalosVerdesDrERollingHillsRdCrestridge Rd CrenshawBlvdUV107 SanBernardino Kern SanLuisObispo Ventura Santa Barbara RiversideOrange Los Angeles San Diego 1:200,000 1:5,000,000 Figure 1 City of Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Project Location Name: 21330 PLAN Fig 1 Project Location.Mxd Print Date: 6/21/2022 12:21:39 PM Author: pcarlos 0 1,500 3,000750 Feet ´ Project Location Project Location 719 PalosVerdesDrN CrenshawBlvd1 3 4 18 19 2021 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Name: 21330 BIO Fig 2 Survey Area.Mxd Print Date: 7/13/2022 4:06:18 PM Author: pcarlos 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet ´ Survey Area Figure 2 City of Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Survey Area 720 3mi5mi1mi4238 28 39 28 29 46 41 38 4534 36 35 43 32 40 31 4848 48 47 38 37 48 28 48 28 28 28 28 44 33 8 14 25 13 4 1 26 24 22 5 18 6 19 15 5 5 20 13 5 24 21 5 10 5 14 5 5 12 11 10 14 14 14 14 3 3 20 16 19 12 20 20 6 12 5 12 20 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 7 7 55 14 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 55555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 23 5 55 5 7 9 5 14 14 3 7 7 7 14 7 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 14 14 7 5 5 27 14 5 Name: 21330 BIO Fig 3 Sensitive Species Occurrences Within 5 Miles.Mxd Print Date: 7/14/2022 4:37:20 PM Author: pcarlos 0 1 20.5 Miles ´CNDDB Occurrences Animals Plants Figure 3 City of Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Sensitive Species Occurrences Within 5 Miles Survey Area USFWS Occurrences Animals 13. Pacific pocket mouse 26. western yellow-billed cuckoo 38. Lyon's pentachaeta 1. bank swallow 14. Palos Verdes blue butterfly 27. yellow-billed cuckoo 39. mesa horkelia 2. cactus wren 15. pocketed free-tailed bat Plants 40. mud nama 3. California least tern 16. Riverside fairy shrimp 28. aphanisma 41. Parish's brittlescale 4. coast horned lizard 17. San Diego desert woodrat 29. Brand's star phacelia 42. prostrate vernal pool navarretia 5. coastal California gnatcatcher 18. San Gabriel chestnut 30. Catalina crossosoma 43. salt marsh bird's-beak 6. Crotch bumble bee 19. sandy beach tiger beetle 31. coast woolly-heads 44. Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn 7. El Segundo blue butterfly 20. Southern California legless lizard 32. Coulter's goldfields 45. smooth tarplant 8. El Segundo flower-loving fly 21. tricolored blackbird 33. Coulter's saltbush 46. south coast saltscale 9. least Bell's vireo 22. western beach tiger beetle 34. Davidson's saltscale 47. Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub 10. mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) 23. western snowy plover 35. decumbent goldenbush 48. southern tarplant 11. Mohave tui chub 24. western spadefoot 36. estuary seablite 12. monarch - California overwintering population 25. western tidal-flat tiger beetle 37. island green dudleya 721 3mi5mi1mi1 1 1 1 1 1 2 22 Name: 21330 BIO Fig 4 USFWS Critical Habitat.Mxd Print Date: 7/18/2022 12:45:02 PM Author: pcarlos 0 1 20.5 Miles ´ Figure 4 City of Rolling Hills Housing Element Update USFWS Critical Habitat Survey Area USFWS Critical Habitat 1. Coastal California gnatcatcher 2. Palos Verdes blue butterfly 722 1172 1178 1272 1272 1273 1172 11721172 1272 1179 1177 1172 1271 1271 1271 1172 1172 1271 1271 1271 1169 1168 1 3 4 18 19 2021 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 31 32 33 34 Name: 21330 BIO Fig 5 USDA Soils.Mxd Print Date: 7/18/2022 11:51:25 AM Author: pcarlos 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet ´USDA Soils 1168 1169 1172 1177 1178 1179 1271 1272 1273 Figure 5 City of Rolling Hills Housing Element Update USDA Soils Survey Area USDA Soils 1168 - Haploxerepts, 10 to 35 percent slopes 1169 - Lunada-San Benito, warm complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes 1172 - Lunada-Zaca complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes 1177 - Mollic Haploxeralfs, coastal- Topdeck-Urban land complex, 20 to 55 percent slopes 1178 - Oceanaire-Filiorum complex, 10 to 35 percent slopes 1179 - Zaca-Ballast complex, 10 to 50 percent slopes 1180 - Pits and Quarries 1271 - Urban land-Dapplegray complex, 5 to 20 percent slopes, terraced 1272 - Dapplegray-Urban land complex, 10 to 35 percent slopes, terraced 1273 - Dapplegray-Urban land-Lunada complex, 20 to 55 percent slopes 723 Frontal Santa MonicaBay-San Pedro Bay1807010405 DominguezChannel1807010601 Alamitos Bay-SanPedro Bay1807010607 Name: 21330 BIO Fig 6 Watersheds.Mxd Print Date: 7/14/2022 12:12:40 PM Author: pcarlos 0 1 20.5 Miles ´ Figure 6 City of Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Watershed Survey Area Watershed (HUC 10) 724 Zone VE Zone D 1 3 4 18 19 2021 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 31 32 33 34 Name: 21330 BIO Fig 7 FEMA Flood Hazard Zones.Mxd Print Date: 7/14/2022 12:25:57 PM Author: pcarlos 0 1,500 3,000750 Feet ´FEMA Flood Hazard Zones Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Figure 7 City of Rolling Hills Housing Element Update FEMA Flood Hazard Zones Survey Area 725 1 3 4 18 19 2021 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 31 32 33 34 Name: 21330 BIO Fig 8 Jurisdictional Waters NWI and NHD.Mxd Print Date: 7/14/2022 12:25:15 PM Author: pcarlos 0 1,500 3,000750 Feet ´ NWI Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Riverine Figure 8 City of Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Jurisdictional Waters NWI and NHD Survey Area NHD Artificial Path Coastline Connector Pipeline Stream/River 726 ATTACHMENT 2 – VEGETATION COMMUNITIES MAP 727 CrestR d SilverSpurRdIndian P e a k RdPalos Verdes Dr N M ir a le s te D rRollingHillsRdP a lo s V e rd e s D rS CrenshawBlvdPalosVerdesDrEUV107 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 11 9 6 12 13 14 15 Attachment 2Housing and Safety Elem ent UpdatesVegetation Com m unitiesOverview 0 1,500 3,000750 Feet Nam e: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Com m unities.MxdPrint Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos ´ Survey Area Vegetation Com m unities 1. Ruderal 2. Barren 3. Ornam ental Landscaping 4. Developed 5. Sham el Ash Grove 6. Lem onade Berry Scrub 7. Holly Leaf Cherry – T oy on Chaparral 8. Black Sage Scrub 9. Ashy Buckw heat – CaliforniaSagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub10. Laurel Sum ac Scrub 11. Giant Wild Ry e Grassland 12. Him alay an Black Berry Bram bles 13. Arroy o Willow T hickets 728 CrenshawBlvd5 1 1 19 6 6 3 31 32 33 34 Attachment 2Ho using and Safety Element Up datesV egetatio n Co mmunitiesPage 1 o f 15 0 200 400100 Feet Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 V egetatio n Co mmunities.MxdPrint Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Autho r: p carlo s ´ Survey Area V egetatio n Co mmunities 1. Ruderal 3. Ornamental Landscap ing 5. Shamel Ash Gro ve 6. Lemo nade Berry Scrub 9. Ashy Buckw heat – Califo rniaSagebrush – Purp le Sage Scrub 729 1 1 5 9 9 6 6 6 32 33 Attachment 2Ho using and Safety Element Up datesV egetatio n Co mmunitiesPage 2 o f 15 0 200 400100 Feet Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 V egetatio n Co mmunities.MxdPrint Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Autho r: p carlo s ´ Survey Area V egetatio n Co mmunities 1. Ruderal 5. Shamel Ash Gro ve 6. Lemo nade Berry Scrub 9. Ashy Buckw heat – Califo rniaSagebrush – Purp le Sage Scrub 730 3 2 2 1 1 9 66 6 31 32 33 Attachment 2Housing a nd Sa fety Element Up da tesVegeta tion CommunitiesPa ge 3 of 15 0 200 400100 Feet Na me: 21330 BIO Atta ch 2 Vegeta tion Communities.MxdPrint Da te: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: p ca rlos ´ Survey Area Vegeta tion Communities 1. Rudera l 2. Ba rren 3. Orna menta l La ndsca p ing 6. Lemona de Berry Scrub 9. Ashy Buckw hea t – Ca liforniaSa gebrush – Purp le Sa ge Scrub 731 2 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 31 32 33 Attachment 2Housing a nd Sa fety Element Up da tesVegeta tion CommunitiesPa ge 4 of 15 0 200 400100 Feet Na me: 21330 BIO Atta ch 2 Vegeta tion Communities.MxdPrint Da te: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: p ca rlos ´ Survey Area Vegeta tion Communities 1. Rudera l 2. Ba rren 6. Lemona de Berry Scrub 9. Ashy Buckw hea t – Ca liforniaSa gebrush – Purp le Sa ge Scrub 732 9 2 9 9 3 39 6 9 96 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 2 1 28 29 30 Attachment 2Housing a nd Sa fety Element Up da tesVegeta tion CommunitiesPa ge 5 of 15 0 200 400100 Feet Na me: 21330 BIO Atta ch 2 Vegeta tion Communities.MxdPrint Da te: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: p ca rlos ´ Survey Area Vegeta tion Communities 1. Rudera l 2. Ba rren 3. Orna menta l La ndsca p ing 6. Lemona de Berry Scrub 9. Ashy Buckw hea t – Ca liforniaSa gebrush – Purp le Sa ge Scrub 733 33 6 32 5 4 3 4 26 Attachment 2 Housing and Safety Element Updates Vegetation Communities Page 6 of 15 0 200 400100 Feet Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos ´ Survey Area Vegetation Communities 2. Barren 3. Ornamental Landscaping 4. Developed 5. Shamel Ash Grove 6. Lemonade Berry Scrub 734 Pal o s V e r d e s D r N 3 3 6 1 1 1 4 22 24 Attachment 2 Housing and Safety Element Updates Vegetation Communities Page 7 of 15 0 200 400100 Feet Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos ´ Survey Area Vegetation Communities 1. Ruderal 3. Ornamental Landscaping 4. Developed 6. Lemonade Berry Scrub 735 3 4 3 1 1 3 3 6 3 9 1 6 3 6 41 1 6 2 3 3 3 25 27 Attachment 2Housing a nd Sa fety Element Up da tesVegeta tion CommunitiesPa ge 8 of 15 0 200 400100 Feet Na me: 21330 BIO Atta ch 2 Vegeta tion Communities.MxdPrint Da te: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: p ca rlos ´ Survey Area Vegeta tion Communities 1. Rudera l 2. Ba rren 3. Orna menta l La ndsca p ing 4. Develop ed 6. Lemona de Berry Scrub 9. Ashy Buckw hea t – Ca liforniaSa gebrush – Purp le Sa ge Scrub 736 1 1 10 4 1 1 1 1 13 21 1 2 4 1 13 2 13 13 6 6 1 8 6 6 9 18 Attachment 2Ho usin g an d Safety Elemen t UpdatesV egetatio n Co mmun itiesPage 9 o f 15 0 200 400100 Feet Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 V egetatio n Co mmun ities.MxdPrin t Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Autho r: pcarlo s ´ Survey Area V egetatio n Co mmun ities 1. Ruderal 2. Barren 4. Develo ped 6. Lemo n ade Berry Scrub 8. Black Sage Scrub 9. Ashy Buckw heat – Califo rn iaSagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub10. Laurel Sumac Scrub 13. Arro yo Willo w Thickets 737 Palos Verdes Dr N 3 6 6 7 1 4 622 23 Attachment 2Hous ing a nd Sa fety Element Upda tesVegeta tion CommunitiesPa ge 10 of 15 0 200 400100 Feet Na me: 21330 BIO Atta ch 2 Vegeta tion Communities .MxdPrint Da te: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pca rlos ´ Survey Area Vegeta tion Communities 1. Rudera l 3. Orna menta l La nds ca ping 4. Developed 6. Lemona de Berry Scrub 7. Holly Lea f Cherry – Toyon Cha pa rra l 738 3 34 3 6 1 1 6 6 6 3 86 25 Attachment 2 Housing and Safety Element Updates Vegetation Communities Page 11 of 15 0 200 400100 Feet Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos ´ Survey Area Vegetation Communities 1. Ruderal 3. Ornamental Landscaping 4. Developed 6. Lemonade Berry Scrub 8. Black Sage Scrub 739 1 3 1 61 Attachment 2 Housing and Safety Element Updates Vegetation Communities Page 12 of 15 0 200 400100 Feet Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos ´ Survey Area Vegetation Communities 1. Ruderal 3. Ornamental Landscaping 6. Lemonade Berry Scrub 740 1 12 3 6 31 3 12 2 6 1 3 19 Attachment 2 Housing and Safety Element Updates Vegetation Communities Page 13 of 15 0 200 400100 Feet Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos ´ Survey Area Vegetation Communities 1. Ruderal 2. Barren 3. Ornamental Landscaping 6. Lemonade Berry Scrub 12. Himalayan Black Berry Brambles 741 8 11 3 11 6 83 1336 8 1 11 1 3 33 6 6 2021 Attachment 2 Housing and Safety Element Updates Vegetation Communities Page 14 of 15 0 200 400100 Feet Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos ´ Survey Area Vegetation Communities 1. Ruderal 3. Ornamental Landscaping 6. Lemonade Berry Scrub 8. Black Sage Scrub 11. Giant Wild Rye Grassland 742 134 3 33 6 1 4 33 1 1 3 43 6 3 4 Attachment 2 Housing and Safety Element Updates Vegetation Communities Page 15 of 15 0 200 400100 Feet Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos ´ Survey Area Vegetation Communities 1. Ruderal 3. Ornamental Landscaping 4. Developed 6. Lemonade Berry Scrub 743 ATTACHMENT 3 – PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED 744 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 1 21330 Attachment 3. Plant Species Observed Scientific Name Common Name GYMNOSPERMS PINACEAE PINE FAMILY Pinus halepensis* Aleppo pine ANGIOSPERMS (EUDICOTS) ADOXACEAE MUSKROOT FAMILY Sambucus nigra blue elderberry ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY Malosma laurina laurel sumac Rhus integrifolia lemonadeberry Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper tree Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper tree Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak APIACEAE CARROT FAMILY Foeniculum vulgare* fennel APOCYNACEAE DOGBANE FAMILY Asclepias fascicularis narrow-leaf milkweed Nerium oleander* oleander ARALIACEAE GINSENG FAMILY Hedera helix* English ivy ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY Artemisia californica California sagebrush Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Carduus pycnocephalus subsp. pycnocephalus* Italian thistle Centaurea melitensis* tocalote Encelia californica California bush sunflower Erigeron foliosus leafy daisy Eriophyllum confertiflorum golden yarrow Glebionis coronaria* garland daisy Helminthotheca echioides* bristly ox-tongue Malacothrix saxatilis cliff malacothrix Silybum marianum* milk thistle Sonchus asper subsp. asper* prickly sow thistle BIGNONIACEAE BIGNONIA FAMILY Jacaranda mimosifolia* jacaranda BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY Echium candicans* pride of Madeira BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY Brassica nigra* black mustard Hirschfeldia incana* shortpod mustard 745 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 2 21330 Scientific Name Common Name BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY Raphanus sativus* radish CACTACEAE CACTUS FAMILY Opuntia ficus-indica* mission prickly pear Opuntia littorailis coast prickly pear CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY Symphoricarpos sp. snowberry CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY Salsola tragus* Russian thistle CUCURBITACEAE GOURD FAMILY Marah fabacea coast wild cucumber EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY Ricinus communis* castor-bean FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY Acacia cyclops* cyclops acacia Lupinus albifrons var. albifrons silver bush lupine Lupinus succulentus arroyo lupine Melilotus indica* sourclover FAGACEAE OAK FAMILY Quercus agrifolia coast live oak GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY Geranium rotundifolium* round-leaved geranium HAMAMELIDACEAE WITCH-HAZEL FAMILY Liquidambar styraciflua* sweet gum LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY Marrubium vulgare* horehound Salvia leucophylla purple sage Salvia mellifera black sage MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY Malva parviflora* cheeseweed MYRSINACEAE MYRSINE FAMILY Anagallis [Lysimachia] arvensis* scarlet pimpernel MYRTACEAE MYRTLE FAMILY Eucalyptus globulus* blue gum NYCTAGINACEAE FOUR O'CLOCK FAMILY Bougainvillea sp.* bougainvillea OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY Fraxinus uhdei* Shamel ash Olea europaea* olive ONAGRACEAE EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY 746 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 3 21330 Scientific Name Common Name Epilobium canum California fuchsia PHRYMACEAE LOPSEED FAMILY Diplacus aurantiacus orange bush monkeyflower PLANTAGINACEAE PLANTAIN FAMILY Keckiella cordifolia heart leaved keckiella POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Eriogonum cinereum ashy buckwheat, coastal wild buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat PUNICACEAE POMEGRANATE FAMILY Punica granatum* pomegranate RANUNCULACEAE BUTTERCUP FAMILY Clematis sp. clematis RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORN FAMILY Ceanothus thyrsiflorus blue blossom ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Prunus ilicifolia holly-leaf cherry Prunus persica* peach Rubus armeniacus* Himalayan blackberry Rubus leucodermis blackcap raspberry Rubus ursinus California blackberry RUBIACEAE MADDER FAMILY Galium aparine goose grass RUTACEAE RUE FAMILY Citrus sinensis* orange Citrus limon* lemon SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY Salix gooddingii black willow Salix lasiandra shining willow SAPINDACEAE SOAPBERRY FAMILY Aesculus californica California buckeye SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Solanum americanum small-flowered nightshade TROPAEOLACEAE NASTURTIUM FAMILY Tropaeolum majus* garden nasturtium URTICACEA NETTLE FAMILY Urtica dioica stinging nettle ULMACEAE ELM FAMILY Ulmus parvifolia* Chinese elm VALERIANACEAE VALERIAN FAMILY 747 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 4 21330 Scientific Name Common Name Centranthus ruber* red valerian ANGIOSPERMS (MONOCOTS) AGAVACEAE AGAVE FAMILY Yucca elephantipes* giant yucca ARECACEAE PALM FAMILY Washingtonia robusta* Mexican fan palm POACEAE GRASS FAMILY Arundo donax* giant reed Avena fatua* wild oat Bromus diandrus* ripgut grass Bromus madritensis subsp. madritensis* foxtail chess Elymus condensatus giant wild rye Festuca myuros* hairy rat-tail fescue Hordeum murinum* glaucous foxtail barley Stipa miliacea var. miliacea* smilo grass *Non-Native Species 748 ATTACHMENT 4 – WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED/DETECTED 749 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 1 21330 ATTACHMENT 4 – WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST Scientific Name Common Name CLASS REPTILIA REPTILES PHRYNOSOMATIDAE ZEBRA-TAILED, EARLESS, FRINGE-TOED, SPINY, TREE, SIDE-BLOTCHED, AND HORNED LIZARDS Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard CLASS AVES BIRDS ACCIPITRIDAE HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk ODONTOPHORIDAE NEW WORLD QUAIL Callipepla californica California quail COLUMBIDAE PIGEONS & DOVES Zenaida macroura mourning dove STRIGIDAE TRUE OWLS Bubo virginianus great horned owl APODIDAE SWIFTS Aeronautes saxatalis white-throated swift TROCHILIDAE HUMMINGBIRDS Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Selasphorus sasin Allen's hummingbird PICIDAE WOODPECKERS Melanerpes formicivorus acorn woodpecker TYRANNIDAE TYRANT FLYCATCHERS Empidonax difficilis Pacific-slope flycatcher Sayornis nigricans black phoebe HIRUNDINIDAE SWALLOWS Hirundo rustica barn swallow CORVIDAE JAYS & CROWS Aphelocoma californica Western scrub-jay Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax common raven AEGITHALIDAE BUSHTITS Psaltriparus minimus bushtit TROGLODYTIDAE WRENS Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren MIMIDAE MOCKINGBIRDS, THRASHERS Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird ICTERIDAE BLACKBIRDS Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole 750 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 2 21330 Scientific Name Common Name EMBERIZIDAE EMBERIZIDS Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco Melospiza melodia song sparrow Melozone crissalis California towhee Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee CARDINALIDAE CARDINALS Pheucticus melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak FRINGILLIDAE FINCHES Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch Carpodacus mexicanus house finch CLASS MAMMALIA MAMMALS LEPORIDAE HARES & RABBITS Sylvilagus bachmani brush rabbit SCIURIDAE SQUIRRELS Spermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel 751 21 ATTACHMENT 5 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 752 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 1 21330 ATTACHMENT 5 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1. General overview of the western half of Survey Area 1. Photo is facing northwest. Photo 2. General overview of the eastern half of Survey Area 1. Photo is facing southeast. Photo 3. General overview of the top of Survey Area 3, adjacent to the road. Photo is facing north. 753 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 2 21330 Photo 4. General overview of the west-facing hillside within Survey Area 3. Photo is facing west. Photo 5. General overview of the top of Survey Area 4, adjacent to the road. Photo is facing northwest. Photo 6. General overview of the hillside of Survey Area 4, and dense fog. Photo is facing north. 754 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 3 21330 Photo 7. Access road leading to the top of property within Survey Area 18. Photo is facing northwest. Photo 8. Horse stable located at the top (westernmost end) of Survey Area 18. Photo is facing southeast. Photo 9. General overview of the vegetated hillside leading down to stream within Survey Area 18. Photo is facing north. 755 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 4 21330 Photo 10. General overview of the vegetated hillside on the eastern side of Survey Area 19. Photo is facing north. Photo 11. General overview of the vegetated hillside and the stream, adjacent to the hiking trail within Survey Area 19. Photo is facing northwest. Photo 12. General overview of the vegetated hillside within Survey Area 19. Photo is facing southwest. 756 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 5 21330 Photo 13. General overview of western most open area, adjacent to the road, within Survey Area 19. Photo is facing southwest. Photo 14. General overview of northern end of Survey Area 20. Photo is facing southwest. Photo 15. General overview of western end of Survey Area 20. Photo is facing west. 757 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 6 21330 Photo 16. General overview of the dry streambed from the drainage leading into Survey Area 20. Photo is facing northwest. Photo 17. General overview of the open area (westernmost end) of Survey Area 21. Photo is facing east. Photo 18. General overview of the fog and hillside (easternmost end) of Survey Area 21. Photo is facing southwest. 758 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 7 21330 Photo 19. General overview of the northern end of Survey Area 22. Photo is facing south. Photo 20. General overview of Survey Area 22 within gated private property. Photo is facing southwest. Photo 21. General overview of Survey Area 23. Photo is facing southwest. 759 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 8 21330 Photo 22. General overview of Survey Area 23. Photo is facing north. Photo 23. General overview of Survey Area 24. Photo is facing southeast. Photo 24. General overview of Survey Area 24. Photo is facing northwest. 760 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 9 21330 Photo 25. General overview of dry streambed at the northern end of Survey Area 24. Photo is facing east. Photo 26. General overview of western end of Survey Area 25. Photo is facing northwest. Photo 27. General overview of Survey Area 25. Photo is facing southeast. 761 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 10 21330 Photo 28. General overview of the hillside on the northern end of Survey Area 25. Photo is facing northeast. Photo 29. General overview of southeastern end of Survey Area 25. Photo is facing west. Photo 30. General overview of the northern end of Survey Area 26. Photo is facing east. 762 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 11 21330 Photo 31. General overview of southern end of Survey Area 26 and the dry streambed north of the road. Photo is facing northeast. Photo 32. General overview of Survey Area 27. Portuguese Bend Road is located within Survey Area 27. Photo is facing west. Photo 33. General overview of the western end of Survey Area 27 (west of Portuguese Bend Road). Photo is facing southwest. 763 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 12 21330 Photo 34. General overview of the eastern end of Survey Area 28. Photo is facing north. Photo 35. General overview of the hillside (western end) of Survey Area 28. Photo is facing northwest. Photo 36. General overview of eastern end of Survey Area 29. Photo is facing west. 764 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 13 21330 Photo 37. General overview of the hillside (western end) of Survey Area 29. Photo is facing northwest. Photo 38. General overview of Survey Area 30. Photo is facing north. Photo 39. General overview of the northeastern end of Survey Area 30. Photo is facing west. 765 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 14 21330 Photo 40. General overview of the hillside (western end) of Survey Area 30. Photo is facing southwest. Photo 41. General overview of the western end of Survey Area 31. Photo is facing north. Photo 42. General overview of the hillside (eastern end) of Survey Area 31. Photo is facing north. 766 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 15 21330 Photo 43. Close-up of California sage brush patch within Survey Area 31. Photo is facing west. Photo 44. General overview of the eastern end of Survey Area 32. Photo is facing southwest. Photo 45. General overview of the hillside (western end) of Survey Area 32. Photo is facing west. 767 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 16 21330 Photo 46. General overview of the hillside (western end) of Survey Area 32. Photo is facing northeast. Photo 47. General overview of the western end of Survey Area 33. Photo is facing south. Photo 48. General overview of the northern end of Survey Area 33. Photo is facing south. 768 Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Chambers Group, Inc. 17 21330 Photo 49. General overview of vegetated hillside that runs along the eastern end of Survey Area 33. The dry stream bed feature runs between the trail and vegetated hillside. Photo is facing north. Photo 50. General overview of Survey Area 34. Photo is facing southwest. Photo 51. General overview of Survey Area 34. Photo is facing northwest. 769 APPENDIX B – TRIBAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES 770 1 From:CHRISTINA CONLEY-HADDOCK <christina.marsden@alumni.usc.edu> Sent:Monday, July 18, 2022 5:17 PM To:John Signo Cc:Robert Dorame; Connie Viramontes; Victoria Boyd Subject:Re: FOLLOW-UP – REGARDING THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROJECT Thank you John for the update and please keep us on your distribution list for further activity. Take care, Christina tehoovet taamet C H R I S T I N A C O N L E Y •Native American Monitor - Caretaker of our Ancestral Land •Cultural Resource Administrator Under Tribal Chair, Robert Dorame (Most Likely Descendant) •Native American Heritage Commission Contact •Fully qualified as a California State Recognized Native American Tribe fulfilling SB18, AB52 Compliance Regulations •HAZWOPER Certified •626.407.8761 __________________________________________________________ G A B R I E L I N O T O N G V A I N D I A N S O F C A L I F O R N I A The Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California are recognized in the State of California Bill AJR96 as the aboriginal tribe to encompass the entire Los Angeles Basin area and the Channel Islands of Santa Catalina, San Nicholas and San Clemente NAHC recognizes GTIOC Tribal Territory On Jun 13, 2022, at 1:14 PM, John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net> wrote: Greetings. Please see attached letter. Regards, John F. Signo, AICP Director of Planning and Community Services <image003.jpg> City of Rolling Hills – City Hall 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274 O: 310.377.1521 771 2 <Tongva Follow Up – Rolling Hills HEU.pdf> 772 1 From:John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net> Sent:Tuesday, June 14, 2022 2:12 PM To:Victoria Boyd Subject:FW: FOLLOW-UP – REGARDING THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROJECT From: Gabrieleno Administration <admin@gabrielenoindians.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:50 AM To: John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net> Subject: Re: FOLLOW‐UP – REGARDING THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROJECT Hello John Thank you for your email. If there is not going to be any ground disturbances taking place there will be no need for a consultation. Admin Specialist Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 Office: 844-390-0787 website: www.gabrielenoindians.org To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. The region where Gabrieleño culture thrived for more than eight centuries encompassed most of Los Angeles County, more than half of Orange County and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. It was the labor of the Gabrieleño who built the missions, ranchos and the pueblos of Los Angeles. They were trained in the trades, and they did the construction and maintenance, as well as the farming and managing of herds of livestock. “The Gabrieleño are the ones who did all this work, and they really are the foundation of the early economy of the Los Angeles area “ . “That’s a contribution that Los Angeles has not recognized--the fact that in its early decades, without the Gabrieleño, the community simply would not have survived.” On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 1:04 PM John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net> wrote: Greetings. Please see attached letter. Regards, 773 2 John F. Signo, AICP Director of Planning and Community Services CITY OF ROLLING HILLS – CITY HALL 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274 O: 310.377.1521 774 Andrew Salas, Chairman Nadine Salas, Vice-Chairman Dr. Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Albert Perez, treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 www.gabrielenoindians.org admin@gabrielenoindians.org GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION Historically known as The Gabrielino Tribal Council - San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians recognized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin December 21,2021 Project Name: The City of Rolling Hills Housing and Safety Element Updates Project Dear John F. Signo, Thank you for your email dated December 13,2021. Regarding the project above. This is to concur that we are in agreement with the Housing Element Update. However, our Tribal government would like to request consultation for any and all future projects within this location. Sincerely, 775 Andrew Salas, Chairman Nadine Salas, Vice-Chairman Dr. Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Albert Perez, treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 www.gabrielenoindians.org admin@gabrielenoindians.org GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION Historically known as The Gabrielino Tribal Council - San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians recognized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin December 21,2021 Project Name: The City of Rolling Hills Safety Element Thank you for your letter regarding the project above. This is to concur that we are in agreement with the Safety Element. However, our Tribal government would like to request consultation for any and all future projects when ground disturbance will be occurring within this location. Sincerely, Andrew Salas, Chairman Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 1(844)390-0787 776 1 From: CHRISTINA CONLEY-HADDOCK <christina.marsden@alumni.usc.edu> Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 1:17 PM To: Richard Shultz <rshultz@chambersgroupinc.com> Cc: Robert Dorame <gtongva@icloud.com> Subject: Re: Follow-up re: 21330 City of Rolling Hills Housing & Safety Element Project SB 18/AB 52 Consult Request Good afternoon Richard, Apologies for the delay - I have been out on the field. At this time, as there are no specific developments planned, we have no concerned. We are requesting to be notified on any future projects in the city of Rolling Hills as aforementioned, it is a sensitive area for our tribe. Take good care, Christina tehoovet taamet C H R I S T I N A C O N L E Y Native American Monitor - Caretaker of our Ancestral Land Cultural Resource Administrator Under Tribal Chair, Robert Dorame (MLD) HAZWOPER Certified 626.407.8761 __________________________________________________________ G A B R I E L I N O T O N G V A I N D I A N S O F C A L I F O R N I A On Jan 3, 2022, at 12:56 PM, Richard Shultz <rshultz@chambersgroupinc.com> wrote: Good afternoon and happy new year Christina. I am following up on your recent letter (below). Chambers Group is assisting the City of Rolling Hills with their requirement to conduct SB 18 and AB 52 consultations related to the proposed Housing and Safety Element Updates to the General Plan and policies. As noted in the attached consultation request letter there are no specific developments planned at this time, and the consultation is being requested for comments or concerns with the proposed Element Updates. Chambers Group and the City of Rolling Hills greatly appreciate the concerns of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council and wish to allay any apprehensions that the resources listed, and not listed, below would be affected by the proposed Element Updates. 777 2 From: CHRISTINA CONLEY-HADDOCK <christina.marsden@alumni.usc.edu> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2021 10:27 AM To: Kellie Kandybowicz <kkandybowicz@chambersgroupinc.com> Cc: Richard Shultz <rshultz@chambersgroupinc.com>; Robert Dorame <gtongva@icloud.com> Subject: Re: Follow-up re: 21330 City of Rolling Hills Housing & Safety Element Project SB 18/AB 52 Consult Request Good morning John, If the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council wish to consult under SB 18 or AB 52 concerning these proposed Element Updates please contact John Signo, AICP, at the City of Rolling Hills (jsigno@cityofrh.net - City Of Rolling Hills – City Hall 2; Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274; O: 310.377.1521 | F: 310.377.7288). Alternatively, feel free to contact either Kellie or myself and we will coordinate with the City. Please let Kellie or me know if you have any questions or concerns, and we will be happy to help. Thank you, Richard We are in receipt of your 21330 City of Rolling Hills Housing & Safety Element Project SB 18/AB 52 Consult Request. Thank you for reaching out. After conferring with Tribal Chair Dorame (the Most Likely Descendent), this property is highly culturally sensitive to the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California (GTIOC) as it resides near one of our villages. The Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California request an AB52 and SB18 consultation for this project. There are a minimum of 7 identified sties near the project area; LAN 110, LAN 191, LAN 276, LAN277, LAN278, LAN 279, LAN 280 (LAN 275 borders your project area). The concern with all of these sites is that they are significant evidence of the existence of a village site and the area may still yield evidence of buried deposits. Artifacts unearthed in previous projects included obsidian projectiles, sandstone bowls, cog stones and more importantly, human remains. The Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California tribe is deeply concerned with any ground disturbances in your project area and this project will need a monitor from the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California for only ground disturbances. Attached are our treatment plans for your project site. Please let us know what your next steps are and how we may assist you. Take good care and happy new year, Christina 778 3 tehoovet taamet C H R I S T I N A C O N L E Y Native American Monitor - Caretaker of our Ancestral Land Cultural Resource Administrator Under Tribal Chair, Robert Dorame (Most Likely Descendent) HAZWOPER Certified 626.407.8761 __________________________________________________________ G A B R I E L I N O T O N G V A I N D I A N S O F C A L I F O R N I A <image001.png> <image002.png> From: Kellie Kandybowicz Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 9:28 AM To: 'christina.marsden@alumni.isc.edu' <christina.marsden@alumni.isc.edu> Cc: Richard Shultz <rshultz@chambersgroupinc.com> Subject: 21330 City of Rolling Hills Housing & Safety Element Project SB 18/AB 52 Consult Request Dear Christina Conley, The City of Rolling Hills (City) is commencing its Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation processes for the Housing and Safety Element Updates Project (Project). Pursuant to Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4 SB 18 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans. Additionally, AB 52 (Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2) requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the NAHC for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources (TCRs) as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects. This letter is being provided to you because your Tribe, the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, was listed on the NAHC directory as an individual or group who may have additional knowledge pertaining to tribal cultural resources within this geographic area. The Project consists of a Housing Element Update of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan and an update to the City’s Safety Element to address various natural and human-caused hazards the City has dealt with including earthquakes, wildfires, droughts, and land movement. 779 4 The Housing Element and Safety Element Updates are policy updates only, and no specific developments are proposed at this time. A description of each of the updates is provided below. Housing Element Update The City’s Housing Element serves as an integrated part of the General Plan, and is subject to detailed statutory requirements, including a requirement to be updated every eight years, and mandatory review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City is currently adopting their 6thcycle Housing Element Update (HEU). The City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for this 6th cycle, is 45 units which the City determined can be met with existing approved developments, the underutilized Rancho Del Mar school site, and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Therefore, the HEU, is a policy document; no actual development nor rezoning of parcels is included as part of the approval. Safety Element Update The Safety Element Update (SEU) provides the City goals, policies, and actions to minimize the hazards to safety in and around the City. The SEU evaluates natural and human-caused safety hazards that affect existing and future development and provides guidelines for protecting the community from harm. The SEU describes existing and potential future conditions and sets policies for improved public safety. The goal of the SEU is to reduce the risk of injury, death, property loss, and other hardships to acceptable levels. As part of the proposed updates the City has requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search by the NAHC. The result of the SLF search conducted through the NAHC was negative for the Project site. The City of Rolling Hills is a rural, equestrian residential community, consisting entirely of large lot residential parcels of one acre or more (Figure 1). The community encompasses 2.99 square miles of land (approximately 1,910 acres) on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the County of Los Angeles. Please consider this letter notification and preliminary Project information as the initiation of the SB 18 and AB 52 requests for consultation. Pursuant to PRC 21080.3.1(d), the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council have 30 days upon receipt of this letter to provide a request for AB 52 consultation on the Project. Pursuant to GC 65352.3, the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council have 90 days upon receipt of this letter to provide a request for SB 18 consultation. Due to the abbreviated timeline regarding funding opportunities for this affordable housing Project, we respectfully ask that requests for SB 18 consultation also be provided within 45 days, if practicable. 780 5 Your comments are important to the City of Rolling Hills. If the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council have any concerns regarding the proposed Project as it relates to Native American issues or interests, or has any information regarding sacred sites in the vicinity of the proposed Project that may help avoid impacts to those sites, please send your response to: John F. Signo, AICP Director of Planning and Community Services 6 <image006.jpg> City of Rolling Hills – City Hall 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274 O: 310.377.1521 | F: 310.377.7288 jsigno@cityofrh.net Attachments – Project Location Map Kellie Kandybowicz | Cultural Resources Specialist <image002.png> t | 858.541.2800 : x7140 f | 866.261.3100 m | 760.521.9005 kkandybowicz@chambersgroupinc.com www.chambersgroupinc.com <21330_CityofRollingHillsHousing&SafetyElementProject_20211215_Conley.pdf><2133 0 PLAN Fig 1 Project Location_small.pdf> <SB18-AB52 Letter Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council.pdf> 781 APPENDIX B – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 782 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Rolling Hills, CA Prepared for: No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Prepared by: 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750 Santa Ana, California 92707 September 2022 783 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6 (Assembly Bill 3180) requires that mitigation measures identified in environmental review documents prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are implemented after a project is approved. Therefore, this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures during future development of the 20 vacant, residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City of Rolling Hills that have the potential to be developed during the 2021-2029 planning period. City of Rolling Hills (City) is the agency responsible for implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the MND. This MMRP provides the City with a convenient mechanism for quickly reviewing all the mitigation measures, including the ability to focus on select information such as timing. The MMRP includes the following information for each mitigation measure:  The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be implemented;  The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be monitored; and  The enforcement agency. The MMRP includes a checklist to be used during the mitigation monitoring period. The checklist will verify the name of the monitor, the date of the monitoring activity, and any related remarks for each mitigation measure. 784 3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Initial Date Remarks Biological Resources BIO-1: Biological Resources Assessment Applicants of future development projects should be required to prepare a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA). The BRA should be prepared by a qualified biologist. A qualified biologist should conduct field surveys of the project site and focused plant and wildlife surveys. Focused species-specific surveys should be required if suitable habitat is present and performed according to established Survey and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines (CDFW 2021c). The BRA should characterize the biological resources on site, analyze project-specific impacts to biological resources, and propose appropriate mitigation measures to offset those impacts. The BRA should provide the following information: 1) A complete, recent, assessment of rare, threatened, and endangered species, regionally and locally unique species, and sensitive habitats at the project site and within the area of potential effect, including California Species of Special Concern and California Fully Protected Species (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Seasonal variations in use of land around the project site should also be addressed. A nine-quadrangle search of CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) should be conducted to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat (CDFW 2022d); 2) A thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities following CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). Adjoining habitat areas should be included where project construction and activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts off site; 3) Floristic, alliance- and/or association-based mapping and vegetation impact assessments conducted at the project site and within the area of potential effect. The Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), second edition, should be used to inform this mapping and assessment (Sawyer et al. 2009); 4) A rare plant assessment using online databases for rare, threatened, and endangered plants, including the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022b) as well as the Calflora’s Information on Wild California Plants database (Calflora 2022); 5) A discussion regarding project-related indirect impacts on biological resources in nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, riparian ecosystems, and any designated and/or proposed or existing reserve lands [e.g., preserve lands associated with a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, § 2800 et. seq.)]; 6) Impacts on, and maintenance of, wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitats in areas adjacent to the project site. Prior to issuance of grading permits Prior to issuance of grading permits / during ground disturbance City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant 785 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Initial Date Remarks BIO-2: Take of Species Development projects that would impact species listed under CESA and/or ESA should be required to obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW and/or USFWS prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permit. Prior to issuance of grading permits Prior to issuance of grading permits / during ground disturbance City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant BIO-3: Rare Plant Species or Sensitive Natural Community If a rare plant species or a Sensitive Natural Community is detected, the project applicant should fully avoid impacts. The project applicant should retain a qualified biologist to develop an avoidance plan. An avoidance plan should be submitted to the City prior to any grading or vegetation removal. If the project cannot feasibly avoid impacts to rare plants and habitat, or sensitive natural communities, either during project activities or over the life of the project, the project applicant should provide compensatory mitigation for the loss of individual plants and habitat acres, which should include impacts due to fuel modification and landslide remediation. Impacts on vegetation due hazard mitigation should also be mitigated as these impacts would result in permanent loss and perpetual impacts on habitat function and quality. The project applicant should provide compensatory so that there is no net loss of rare plants and habitat, or sensitive natural communities. Compensatory mitigation should be appropriate for the extent of permanently disturbed habitat. Compensatory mitigation should be higher for impacts on CRPR 1 species, S1 or S2 Sensitive Natural Community, and Sensitive Natural Community with an additional rank of 0.1 or 0.2. Compensatory mitigation should be implemented by a qualified restoration ecologist. A Restoration Plan, at a minimum, should include success criteria and performance standards for measuring the establishment of rare plants and habitat, responsible parties, maintenance techniques and schedule, 5-year monitoring and reporting schedule, adaptive management strategies, and contingencies. A Restoration Plan should be submitted to the City prior to any grading or vegetation removal. Prior to grading or vegetation removal An Avoidance Plan shall be submitted to the City prior to any grading or vegetation removal. A Restoration Plan shall be submitted to the City prior to any grading or vegetation removal. City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant BIO-4: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys Where a project site and areas adjacent to the project has suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher, applicants of future development projects should be required to retain a qualified permitted biologist to survey for coastal California gnatcatcher and prepare an impact assessment. The qualified biologist should survey the project site and adjacent areas to determine presence/absence of coastal California gnatcatcher. The qualified biologist should conduct surveys according to USFWS Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines (USFWS 1997). The protocol should be followed for all surveys unless otherwise authorized by the USFWS in writing (USFWS 1997). Survey results should be provided to USFWS per protocol guidance. Survey results, including negative findings, and an impact assessment should be conducted prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permits. Prior to the issuance of grading permits Prior to issuance of grading permits / during ground disturbance City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant 786 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Initial Date Remarks BIO-5: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Compensatory Mitigation Applicants of future development projects should be required to provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in addition to mitigation required by USFWS to prevent temporal or permanent habitat loss. Prior to any grading and vegetation removal Prior to any grading and vegetation removal / during ground disturbance City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant BIO-6: Nesting Birds Future development projects requiring vegetation disturbance and/or removal, and/or are adjacent to suitable nesting habitat should be required to avoid impacts on nesting birds by conducting all project-related activities between September 1 through January 31, outside of the nesting bird season. If construction must occur during the bird nesting season, project applicants should be required to retain a qualified biologist to survey suitable nesting habitat for nesting birds on the project site and within 100 feet from the project site to the extent allowable and accessible. A qualified biologist should conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 7 days prior to any ground and vegetation disturbing activities. If project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 7 days during the nesting bird season, a qualified biologist should repeat nesting bird surveys before the project can recommence. No-disturbance buffers should be established to minimize impacts on any nests and nestlings. No-disturbance buffers should be maintained until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist determines that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Prior to and during ground and vegetation disturbing activities; if construction would occur during nesting season (September 1 – January 31) and no more than 7 days prior Prior to and during ground and vegetation disturbing activities; if construction would occur during nesting season (September 1 – January 31) and no more than 7 days prior City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant BIO-7: Nesting Bird Habitat Future development projects removing habitat for nesting birds should be required to restore or replace habitat in-kind and on site if feasible to prevent temporal or permanent habitat loss. Projects should provide replacement habitat for both individual trees and habitat acres. Prior to any grading and vegetation removal During project construction City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant BIO-8: Bat Surveys Future development projects in areas with suitable roosting and foraging habitat for bats should be required to retain a qualified bat biologist to conduct a survey for within the project site and within 100 feet from the project site to the extent allowable and accessible. A qualified bat specialist should identify potential daytime, nighttime, wintering, and hibernation roost sites. Surveys should be conducted prior to any ground-disturbing activities and vegetation removal. Prior to ground- disturbing activities and vegetation removal Prior to ground- disturbing activities and vegetation removal City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant BIO-9: Tree Removal – Bat Impacts If a project requires tree removal and a qualified bat biologist determines that roosting bats may be present at any time of year and could roost in trees that need to be removed, during tree removal, trees should be pushed down using heavy machinery rather than felling with a chainsaw. To ensure the optimum warning for any roosting bats that may still be present, trees should be pushed lightly two or During tree removal During tree removal City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant 787 6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Initial Date Remarks three times, with a pause of approximately 30 seconds between each nudge to allow bats to become active. The tree should then be pushed to the ground slowly and remain in place until it is inspected by a qualified bat biologist. Trees that are known to be bat roosts or could support roosting bats should not be bucked or mulched immediately. A period of at least 24 hours, and preferable 48 hours, should elapse prior to such operations to allow bats to escape. BIO-10: Roosting Bats If bats roosts are found within the project impact area, the qualified bat biologist should identify the bats to the species level, evaluate the colony to determine its size and significance, and establish a species-specific no-disturbance buffer that should be maintained throughout the duration of the project’s construction. Prior to ground- disturbing activities and vegetation removal During construction City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant BIO-11: Maternity Bat Roosts If maternity roosts are found, project-related construction and activities should be scheduled between October 1 and February 28, outside of the maternity roosting season when young bats are present but are yet ready to fly out of the roost (March 1 to September 30). If maternity roosts are found and the project must take place during the maternity roosting season, trees/structures determined to be maternity roosts should be left in place until the end of the maternity season. Project-related construction and activities should not occur within 100 feet of or directly under or adjacent to an active maternity roost. A qualified bat biologist should establish a no-disturbance buffer that should be maintained throughout the duration of the project’s construction or until a qualified bat biologist determines that the roost is no longer active. Project-related construction and activities should also not occur between 30 minutes before sunset and 30 minutes after sunrise. Prior to ground- disturbing activities and vegetation removal During construction City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant BIO-12: Jurisdictional Delineation Applicants of future development projects that are located adjacent to a river, stream, or lake should be required to prepare a jurisdictional delineation and impact assessment provided along with the project’s Biological Resources Assessment. If such features are present and may be impacted by the future development, then the project should be required to avoid impacts by implementing appropriate vegetative buffers and/or setbacks adjoining the stream or wetland feature to reduce impacts of the project on these resources. If avoidance is not feasible, the project applicant should be required to notify CDFW pursuant to Fish and Game Code 1602 and obtain an LSA Agreement from CDFW prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permit. The project applicant should comply with the mitigation measures detailed in a LSA Agreement issued by CDFW. The project applicant should also provide compensatory mitigation at no less than 1:1 for the impacted stream and habitat acreage, or at a ratio acceptable to CDFW. Prior to issuance of grading permits Prior to issuance of grading permits City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant 788 7 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Initial Date Remarks Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources CUL-1: Provide Construction Worker Archeological Awareness Training Prior to the start of construction on sites that are currently undeveloped or where excavation would be to deeper levels than previous excavation levels as determined during plan review, the project archaeologist or their designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of archeological resources and the procedures for notifying archeological staff should artifacts be discovered by construction staff. The Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be fulfilled at the time of a pre-construction meeting, which a qualified archaeologist shall attend. This training will include a printed handout that provides examples of potential cultural resources. The WEAP training will be repeated when construction personnel change and periodically renewed if the project has a long duration (more than 3 months.) Prior to and during construction Prior to and during construction City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant CUL-2: Conduct Archeological Resources Construction Monitoring Prior to the issuance of a grading permit on sites that are currently undeveloped or where excavation would be to deeper levels than previous excavation levels as determined during plan review, the property owner/developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) to be present during all initial subsurface ground-disturbing construction activities. At the commencement of construction activities, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by the qualified archaeologist, construction manager, general contractor, subcontractor, and construction workers associated with ground- disturbing activities. The orientation meeting shall describe the potential of exposing archaeological resources, the types of resources that may be encountered, and directions on the steps that shall be taken if such a find is encountered. Prior to the issuance of grading permits During all initial subsurface ground- disturbing construction activities City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant CUL-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects The term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient and historic times, tribal traditions included but were not limited to the burial of associated cultural resources (funerary objects) with the deceased and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act guidance specifically states that the federal agencies will consult with organizations on whose aboriginal lands the remains and cultural items might be discovered, who are reasonably known to have a cultural relationship to the human remains and other cultural items. Therefore, it During construction; if human remains are encountered During construction; if human remains are encountered City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant 789 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Initial Date Remarks is appropriate to consult with local Native American groups as recommended by the California NAHC. Any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner. Work shall be stopped and the construction manager or archaeological monitor, if present, shall immediately divert work at a minimum of 50 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The construction manager or the monitor shall then notify an archaeologist meeting standards of qualification under the guidelines of the Secretary of Interior and the coroner to assess the discovery. Work shall continue to be diverted while the coroner determines if the remains are Native American. The discovery shall be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the remains are Native American, the coroner will notify the California NAHC as mandated by State law who will then appoint a most likely descendent (MLD). The MLD shall provide recommendations as to the treatment and disposition of the human remains within 48 hours of MLD designation. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with a protective casing to prevent further damage or looting. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored in accordance with methods agreed upon between the MLD and the landowner. If the Coroner determines the remains represent a historic non-Native American burial, the burial shall be reburied in an appropriate setting, as determined by the Coroner. If the Coroner determines the remains to be modern, the Coroner will take custody of the remains. GEO-1: Prepare Paleontological Resources Study and Implement Study Recommendations For any development in Rolling Hills that occurs within high sensitivity geologic units, whether they are mapped at the surface or hypothesized to occur in the subsurface, the City shall require a site-specific paleontological study and avoidance and/or mitigation for potential impacts to paleontological resources. The City shall require the following specific requirements for projects that could disturb geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity, whether they are mapped at the surface or hypothesized to occur in the subsurface. 1) Retain a Qualified Paleontologist. Prior to initial ground disturbance within highly sensitive geologic units, the applicant shall retain a project paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards for Qualified Professional Paleontologist, to direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources (SVP 2010). A qualified paleontologist (Principal Paleontologist) is defined by the SVP standards as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is experienced with paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of California, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor for a least 1 year. 2) Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Prior to construction activity, a qualified paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Prior to and during construction, and upon completion of ground disturbing activities Prior to and during construction, and upon completion of ground disturbing activities City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant 790 9 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Initial Date Remarks Mitigation and Monitoring Program to be implemented during ground disturbance activity for the proposed project. This program shall outline the procedures for construction staff Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, paleontological monitoring extent and duration, salvage and preparation of fossils, the final mitigation and monitoring report, and paleontological staff qualifications. 3) Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the project paleontologist or his or her designee, shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff shall fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a pre-construction meeting at which a qualified paleontologist shall attend. In the event of a fossil discovery by construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find before restarting work in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is(are) scientifically significant, the qualified paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources. 4) Paleontological Monitoring. Ground disturbing construction activities (including grading, trenching, foundation work and other excavations) at the surface in areas mapped as high paleontological sensitivity and exceeding 5 feet in depth in areas overlying potentially high paleontological sensitivity units shall be monitored on a full-time basis by a qualified paleontological monitor during initial ground disturbance. The Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program shall be supervised by the project paleontologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources. The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the project paleontologist. If the project paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, he or she may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring would be reinstated if any new or unforeseen deeper ground disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension would need to be reconsidered by the supervising paleontologist. Ground disturbing activity that does not occur in areas mapped as high sensitivity or that do not exceed 5 feet in depth in areas overlying potentially high sensitivity units would not require paleontological monitoring. 5) Salvage of Fossils. If significant fossils are discovered, the project paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall recover them. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner. Work may continue outside of a buffer zone around the fossil, usually 50-100 feet (specific distance may be determined by the project paleontologist). 6) Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared 791 10 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Initial Date Remarks to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the project paleontologist. 7) Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final mitigation and monitoring report outlining the results of the mitigation and monitoring program. The report shall include discussion of the location, duration and methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic sections, any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those fossils, and where fossils were curated. TCR-1: Retain and Utilize a Native American Construction Monitor If tribal cultural resources are identified during future tribal consultation efforts for future specific development projects or during construction of such projects, the project applicant for that project shall obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor(s) during construction-related ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, weed abatement, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) shall be present on-site during the construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The Native American Monitor(s) shall complete monitoring logs daily to provide descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the construction-related ground disturbance activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources. Prior to and during construction-related ground disturbance activities During construction- related ground disturbance activities City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant TCR-2: Evaluate Unanticipated Discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources If tribal cultural resources are identified during future tribal consultation efforts for future specific development projects or during construction of such projects, a qualified archaeologist and Native American Monitor shall be present during construction-related ground disturbance activities to identify any unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources. The qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor may be different individuals or the same individual if the City determines that individual qualifies as both a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor. All archaeological resources unearthed by construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Native American Monitor. If the resources are determined to be human remains (see also Mitigation Measure CUL-3) the Coroner shall be notified, and if the human remains are Native American in origin, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC as mandated by State law, who will then appoint an MLD, who shall then coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the MLD will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Prior to and during construction-related ground disturbance activities During construction- related ground disturbance activities City of Rolling Hills Less than Significant 792 11 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Initial Date Remarks Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2(g), the qualified archaeologist shall coordinate with the applicant and the City to develop a formal treatment plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be donated to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. 793 794 795 796 797 798 Agenda Item No.: 11.A Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:VANESSA HEVENER, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:RECEIVE REPORT ON THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2022 ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (RHCA) BOARD MEETING ON THE CITY'S OUTDOOR SIREN PROJECT; CONSIDER PROJECT OPTIONS PROPOSED BY HQE; AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: In Fiscal Years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, the City Council provided funding for the Block Captain Program to investigate communication platforms in the event of complete power failure in the community. The Block Captains and City staff used funds to purchase two-way radios and when the handheld radio option proved to be ineffective, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued in February 2021 to solicit proposals on other communication systems. The City received one proposal from HQE Systems (HQE), Inc. On April 26, 2021, Staff recommended that City Council engage the services of HQE. The City Council directed Councilmember Pieper to work with Staff to better understand the evolution of the communication project 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. Staff also worked with Project Manager Alan Palermo and HQE to provide technical information requested by Councilmember Pieper. The Lead Block Captains, along with members of the Block Captains were in support of a feasibility study. The City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with HQE to prepare a feasibility study that would identify the hardware, location of the hardware, software, system integration, and a detailed cost estimate to install a siren system for the community. At the January 10, 2022, City Council meeting Staff presented the final Feasibility Study and recommended to City Council to conduct a community survey to gauge interest for an outdoor siren system. In review of the Feasibility Study, the City Council requested information relating to the annual maintenance cost of the proposed outdoor siren system. The City Council also requested a street level map of Solution A and Solution B presented in the Feasibility Study. 799 On March 14, 2022, the City Council unanimously voted to amend the PSA with HQE allocating an additional not to exceed $3,500 to investigate potential co-location sites of the poles. On June 16, 2022, HQE Staff and Block Captain Leads Arlene and Gene Honbo conducted a site visit at the Main Gate, Crest Gate, Eastfield Gate and the Radar Station. In early July, HQE submitted the revised Feasibility Study that included two additional options: Solution C includes the three gates and the Radar Station and Solution D includes only the three gates. At the August 8, 2022, City Council meeting, Staff presented the potential site locations and to consider Solution D. Representatives from HQE were present to answer questions from Council and members of the public. HQE informed City Council that they had completed the remaining tasks of the Feasibility Study at no cost to the City, a savings of $22,814 and invited the Council to observe a demonstration of the proposed system, if desired. City Council directed Staff to seek approval from the Rolling Hills Community Association to place the siren poles at the three gate locations. On September 1, 2022, Staff and Councilmember Mirsch attended a demonstration of the proposed outdoor siren system equipment at HQE headquarters. The demonstration included a tour of their facility where manufacturing of the equipment was conducted in-house and a demonstration simulated a test warning that would be sent out in case of an emergency. The equipment used consisted of a single 4' speaker mounted on a pole 25 feet above ground (for Rolling Hills, there would be 4-4' speakers mounted 50 feet above ground at each gate). The quality of the intelligible voice was clear and could be easily heard. The speakers could be adjusted to rotate a few degrees at a time through the use of a software application to ensure the best sound coverage. In our discussion with HQE, it was conveyed that they were recently awarded a contract with the City of Paradise to install 21 poles and are in the process of installing them. On September 1, 2022, Staff also attended the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) Board meeting. Per Council direction, the City Manager asked that the RHCA Manager present to the Board of Directors the City's request to place the siren poles at the three gatehouse locations. During that meeting, the City's question was not presented as requested. As a result, the Board of Directors began asking questions with respect to public safety, an area outside the purview of the RHCA. The Board of Directors ultimately did not discuss the City's request to place siren poles at the three gates. Instead the Board of Directors requested that the RHCA Manager meet with City Staff and that the RHCA Liaisons meet with the City Council Subcommittee to discuss why the Board of Directors were not informed of the project, if the project was warranted, and concerns relating to only having one proposer submit a proposal for the project. In addition, per Council direction, Staff reached out to the five homes adjacent to the three gates to inform them of the project. The two residences were in support, one was opposed, and the other two did not respond. At the September 12, 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council directed the Subcommittee members to follow up with their counterparts at RHCA. DISCUSSION: On September 15, 2022, Staff made a presentation at the Rolling Hills Community Association 800 Board meeting requesting an approval to place the siren system at the three gates. The RHCA Board expressed concerns about the health of the guard attendants who would be exposed to high levels of sound emitting from the sirens, interference with the operations of the guardhouses, and aesthetics and noise impacts on residents. The RHCA Board ultimately voted to not support the the City's request of placing the siren system at the gates (attached). Following the RHCA Board meeting, Staff contacted HQE to seek additional information on noise levels that could be heard at the base of the poles. Based on HQE’s response, the speakers will emit up to 124 decibels 50’ above ground; however, at the base of the pole, the decibel is 90 or equivalent to a hairdryer. Included in the packet is additional information on sound prepared by HQE. Continuing the discussion from the September 12, 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council was deciding on the project option to implement: Solution A considered aesthetic as a priority with 9-30' poles, Solution B offers the most reliable solution with 3-50' poles . Solution D includes the three gate locations with 3-50' poles, which the RHCA Board is not in support. Staff recommends Solution B, the most economical solution of the three options. FISCAL IMPACT: Depending on the option selected for implementation, it can range from $144,573 to $334,748. Solution A considered aesthetic as a priority for an estimated construction cost of $310,602 with an annual maintenance fee of $32,798.24. Solution B offers the most reliable solution in the market today for an estimate of $144,573 with an annual maintenance fee of $13,981.55. Solution D includes the three gate locations in the amount of $334,748 with an annual maintenance fee of $29,297.82 and the most expensive option of the three. The Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget includes funding of up to $300,000 for the implementation of the outdoor siren system. RECOMMENDATION: Receive report, consider project options and provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: CL_AGN_CC_220926.RHCA Letter.pdf CL_AGN_220912_HQE Systems_Feasbility Study.pdf CL_AGN_220912_CC_Supplemental_Q&A_RHCABoard_Residents.pdf CL_AGN_CC_220926_Sound Propagation Info V2.1 9-20-22.pdf 801 802 Mass Notification Report Global Headquarters | 27419 Via Industria | Temecula, CA 92105 | 800.967.3036 www.HQESystems.com Prepared August 2022 For The City of Rolling Hills, CA 803 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA Disclaimers All product names,logos,and brands are the property of their respective owners.All company,product, and service names used in this proposal are for identification purposes only.Using these names,logos, and brands do not imply endorsement. 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. 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.804 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 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. Qas Ari CEO, Disabled Veteran / Retired 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.805 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 5 2. Background 6 3. The City of Rolling Hills Consideration Factors 7 3.1 General Information 7 3.2 Topographic Information 7 3. Report Development Methodology 8 2.1 Kick-Off Meeting (Clear Project Guidelines)8 2.2 Site Survey (Gathering Information)8 2.3 Sound Propagation Analysis (Data-Driven Planning)8 2.4 Mass Notification Systems Installation Study 9 4. Mass Notifications System Types Overview 10 4.1 Electronic Notification Solutions (ENS) Web & Cellular Alerting 10 4.2 Indoor Notification Solutions 11 4.3 Outdoor Notification Solutions 12 5. Proposed Solution Options 13 5.1 Installation Solution Options 13 5.2 Intelligible Voice & Tone Sound Coverage 16 5.3 Proposed Siren Installation Locations 18 5.4 Proposed Project Milestones & Package 21 5.5 Outdoor Warning Siren Pole Tree Facade (Option)22 5.6 Mobile Alert Expeditionary Unit (Si-MAX) Option 23 6.0 Conclusion of Report 25 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.806 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 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 California Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE)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 system intends to provide Mass Alerting and Warning during 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,it analyzes the presence and signal capabilities of cellular,radio,and other communications channels. ❖Sound Propagation Analysis:Utilizing the information gathered during the site survey and 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 the ideal installation solution for The City of Rolling Hills.The proposed solution was developed with the following priorities (not in order):Alerting Effectiveness, Initial Budget, Sustainment Budget, Project Timeline, and System Installed Visibility. Proposed Solution:This solution was developed to provide The City of Rolling Hills with a solution that provides the best intelligible voice &tone sirens with a modern look.This solution will utilize the SiRcom sirens with Vector line arrays.These modern intelligible speakers will provide the “best look”for the City while providing the intelligible voice and tone coverage for emergency alerting.The main concept of the solution is to install the outdoor warning sirens directly behind or in the vicinity of the gates proposed by the City.The sirens will be configured in a directional siren setup and installed at the City ’s desired installation points (entrance gates).The rough order of magnitude pricing for the solution is $334,748.24. It is estimated 30 days to install the complete system. 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.807 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 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 their operational needs from the planned PSPS or electrical systems failures from the hazard (fire,wind, etc).Environmental events 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 on days when the sun may be blocked by smoke or clouds. The infamous 2020 wildfires that overtook Los Angeles and Ventura County's northern regions exposed the dangers of relying only on web-based or cellular-based emergency alert systems.With over 33 deaths,many 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 of saving lives and protecting property. 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.808 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA 3. The City of Rolling Hills Consideration Factors 3.1 General Information #Description The City of Rolling Hills Data 1 Access To The City of RollingHills 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 FireThreat Mat V.3 (08.19.21) 11 Last Large Fire ThatImpactedTheCityofRollingHillsOnThePalosVerdesPeninsula Aug.27,2009,burned 235 acres and was of unknown origin according to theCaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFirePreventionwebsite.The fire,whichburnedfortwodays,caused minor damage to six Rolling Hills homes and forced1,200 people to evacuate.Additionally,3,000 customers in the area lost electricalpower. 3.2 Topographic Information 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. 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.809 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA 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 multiple detailed site surveys and spent time gathering information to fully understand the constraints that could impact the system’s operational and technical performances.During the final site survey in June 2022,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 based on the final site survey 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 consider 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) Environmental factors that will be present during inclement weather were significant 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. 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.810 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA 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 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.811 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 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 technological advancement.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. 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.812 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 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 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 alarms,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 indoor spaces with 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) 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.813 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 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 allows immediate alerting across a large area by utilizing all-weather outdoor warning sirens. ➢Intelligible Audio Alerts: Intelligible sirens can be 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 power outages. ➢Weakness: Has the highest cost to cover the desired area. 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.814 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA 5. Proposed Solution Options 5.1 Installation Solution Options HQE has developed the below solution for The City of Rolling Hills’s considerations. ❖Installation Pole Solution:The directional outdoor warning siren Installation utilizes the standard 50’poles mounted with the intelligible horns positioned in a directional configuration transmission position.The 50’pole allows the sound to be projected from a higher elevation. This allows for a greater coverage area which reduces overall equipment requirements. 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.815 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA The above figures depict the intelligible voice and tone sound activation.The proposed solution has the highest intelligible voice and tone alerting on the market today.This ensures that the alerts activated will be understood from great distances. 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.816 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA The highly intelligible voice and tone of sirens are key to providing the residents of the City with the proper coverage needed during an emergency.The following siren system has the most ideal intelligible voice and tone capabilities.In addition,the proposed control software and hardware have many advantages that provide the City with many features not found on other systems in the market today. 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.817 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA 5.2 Intelligible Voice & Tone Sound Coverage The solution takes into consideration that the community desires to have a reliable intelligible voice and tone outdoor warning system.This option utilizes three (3)SiRcom Vector speaker directional mounted on standard 50’ poles to provide the required emergency alert notification coverage. 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.818 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA 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.819 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA 5.3 Proposed Siren Installation Locations 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.820 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA 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.821 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA 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.822 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA 5.4 Proposed Project Milestones & Package Equipment Required ❖(1) SiRcom Central Control Unit (siren activation system) ➢Includes ■(1) SiRcom SMART Alert Software (SiSA) - Annual Subscription ●Perpetual License ●Text-To-Speech Module ●Auto-Foreign Language Translation Module ●Electronic Alerting Module ◆Voice Calls ◆SMS Text ◆Emails ◆Social Media Posts ◆FEMA IPAWS ■FEMA approved and certified software ■SiRcom Central Controller Server (dell workstation) ■LCD Monitor ■Keyboard, Mouse, Mouse Pad ❖(3) SiRcom Outdoor Warning Sirens With Vector Line Arrays ➢QTY 3: 139dB Intelligible Outdoor Warning Sirens ➢Mounted on 50’ poles ➢Tree Facade (Option) ❖(3) SiRcom Control Cabinets ➢Each Control Cabinet Includes ■Secure Communications: ●VHF Radio ●Cellular Communications, SIM Service Perpetual ■Power: ●Primary: AC Power ●30 Days Power Backup:220W Solar Power Module,10 Year 12VDC Sealed Battery ■Local Activation Module at each siren location 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.823 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA 5.5 Outdoor Warning Siren Pole Tree Facade (Option) The following are HQE’s proposed life-like tree facades can be offered as an option.The facades require little 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.824 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA 5.6 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 (annual service cost 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 $2995 / EA 1 YR Warranty Free Updates 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.825 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 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 resident's 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 City of Rolling Hills’s emergency response team in getting 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 $495 / EA 1 YR Warranty Free Updates 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.826 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 The City of Rolling Hills, CA 6.0 Conclusion of Report HQE is pleased to conclude this report for The City of Rolling Hills.However,The City of Rolling Hills faces several challenges that were identified by HQE;the solutions being proposed are to mitigate all of the challenges.The report proposes the ideal unique outdoor warning systems installation solution for the City.The solution was designed and proposed after careful analysis of the strengths and weaknesses 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 proposed solution is genuinely 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 if the power or cellular communications have failed.It is a Fully Certified Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) System.The Unified Mass Notifications System solution ensures that The City of Rolling Hills can maximize the resources available in the mission to Save Lives and Protect Property.The unified solution doesn’t rely on a single network but on 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 will provide The City of Rolling Hills with the solution to mitigate the risks faced by the City and Counties of California in the infamous 2020 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. 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.827 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report V3 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 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.828 Questions from RHCA Board:  What is the impact of placing the sirens at the gates on our gate operation, especially during emergencies - No impact. In fact, it would improve emergency mass communications during a critical event if all communications signals were not existent. This is because each siren pole will have a control cabinet that will have a Local Operating Console that allows the security guard to manually activate the siren in case of no communications signal is available.  What is anticipated decibel level for people inside the gatehouse when siren is used? (Gatehouse is an uninsulated building). With the sirens being installed on the pole at 50' Above Ground Level (AGL), the sound will not be harmful at people at ground level. Per FEMA outdoor warning sirens standards, the 50' AGL is a safe operations height for people at the base of the pole.  What is estimated length of notification (siren / verbal) - Standard recorded transmission can range from 20 seconds to 1 minute. This is based on the type of message being transmitted for the emergency. The City can choose the length of the message and select if the message should be played once or on repeat for a set repeat number.  Will siren tie into gatehouse electricity or will run solely on solar pack and battery backup? It's currently planned to have AC Main electricity connected to the poles. The AC Main electricity was to be pulled from the gatehouse. This is the ideal power location to draw from.  Will siren signal have any impact on radio repeater located at the rear of the Crest gatehouse. Outdoor sirens poles operate near many different radio antennas, repeaters, and communications stations without disturbing or having any adverse effects on the nearby radio signals.  Will the siren signal have any impact on the cell phone antenna located at the rear of the Crest gatehouse. Same as above, no impact on cellular towers or signals.  It appears that the tree in the planter behind the Eastfield gate will need to be removed, please confirm. It is our goal NOT to remove any trees if possible. If there is another preferred location near that site, HQE can easily move the install location to that location.  Proposal for Crest gate includes requirement that CCTV cameras are relocated to siren pole? Due to the siren pole being in front of the CCTV poles, HQE suggested if the siren pole was to block the CCTV view angles that the CCTV cameras could be relocated onto the siren pole (this is an easy requirement that is often executed by the sirens installation team). 829  FYI - It appears that one of the proposed locations for the main gate area is in the same location as the septic tank. Before any final entrenching and pole site digging, detailed utilities and engineering survey will be conducted to identify any issues. In addition, HQE can move any pole location slightly off the proposed sites to accommodate utilities, septic tanks, flower beds, and or any other issues the City would like HQE to work around.  How did they concluded placing the warning system at the perimeter gates is the best technical solution to achieving the goal of notifying all residents. Based on past precedence regarding potential cell towers, the City Council requested HQE to investigate potential co-location sites and identified the gate locations would be ideal given that the poles would minimize resident view obstruction issues. Questions from residents:  By what method will be siren /voice message would the siren be triggered.? Think it would have to be by radio control. Perhaps an unused frequency in the ham band. Two activation methods: 1) From the City Hall. An administrator can activate the system from the on-premise Central Activation System. An administrator would walk up to the on-premise Central Activation System (Computer), access the software and activate the pre-recorded or live voice alert. This will utilize Radio frequencies. 2) From an Administrators smartphone or mobile device, the Administrator can access the secure web- based portal and activate the system. This will use the local internet via the cloud-based server we will set up for remote access.  Test will need to be performed to check the range of electronic signals and the audibility at various locations. The Outdoor Warning Sirens do not emit harmful electronic signals or Radio Frequencies. Currently, the Outdoor Warning Sirens are utilized on the premise of highly dense residential areas, hospitals, sensitive government ammunition storage areas, and other high pedestrian traffic areas. Per the FEMA guidance, the only consideration is for the poles to be 30' - 50' above ground level at the set decibel rate. At each siren location, a test will be performed post installation to ensure the decibel rate is set correctly by our sound engineers.  What would power the siren/voice? If there is a power outage the siren will be inert. You would need a solar panel with re-chargeable battery, such as used on the freeway. The siren system is built with redundant power systems. The primary power is the AC Main. The AC Main will power the system until the AC Main power is shut down. At which point, the Battery Backup power system kicks in. The Battery Backup power system is constantly trickle charged by the AC Main, and if there is no AC Main, the Solar Power charges the system. Our system has a 30 day Battery Backup capability with a 72 hours of activation power from a single 12V battery. This is the most extended Battery Backup system in the market today. 830 General Information On Sound City of Rolling Hills 831 Sound transmission is affected by a number of factors. These include weather conditions (humidity, altitude, wind, rain, etc.), environmental noise (traffic, advertising, people talking, bioacoustics noise from animals and birds etc.), terrain conditions (mountains, hills, tall buildings etc.), and mechanical noise (heavy machinery, industrial noise, trucks, aircrafts, etc.). Moreover, sound transmission also depends on background noise and the materials used, absorbing or reflecting sound. As a result, all these factors need to be considered in the design of early-warning, mass-notification, and voice- evacuation systems. 50’ AGL Safe Intelligible Voice & Tone Sounds 2,000 m 70 dB(C) 832 50’ AGL 1,000 m Safe Intelligible Voice & Tone Sounds 91 dB(C) MAX SOUND Acoustics At The Gate: 90 dB(C) is what is what is activated at the speakers. The speakers will be mounted 50’ AGL. The perceived dB(C) by a gate guard inside the guard shack will be less than ~85 dB(C). The acoustics level will be within NIOSH & OSHA safety exposure limits for loud sound exposure. NIOSH & OSHA safe guidelines allow a person to be safely exposed to 90 dB(C) for 4 hours continuous in a 24 hour period. The FEMA standard requires the activated sound to be a minimum of 70 dB(C). Currently, similar speaker systems are installed at City crosswalks, in front of military base guard shacks, near barracks, and other highly populated residential sites. Guard Shack 200 m100 m10 m 80 dB(C) Size Reference 90 dB(C) 0 m 91 dB(C)95 dB(C)94 dB(C) 30 m 2,000 m 70 dB(C) 833 Note: The above depicts the “perceived” sound of the decibel rate. Outdoor warning sirens are manufactured to be ALERT devices that transmit loud attention getting intelligible voice alert messages. Outdoor warning sirens are Life Safety Devices. Life Safety Devices are designed to enable the City to save lives during an emergency. Outdoor Warning Sirens 834 Outdoor Warning Sirens Installed Next To Residential Housing (Deemed Safe By The Gov’t) 835 Outdoor Warning Sirens Installed Next To Security Guard Shack Sites (Deemed Safe By The Gov’t) 836 The City will have the 70 dB(c) intelligible voice and tone alerts coverage (red). To ensure that the sound can travel through the hills of the City, HQE will utilizes the SiRcom LS-120 Outdoor Acoustics Speakers. This will ensure that proper coverage without overpowering at any single activation point. 837 Agenda Item No.: 12.A Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:VANESSA HEVENER, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE RESIDENT DUSTIN MCNABB'S PRESENTATION ON HOME-BASED FIRE FIGHTING SYSTEM DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: Prior to the September 13, 2022 Fire Fuel Committee meeting, staff received a PowerPoint presentation from resident Mr. Dustin McNabb on a home-based fire fighting system. Mr. McNabb's presentation was not on the agenda and thus could not be discussed at the meeting; however, hard copies of the presentation were distributed at the meeting to members of the public and the Committee. The Committee directed staff to seek feedback from the Los Angeles County Fire Department and place the item on the City Council's agenda once the fire department provides input. Staff subsequently contacted Assistant Fire Chief Bennett for comments on the home-based fire fighting system proposed by Mr. McNabb. Assistant Fire Chief Bennett's main concern is that the system would give residents a false sense of security when “refusing” an evacuation order to stay and defend their home. In addition, the County Fire Department will not be using the system as they are not trained on its proper use and that they already have the ability to draft water from a pool (see attached response.) DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. ATTACHMENTS: CL_AGN_CC_09.26.22_11 Quail Ridge Rd S - Code 3 Fire Suppression System - v3 - 09-13- 22.pdf 838 CL_AGN_CC_09.26.22_FireDeptComment.pdf 839 Ideas & Incentives for Better Wildfire Preparation Dustin McNabb 09/13/22 840 Fighting Wildfires in Rolling Hills •During a wildfire, water pressure is one of the first things to disappear… •That said, many residents have between 30,000 and 50,000 gallons of water –just waiting to be used •And while some residents use special signage to alert local fire departments to this resource… •There is a growing number of residents who are taking additional steps to defend their homes… 841 Code 3 Wildfire Suppression Systems •Portable, cart-based system •Honda engine driven –Up to 13 Horsepower •Fully Assembled and Complete •Up to 295 GPM pump –over 100 psi •Up to 1,100 feet of 1.5” fire hose •Can drive multiple fire hoses AND sprinkler lines… 842 Code 3 Wildfire Rooftop Sprinklers •The Hurricane 110 Wildfire Sprinkler •15" long heavy duty all metal and heavy weighted sprinklers •Sprays up to 110 foot circle •Provides a safety “rain curtain” –even for fireproof roofs 843 Code 3 Wildfire Suppression Systems •Fire system in action •Can be set up in 5 to 10 minutes 844 Code 3 Wildfire Rooftop Sprinklers •Fire sprinklers in action… •Easily installed and attached to Code 3 Fire Suppression System 845 Summary •Actively fighting a wildfire is a personal decision •Neighbors that choose to defend their homes have proven options with Code 3 •For example –one Santa Clarita neighborhood has banded together to share machines and fire fighting responsibilities •10% discounts have been negotiated with Code 3 •Need City Council support to get the word out via Blue Newsletter article, or other means 846 From:Bennett, Brian To:Vanessa Hevener Cc:Elaine Jeng Subject:Fire Fighting System Discussion Date:Monday, September 19, 2022 1:12:36 PM Attachments:image001.png Good Afternoon Vanessa, Similar products have been presented to various High Fire Hazard areas within LA County. Here are my comments: Pros The fire system can be beneficial prior to an evacuation order, or when residents are directed to “shelter in place”. The sprinkler system can be beneficial to place in service, raising the moisture content of combustible roofing material and ornamentals around the house. Cons Our fear is that this COULD give a resident a false sense of security when “refusing” an evacuation order to stay and defend their home. Firefighters will not use the product as we are not trained in its proper use, and we already have the ability to draft the water from a pool. Ultimately, the choice is up the you if you are to purchase as a City/HOA/Committee or residents decide to purchase on their own. Please call should you have any further questions. BB Brian Bennett Assistant Fire Chief Division 1. Central Regional Operations Bureau (310) 329-3315 Office (213) 393-2585 Cell (213)391-9162 pager Brian.Bennett@fire.lacounty.gov From: Vanessa Hevener <vhevener@cityofrh.net> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 8:38 AM To: Bennett, Brian <Brian.Bennett@fire.lacounty.gov> Subject: FW: Fire Fighting System Discussion CAUTION: External Email. Proceed Responsibly. Good Morning Chief Bennett, The Rolling Hills’ Fire Fuel Committee requests your comments/feedback to the attached presentation that was brought to the Commission’s attention from a resident. Please let me know 847 your comments/concerns at your convenience. Thank you. Vanessa Hevener Senior Management Analyst City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Rd., Rolling Hills, CA 90274 E: vhevener@cityofrh.net |O: (310) 377-1521 Begin forwarded message: From: dwmcnabb@2redheads.com Date: September 13, 2022 at 4:26:16 PM PDT To: Elaine Jeng <ejeng@cityofrh.net> Cc: msmcnabb@2redheads.com Subject: Fire Fighting System Discussion Hi Elaine, following up from my email to you and Kristen yesterday, I’d like to present the attached deck at the fire fuel committee meeting tonight if possible. If this comes as too short of notice, I’d like to ask that we please add this to the next City Council or Fire Fuel Management meeting. I think this will take no more than 10 minutes to present. Thanks! Dustin Dustin McNabb 11 Quail Ridge Rd S Rolling Hills, CA 90274 C: 703-403-7311 Email: dwmcnabb@2redheads.com 848 Agenda Item No.: 12.B Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:VANESSA HEVENER, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:DISCUSS AN UPDATE ON THE COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN (CWPP) DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: In June 2018, the City submitted a notice of interest for federal grant funds provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program administered by the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES), to prepare a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). On July 2, 2020, the City received an award of $123,750 of federal funding to complete a CWPP. Because of the delay in the award process and uncertainty as to whether the funds would be awarded, City staff and the Block Captains, with the support of the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) and the City Council, decided to take on the task of completing a CWPP without the assistance of consulting services to minimize expenses. On July 26, 2020, the City was informed by CalOES that the awarded funds would be de-obligated because the preparation of the CWPP commenced prior to the FEMA award date of June 19, 2020. On July 27, 2020, the City Council adopted the Rolling Hills Community Wildfire Protection Plan which was completed without FEMA grant monies. The support of the First Responders (Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriff's Departments), the engagement of the community through the efforts of the Block Captains, and the coordination between the RHCA and the City Council subcommittees on Wildfire Mitigation, all were critical elements to the completion of the CWPP. The CWPP is a community-based document aimed at addressing concerns from the residents and community engagement is a key component of the CWPP. During the development process, the survey questions were developed by residents, the survey results were analyzed by residents, and a large portion of the plan was written by residents. The CWPP also is intended to be a living document. The CWPP utilizes an iterative approach and defines a path for the City, RHCA, the First Responders and the community for action to prevent and prepare for wildfires. It is intended to be updated annually, to capture ongoing mitigation 849 efforts and to evaluate the effectiveness of current mitigation measures. DISCUSSION: 2021 CWPP Plan Update Since the adoption of the Rolling Hills Community Wildfire Protection Plan, the City has seen multiple staff vacancies which have prevented annual updating of the Plan. More recently, the City had sufficient staff to dedicate the time needed for the update to occur and recently completed the update process. 2022 CWPP Plan Update The plan called for updates to occur annually. As a part of the lessons learned since 2020 from implementing projects listed in CWPP, projects typically require more than 12 months to develop. Staff is adjusting so that the plan update occur once every two years. Going forward, plan updates will be summarized in new appendices to the plan. Appendix D summarizes the activities for 2021 and 2022. Highlights to the 2021-2022 update include the following: City Ordinance to Restrict Planting of Six High Hazard Plants per “Ready! Set! Go!” brochure This project has been completed. In March 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 375 prohibiting new plantings of high hazardous plants and trees. Crest Road East Gate This project has been completed. There is a fourth (4th) gate that is locked and closed located at the end of Crest Road East with no guards. The Rolling Hills Community Association has completed the installation of an automated system that would allow RHCA staff to open the Crest Road East Gate during an emergency upon receiving an Evacuation Warning or Evacuation Order from First Responders. Development of Fire Fuel Management Standards This project has been completed. In November 2020, the Rolling Hills Community Association adopted the “Fire Fuel Management Strategies” and has disseminated the standards to all City residents. Define Communications Standards with Residents This project has been completed. Residents have been informed that the City will be communicating with residents using the Alert Southbay platform for emergencies. Wildfire Camera Detection System This new project, which is in the process of deployment, requires collaboration with surrounding Peninsula cities to use a Peninsula-wide fire camera detection system. The City 850 of Rancho Palos Verdes recently received grant funding from Assembly Bill 179 to install four cameras for early detection of potential wildfires, which upon installation, will cover the entire City. The fire detection system uses cameras and artificial intelligence software to automatically detect the first wisps of smoke and deliver real-time fire images to First Responders and emergency personnel, with the goal of detecting flare-ups quickly and allowing for a quicker response before a fire spreads. Fire Fuel Management in the Preserve This on-going project requires the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy to remove fire fuel in the Preserve annually. The City has funded two areas of fuel removal between 2019 and 2020. Since February 2022, the City has funded two additional areas of fuel load reduction in the areas closest to the Rolling Hills border with the Preserve. Demonstration of Vegetation Management Project Models This new project involves highlighting vegetation management projects throughout the City for residents to replicate at their own property. One such example is the recent completion of the Rolling Hills Community Association’s (RHCA) fuel management demonstration project at Si’s Trail (on the northwest corner of Crest Drive West and Portuguese Bend Road) which the RHCA indicated that they utilized the practices outlined in the City's fuel management in the canyons educational videos. Emergency Notification Exercise Based on recommendations from the First Responders, the City’s initial plan to conduct an actual emergency drill where residents evacuate the City did not occur and instead in August 2022, the City conducted its first emergency notification exercise to simulate a fictional emergency incident. The goals of the exercise include but are not limited to test the City’s Alert South Bay system and encourage residents to register to the City’s Emergency Information System and/or Alert South Bay. Assessment and “lessons learned” have been captured and shared. The City is also in collaboration with the County of Los Angeles Office of Emergency Management to develop a Peninsula-wide mass evacuation plan using the Zonehaven software. Zonehaven is a cloud-based evacuation management software that leverages critical data and assists local public safety personnel (e.g., Los Angeles County Fire and Sherriff Departments and Palos Verdes Estates Police Department) by providing actionable insight to emergency responders and the public in the event of a disaster. Fire Insurance for the community A few years ago, the California Insurance Commissioner conducted a webinar discussing the possibility of identifying communities that are proactive in wildfire mitigation measures to the insurance industry to help consumers get coverage. The Insurance Commissioner recognized that the wildfires of California have resulted in consumers reporting that fire policies are being cancelled and or having difficulties finding companies willing to provide coverage. The 851 consumer's report is consistent with feedback from Rolling Hills residents. At the webinar, the Commissioner referenced Community Wildfire Protection Plans as one method to measure the proactiveness of communities to differentiate risky communities versus non risky communities. As the Rolling Hills CWPP get updated over time, the community would be able to demonstrate its proactiveness in implementing measures to mitigate wildfires. Staff recommends that the City Council to share the plan update presented in this report with the community and allow the community to review and provide feedback in the month of October 2022. Staff recommends to report back to the City Council with a final updated CWPP in November 2022 for approval. Staff also recommends the City Council to share the approved updated CWPP with the California Insurance Commission and direct staff to work with the Commission to assist residents in getting fire insurance in Rolling Hills. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to this report. RECOMMENDATION: Receive an updated CWPP and direct staff to share the updated plan with the community. ATTACHMENTS: CWPP_final_2020-09-10_v2020.1.pdf CL_AGN_CC_220926_CWPPAppendix D - September 2022_F_2022-09-22.pdf 852 ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN (CWPP) V2020.1 JULY 2020 853 Page 2 The City of Rolling Hills Community Wildfire Protection Plan was developed collaboratively among stakeholders including the community, the City of Rolling Hills, the Rolling Hills Community Association, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. The plan includes a prioritized list of hazardous fuel reduction strategies and addresses measures that the community members can take to reduce structural ignitability. The undersigned have reviewed the Rolling Hills CWPP and accept this document as the final draft representing 2020. Leah Mirsch, Councilmember City of Rolling Hills Patrick Wilson, Councilmember City of Rolling Hills Tom Heinsheimer, RHCA Boardmember Rolling Hills Community Association Anne Smith, RHCA Boardmember Rolling Hills Community Association Central Regional Operations Bureau Los Angeles County Fire Department Assistant Fire Chief Scott Hale Lomita Station Captain James Powers Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department 854 Page 3 We would like to thank the following for individuals for their support: City of Rolling Hills Elaine Jeng, City Manager Connie Viramontes, Administrative Assistant Rolling Hills Community Association Roger Hawkins, past Board member Kristen Raig, RHCA Manager First Responders Assistant Chief J. Lopez, Los Angeles County Fire Department Battalion Chief Alvin Brewer, Los Angeles County Fire Department Fire Station 56, Los Angeles County Fire Department Deputy John Despot, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Reese Souza, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Tina McCoy, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department 855 Page 4 Rolling Hills Residents - Block Captain Program Arlene and Gene Honbo, Lead Block Captains Block Captains as of May, 2020 Abas Goodarzi Alan Stratford Arinze Anakwenze Arun Bhumitra Bill Ruth Charlie Raine Clint Patterson Debra Shrader Diane Gilman Diane Montalto Dorothy Vinter Ed Swart Eddy Delgado Giancarlo Starinieri Jack Smith Jeanette Ruzic Judith Haenel Kathleen Hughes- Bethencourt Kay Lupo Lisa Anakwenze Lisa Koperhofer Marion Ruth Marlen Uhl Michael Sherman Michelle Mottola Nadine Bobit Nicole Tangen Pam Crane Penni Smith Phil Norman Pia Raine Rae Walker Ralph Schmoller Ron Sommer Ross Smith Susan Collida Tanvir Mian Block Captain Support Team as of May, 2020 Anne Smith Arvel Witte Bert Balch Clarisse Shumaker Diane Lesser Jan Ferris Kelly Cook Maureen Hill Nancy Hoffman Sandy Sherman 856 Page 5 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN (CWPP) JULY 2020 INTRODUCTION 2018 was a year of destructive wildfires throughout California taking lives, destroying properties and prompting large-scale emergency evacuations. It was a stark reminder that all the land in Rolling Hills and the Palos Verdes Peninsula were determined as “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” by the State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Recognizing its wildfire history, the City of Rolling Hills asked residents what actions should be taken to better prepare and protect lives in the event of a wildfire? What is the greatest risk of wildfire for Rolling Hills? The residents responded fire fuel in the canyons. Is there more that the Rolling Hills Community Association and the City should be doing to protect lives and properties in the case of wildfires? The residents responded yes! Would the community be interested in receiving information on the best way to manage the vegetation in the canyons to prevent wildfires? The residents responded yes! How important is it for residents to manage fuel (e.g. trees, brush, etc.) on their property (including canyons located on private property)? The residents expressed, on a scale 1-100 with 100 being very important, 87. All of these efforts to reduce 857 Page 6 vegetation are critical to our highest priority – protecting the lives of residents and their families. Early 2019 marked the beginnings of a needed collaboration between the residents of Rolling Hills, the City of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), Los Angeles County Fire Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (collectively referred to as First Responders). The four entities worked together throughout the year to formulate a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The CWPP for the City of Rolling Hills is an action plan to implement wildfire mitigation measures to address the community’s greatest risks. Residents were offered opportunities to voice their opinions on ways to reduce wildfire threats to their lives and home and overall community. This was accomplished through a series of emergency preparation meetings with First Responders; residents were encouraged to participate in a Wildfire Mitigation survey and 25% of the residents of Rolling Hills submitted their comments. The on-going work and commitment of all four entities produced a prioritized plan that reflects the voices of residents and wildfire mitigation priorities for the City of Rolling Hills. The plan is designed to be a living document, one that the community can refer to for action and as such, the conventional agency (City, RHCA, and First Responders) statistical data, environmental setting including fire history and the process to solicit the community’s feedback on issues relating to wildfire concerns are all relegated to the Appendices of this plan. This plan starts with the tool box of mitigation measures identified for Rolling Hills and the plan discusses in detail potential evacuation scenarios. Many mitigation strategies were recommended and prioritized by Carol Rice, Fire Fuel Consultant, with the highest value being placed on 1) life safety; 2) structural protection; 3) natural resources and habitat. Finally, the plan lists the action items for the next three fiscal years and concludes with a schedule for periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the actions performed and updates to the plan. 858 Page 7 Table of Contents 1.0 FIRE MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR ROLLING HILLS ................................................................................ 8 1.1 Infrastructure hardening ..................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Vegetation Management .................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Electric Power Lines .......................................................................................................................... 11 1.4 Inspections and Enforcement ........................................................................................................... 12 2.0 EVACUATION STRATEGIES .................................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Community Preparedness and Education ......................................................................................... 13 2.1.1 Block Captain Program ............................................................................................................... 13 2.1.2 On-going communication and education .................................................................................. 15 2.2 Evacuation during an Actual Emergency .......................................................................................... 16 2.2.1 Evacuation Levels ....................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.2 Communication during emergency events ................................................................................ 17 2.2.3 Potential evacuation routes ....................................................................................................... 19 2.2.4 Residents Who May Need Special Assistance in an Emergency ................................................ 21 2.2.5 Large animal/horse evacuations ................................................................................................ 21 2.2.6 Re-entry back in to the Community ........................................................................................... 23 3.0 ACTION PLAN ........................................................................................................................................ 24 4.0 MONITORING AND UPDATES ................................................................................................................ 28 4.1 Action Plan Performance Measures ................................................................................................. 31 4.2 CWPP updates ................................................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................................. 32 APPENDIX Appendix A City Overview and Fire Environment Appendix B Community Survey Appendix C Wildland Res Mgt by Carol Rice, November 1, 2019 859 Page 8 1.0 FIRE MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR ROLLING HILLS Wildfire threat can be defined as the result of an analysis of potential fire behavior and the likelihood of fire to occur relative to the communities at risk. The Fire Department develops maps showing areas of significant fire hazards using fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. While the maps are useful in examining fire hazard, high risk areas can be further identified using local perspectives and priorities regarding communities at risk and areas of concern. Appendix A, City Overview and Fire Environment, provides information on the City and the wildfire threats. Critical to the development of the CWPP was to obtain the input of the City’s stakeholders, all the residents of Rolling Hills. It was decided the best vehicle to capture input of all residents was through a survey and augment seminars conducted with residents in 2018. The survey was a “grassroots” effort whereby Block Captains developed the survey, educated residents on the importance of their participation through Zone meetings and summarized the survey feedback. Block Captains provided feedback on potential solutions and mitigation strategies. The Wildfire Mitigation survey was sent to approximately 1270 residents and the response rate was estimated at 25%. Appendix B, Community Survey, details areas of concerns and priorities as expressed by the residents. Based on the community’s expressed concerns, fire mitigation strategies for Rolling Hills were developed from a variety of sources. The Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) engaged Fire Fuel Consultant, Wildland Res Management Ms. Carol Rice to assess Rolling Hills and provide recommendations to the RHCA Board of Directors. The Wildland Res Management Report dated November 1, 2019 is included as Appendix C. The Los Angeles County Fire Department provided recommendations to the City of Rolling Hills on options to deal with vegetation management including the canyons. All recommendations provided by Wildland Res Management and LA Fire Department are prioritized with the highest value on 1) life safety; 2) structural protection; and 3) natural resources and habitat. Based on the feedback from the community survey, vegetation management was a most critical element for the residents. Feedback from all these resources was used to formulate the potential mitigation strategies detailed below. 1.1 Infrastructure hardening • Require that all structures have a class A roof by 2030. • Consider changes to landscaping guidelines to comply with landscape recommendations to reduce structure ignitability • Create incentive plan or identify special “preferred” contractors who will assist with approvals and installation/alterations to harden homes. 860 Page 9 • Partner with manufacturers for demonstrations & to identify contractors of vents and equipment to harden homes. • For a specific period of time (1 year) offer discounted permits or incentive for homeowners to make alterations to homes to harden (change out wood siding to hardy board, replace wood shingles, upgrade windows to dual pane, major landscape change) • Feature homes that are compliant with standards in Rolling Hills Living magazine 1.2 Vegetation Management 1 Canyons • Fuel Management. Consultant Carol Rice provided services to the RHCA in 2009 and the products of her work can be found on the City and RHCA websites. RHCA contracted again with Carol Rice in 2019 for a report recommending steps for the community to mitigate wildfire. Ms. Rice’s “Creating Fire Safe Canyons” guide includes 3 strategies for residents to manage fuel on their property, including area in canyons: o Shaded fuelbreak o Mosaic groupings o Shortened shrubs • Goats. Goat grazing can be a cost effective, environmentally sound way to clear combustible vegetation and promote growth of native grasses and beneficial plants, particularly for large areas (10, to 100+ acres) and in steep or difficult terrain. Grazing can efficiently treat areas that are inaccessible or difficult to manage with mowers and weed eaters, areas where prescribed burns are inadvisable, and sensitive areas where the application of herbicides is not appropriate. • Control burns. Los Angeles County Fire Department is dedicated to fire protection and wildfire prevention. One of the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s prevention programs is Vegetation Management (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 9.8 Chaparral management, Sections 1560 to 1569.6). The Vegetation Management Program (VMP) is a cost-share program that focuses on the use of prescribed fire, and some mechanical means, for addressing wildland fire fuel hazards and other resource management issues. The use of prescribed fire mimics natural processes, restores fire to its historic role in wildland ecosystems and provides significant fire hazard reduction benefits that enhance public and firefight safety. 1 Recommendations by Consultant Carol Rice are included in this report to illustrate available wildfire mitigation strategies for Rolling Hills and in no way suggest that the strategies will be adopted by the Rolling Hills Community Association. 861 Page 10 • Invasive or noxious plants. Consider the use of herbicide or the manual removal of invasive or noxious plants in the canyons: Arundo donax, bamboo- like plants and poison oak. Fire Fuel Management Standards for individual properties Fire Fuel Consultant Carol Rice recommended the community adopt Fire Fuel Management Standards as a tool to teach homeowners about fire-wise vegetation management on their private property. The Los Angeles County Fire Department endorsed and supported this recommendation for the city. Ms. Rice also recommended individual property inspections be conducted to evaluate individual properties in comparison with the Fuel Management Standards with recommendations on how homeowners can meet vegetation management guidelines. Roadside Based on the Wildland Res Management report, the following measures were recommended: • Evaluate the Fire Code requirements for 10 ‘roadside clearance for easy access and improved evacuation routes. Fire Code Section 325.10 defines clearance requirements. • Remove all vegetation from area immediately adjacent to roadway and install surface that does not promote germination of weeds, i.e. decomposed granite or wood chips. Perform weed management in spring and summer (mowing, weed whacking). The RHCA does not use herbicides in the community except for noxious plants like poison oak. • Eliminate fuel ladders by removing lower tree branches and limiting the height of shrubs under trees to prevent fire from moving into tree canopies 4-6’ back from edge of roadway: • Clear all vegetation within 3’ around the base of a utility pole or fire hydrant. Non- exempt poles require 10’ clearance. SCE is responsible for such clearance. • Remove trees underneath power lines that have a mature height that could interfere with electrical wires or equipment. Always work through SCE for line clearance. • Remove or cut back tree limbs that are within 8’ of electrical wires. Always work through SCE for line clearance. • Within the roadway easement, remove plants and volunteer trees identified by the fire department as highly flammable (pampas grass, juniper, palm trees, pine trees, eucalyptus trees). Prohibit new planting of these highly flammable plants by changing landscape guidelines. • Encourage or require property owners to adhere to vegetation management within the boundaries of their property to meet the fuel management standards set by the County Fire Department for Very High Fire Hazard Areas and in limited areas, the Association standards for Fuel Management and RHCA landscaping 862 Page 11 guidelines for new planting. The RHCA may require higher standards than the Fire Code. • Rice’s report also encouraged the development of a community fuel management standards to set measurable standards for vegetation management along roadsides within the RHCA road easements and other areas allowed in the CC&Rs. Recommended also is removing tree limbs hanging over roadways that are under 18’ in height or as assessed by the fire department. Bridle trails • Annual maintenance mowing and weed whacking along bridle trails. • Periodic vegetation management such as abatement using brush hound, hedge trimmers or heavier equipment on an as-needed basis and as the budget permits. • Manage vegetation to eliminate fuel ladders along bridle trails. • Cut back blackberries and lift and separate plants that currently make up the dense brush in canyons (lemonade berry or toyon). • Remove palm trees and other “high hazard” plants identified by LA Co. Fire • Remove Arunda (bamboo like vegetation) from areas immediately adjacent to bridle trails • Consider all means available for brush clearance, including but not limited to goats, or contract services Invasive and highly flammable plants • Create a list identifying highly flammable plants and request that the governing bodies prohibit planting of these plants and create a plan for eradication or removal of such plants within the community. Create a list of desirable plants as an alternative for planting. Create or obtain funding for an incentive program for removal of such plants 1.3 Electric Power Lines Experts have said that despite the heavy costs, burying power lines in areas most susceptible to winds would provide a huge margin of safety in reducing fire risk for communities. Burying utility lines underground in sensitive areas is a potential mitigation strategy for Rolling Hills. Southern California Edison (SCE) periodically has to replace its wood power poles as part of its ongoing maintenance program and installs new power poles as needed. SCE has recently started to install power poles constructed of a composite nonflammable material and will begin to wrap its wood power poles with a nonflammable material. Replacement occurs when SCE determines the need on a case by case basis. 863 Page 12 1.4 Inspections and Enforcement The City of Rolling Hills (City) enforces its nuisance codes (City Municipal Code Chapter 8.24 Abatement of Nuisance and Chapter 8.30 Fire Fuel Abatement) by City staff and the City Attorney. The Fire Department has jurisdiction over property with structures and the Agricultural Commissioner has jurisdiction over the rest. The Fire Code enforcement, historically, has been limited to removing dead vegetation within 200 feet of residences even though the Fire Code also requires ten feet of clearance on each side of all roads and driveways. Fire Code Section 325.10 Roadway Clearance: “The fire code official may require removal and clearance of all flammable vegetation or other combustible growth for a minimum of 10’ on each side of every roadway, whether public or private… This section shall not apply to single specimen trees, ornamental shrubbery, or cultivated ground cover such as green grass, ivy, succulents or similar plants used as ground cover, provided that they do not form a means of readily transmitting fire.” City nuisance code enforcement of Chapter 8.24 is rarely invoked. City nuisance code enforcement of Chapter 8.30 is actively enforced by a dedicated City code enforcement official. Said Chapter 8.30, however, is limited by its terms to dead vegetation of any kind, dead or alive tumbleweeds, and dead palm fronds on living palm trees located on the portion of the property that has a slope equal to or less than 50%. The LA County Fire Department provides fire hazard reduction and safety guidelines to all property owners in Rolling Hills. After a mailed notice, the Fire Department and Agricultural Commissioner personnel conduct an annual inspection of all of the properties commencing June 1 for non-compliance with the Fire Code. Fire Department personnel do not have the right to enter through locked gates. Property owners may deny access, at which point, an inspection warrant must be secured. The property may be inspected if it can be seen from a public viewpoint. The City code enforcement official conducts inspections year-round but can only do so from the roads and/or bridle trails unless given permission or obtaining a warrant. SCE is responsible for power line clearance and non-exempt poles. The property owner is responsible for all other required clearance in the easement. SCE periodically inspects and reduces the height of trees and brush so they do not encroach into the area of the power lines. 864 Page 13 2.0 EVACUATION STRATEGIES 2.1 Community Preparedness and Education The Los Angeles County Fire Department, along with partnering agencies, stand ready to quickly respond to contain wildfires, utilizing firefighting resources from the air and ground to help protect people and property from wildfire. Preparation and prevention go hand-in-hand. LA County Fire’s Ready! Set! Go! Brochure is available for residents and was designed to provide critical information on creating defensible space around a home, retrofitting a home with fire-resistant materials, and informing how and when to safely evacuate well ahead of a wildfire. The City of Rolling Hills partners with the Fire Department to prepare and educate the community on the specifics contained in the Ready! Set! Go! Brochure through the Block Captain Program. A copy of the brochure can be obtained by calling LA County Fire Department Public Information Office at (323) 881-2411 or online at http://fire.lacounty.gov/wp- content/uploads/2020/05/Ready-set-go_051420.pdf. 2.1.1 Block Captain Program The City’s volunteer Block Captains are a crucial liaison between residents, first responders and the City’s Emergency Operation Center (EOC) in the event of a large- scale emergency. In this role, the Block Captains are committed to serving and assisting residents of Rolling Hills before, during and after a disaster. The Block Captain program divides the city into 24 zones. Each zone has two to three Block Captains with other residents providing Block Captain support if needed. Each zone has an average of 50 homes. The Block Captain’s primary duties include: • Meet the residents in their zone, greet new homeowners and explain the Rolling Hills Wildfire Community Protection Plan (CWPP) to them. • Keep track of who is living within their zone by maintaining names, telephone, email addresses and other relevant information. • Identify residents with special needs. • Maintain their walkie-talkies to ensure they are charged and in good working condition. • Attend bi-monthly Block Captain meetings. • Attend and encourage residents to attend periodic training programs on wildfire mitigation and disaster planning. 865 Page 14 • Conduct one to two meetings annually with residents in their zone to distribute, update and exchange information. Convey resident’s concerns to the Lead Block Captain or City Manager. • Participate in annual emergency response drills. In case of a wildfire or any type of disaster, the Block Captain’s first responsibility is to his/her safety and the safety of his/her family and home. Only if there is time, it is the Block Captain’s role to initiate pre-arranged procedures within their neighborhoods, including checking on and assisting special needs neighbors and, disseminating information received from the EOC. Block Captains should be familiar with key documents contained in the “RH Block Captain Master Information File” including: Wildfire & Earthquake Checklists; the Wildfire & Earthquake Preparation and Evacuation Recommendations, and City emergency procedures. Block Captains play an important role in providing such information to residents about what to do in an emergency, in advance of an evacuation and in preparation for a disaster. 866 Page 15 Each Block Captain is in charge of giving specific information summaries to emergency responders through the EOC about the state of residents in a Zone so their response to a disaster can be most effective and efficient. Training programs will teach Block Captains about these responsibilities and teach other useful information, such as how to keep specific supplies accessible for when they are called to respond. They will be taught how to reach out to the residents in their Zone. In short, a Block Captain is a lifesaving leader in times of citywide emergencies. 2.1.2 On-going communication and education Effective communication and education programs are essential to implement and to maintain a successful Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and will keep residents involved. The Rolling Hills Wildfire Mitigation Survey identified ‘on-going communications and education’ as a critical factor in dealing with wildfire preparedness and evacuation issues. The communication and education program will be jointly sponsored by the City of RH, the RHCA and support of the first responders and the Block Captains. The program will consist of but not be limited to the following items: 1. Rolling Hills Living Magazine in-depth articles on wildfire mitigation 2. Rolling Hill Newsletter and Rolling Hills Community Association News Letter— Meeting announcements, training class schedule, annual exercise schedule, demonstrations, new Block Captain announcement 3. Bi-monthly Block Captain meeting will discuss planning updates, information transfer, first responder inputs 4. One to two annual Block Captain Zone meetings with new and current residents to transfer emergency preparedness information, especially updates from first responders 5. City of Rolling Hills Website www.rolling-hills.org has important information from items 1 thru 4 6. Workshops or seminars to include but not limited to: a. How to create a defensible space on your property b. How to harden your home c. How to improve your landscape with more fire-resistant plants d. How to inspection your home for fire hazards e. Why high hazard plants should be removed f. How to develop an evacuation plan for your family g. How to sign up for the City’s “Notify me”, reverse 911 and subscribe to Alert Southbay. 867 Page 16 7. An evaluation of equipment used by Block Captains during an emergency will facilitate communication with the City of Rolling Hills. The goal is to complete the evaluation by the end of 2020. (See section 2.2.2.2.) Equipment will be issued in advance of an emergency so Block Captains can communicate with the Emergency Operation Center (EOC) in the event of land line and cell phone failure. The communication and education process will be continuously monitored to ensure effectiveness and efficiency by evaluating new tools and methods. 2.2 Evacuation during an Actual Emergency The Fire Department and the Sheriff’s Department operate under the Unified Incident Command where representatives from each department and other relevant agencies will set up a command post near the incident to ensure all entities responding to the emergency are communicating. If appropriate and relevant, the City Manager of Rolling Hills will be invited to be at the command post and send information back to the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The Incident Command System (ICS) is a standardized, on-scene, all-hazard incident management concept. It is a management protocol originally designed in the 1970s for the Fire Service agencies in California and subsequently required through state legislation in 1993 as an element of the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) to cover all California State agencies and its political subdivisions. In 2004, ICS was required to be implemented nationally as an element of the National incident Management System (NIMS) through Presidential Directive (HSPD-5 & 8). ICS is based upon a flexible, scalable emergency response organization providing a common framework within which representatives may be drawn from multiple agencies that do not routinely work together, and ICS is designed to give standard response and operation procedures to reduce the problems and potential for miscommunication on such incidents.1 Responding specifically to wildfires, the Fire Department will take the lead in determining the appropriate response strategies including ordering evacuations. The Sheriff’s Department will take orders from the Fire Department and support the Fire Department in their calls. As an example, if the Fire Department calls for evacuations citywide, the Sheriff’s Department would assist in notifying residents by going to door to door, siren calls in a localized area, and or use available and operable media notifications such as the City’s “notify me,” and or Alert Southbay. The Sheriff’s Department would also deploy personnel to assist with traffic control. Under a citywide evacuation order, to ensure safety, the Sheriff’s Department would also manage the entries back into the community. 868 Page 17 2.2.1 Evacuation Levels Depending on the condition of the wildfire, the Fire Department may call for the following: • Citywide evacuation • Partial evacuation – areas defined • Shelter in place In all scenarios, it is imperative that the community has a personal evacuation plan to refer to for expedient actions. It is also imperative that the community prepare for emergencies with a list of important phone numbers, critical items to take with when leaving, a location to go when forced to evacuate, several different routes to safety and flash lights, candles, canned food and water. The READY! SET! GO! brochure published by the Los Angeles County Fire Department is an essential emergency preparation booklet that includes how to prepare a personal Wildfire Action Plan including where and when to evacuate. Residents are asked to formulate a plan and rehearse that plan periodically so that it becomes second nature in the even to an emergency. 2.2.2 Communication during emergency events 2.2.2.1 Emergency Operations Center (EOC) The City of Rolling Hills is currently drafting the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that will outline the operations of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The EOP will define when and how the EOC will be opened, the players that are a part of the EOC and the functions of each position in the EOC. The EOC will operate using the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and National Incident Management System (NIMS). Employees of the City of Rolling Hills will be staffing the City’s EOC including a member of the Rolling Hills Community Association. Employees of the City of Rolling Hills are required to take SEMS/NIMS training from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES). A division of CalOES called the California Specialized Training Institute (CSTI) provide training to local governments in California to have standardization in the way EOCs are operated in California and nationally. In the event that the employees of the City of Rolling Hills are unable to serve in the EOC during an emergency, staff members from other nearby cities can assist provided that they have received training from CSTI. The EOC would be divided into the following sections with one or two people responsible for each of the sections: 869 Page 18 • Intelligence • Planning • Logistics • Operations • Finance Briefly, the EOC is a centralized location to receive reports from the field, response efforts are planned, operations personnel are deployed and expenditures are tracked. As an example, the First Responders could report that there are three fallen trees along the major arterial of the City blocking vehicular traffic. Upon receiving this report, the EOC could contact appropriate vendors to clear the trees from the road. Expenses relating to the clearing of the tree will be tracked for potential reimbursement through federal agencies or State agencies. Rolling Hills Community Association, having control over the easements including the trail and the roads, will play a critical part in the example outlined. The RHCA can deploy their own personnel to conduct the clearing work or engage vendors that they already have relationships with to assist the community in the time of need. 2.2.2.2 Emergency communication methods with residents and Block Captains During an emergency, information is critical to deploy the needed resources. In the time of an emergency, Block Captains are expected to take care of their families and loved ones first. Only if Block Captains are able and available will they be encouraged to report field conditions to the City’s EOC, or to the City Hall. This communication can be done via working cell phones, land-lines, emails, text messages and or walkie-talkies. The City of Rolling Hills is currently evaluating 1) what infrastructure is needed to support emergency communications and 2) which equipment is needed for use by Block Captains and the City to communicate during emergencies. The goal is to have this project completed by the end of 2020. Once equipment is purchased and installed Block Captains should communicate efficiently by answering two questions in each communique: • What do you have? • What do you need? 2.2.2.3 Notifying residents to prepare to evacuate The City of Rolling Hills has multiple ways to communicate with residents during an emergency: • RH website – www.rolling-hills.org • Alert Southbay – emergency notifications • local media • email and phone communication 870 Page 19 2.2.3 Potential evacuation routes 2.2.3.1 Main gate, Crest Road gate at Crenshaw and Eastfield gates The number one and two priorities of first responders are life safety and property, in that order. First Responders will determine if an Evacuation Order is needed and will notify the City through the Incident Command Center. If an Evacuation Order is issued by the Incident Command Center, residents will be alerted of an immediate threat to life and property that is within one to two hours. When the order is issued residents should evacuate through one of the main gates and the route chosen is dependent on the location of the fire activity route recommended by first responders. LA County Sheriff and LA County Fire Department have identified potential evacuation routes, which included options for rapid egress from areas within the city threatened by a wildfire. • Main Gate at Rolling Hills Road and Palos Verdes Drive North • Crest Gate at Crest Road near Crenshaw Blvd • Eastfield Gate at Eastfield Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East Potential issues that may affect evacuation include: • Residents may not have established evacuation preparedness plans. • Residents may choose not to evacuate but to stay and defend their homes or decide to shelter in place until the fire danger passes. Some might change their mind late in the evacuation process forcing them to flee when conditions are at their worst. Without fully understanding the effects of their decisions, resident actions can jeopardize their life safety as well as that of firefighters and law enforcement personnel. • Fallen trees or downed powers lines may block roads. • Several streets within Rolling Hills are narrow and could quickly become congested with traffic. First Responders do not want residents to use bridle trails as potential evacuation routes. In an extreme situation the use of trails as potential evacuation routes may be considered by First Responders on a “case by case” basis. IMPORTANT NOTE: Wildfires are extremely fluid and complex. An evacuation route may become compromised due to fire activity. The Potential Evacuation Routes map provides suggested evacuation routes that are dependent on the location of the wildfire. It is recommended that residents practice preparing for and evacuating through their primary and secondary exit route. 871 Page 20 2.2.3.2 Crest Road East Gate There is a fourth (4th) gate that is locked and closed located at the end of Crest Road East with no guards. There are several holders of the key to unlock the gate including: • LA County Sheriff • LA County Fire Department • All RHCA Gatehouses • RHCA Manager • Maintenance Supervisor and Staff • Gate Supervisor • Architectural Supervisor During a wildfire emergency the Crest Road East gate is considered by First Responders as an option for residents to use to exit the city. Residents should be informed in advance that Crest Road East is an option and is considered as a one-way exit from Rolling Hills into Rancho Palos Verdes towards Palos Verdes Drive East. Once the Crest Road East Gate is opened, residents will not be granted re-entry through this gate. First Responders will determine if an Evacuation Warning and/or Evacuation Order is needed and will notify the City through the Incident Command Center. During a wildfire emergency an Evacuation Warning may be issued by the Incident Command Center. Residents will be alerted of a potential threat to life and property that is more than two hours away. If the possibility exists that the gate will need to be opened a RHCA staff person will be stationed at the gate ready to open it. An Evacuation Order may be issued by the Incident Command Center. Residents will be alerted of an immediate threat to life and property that is within one to two hours. RHCA staff person or another designee of the RHCA should be onsite to assist with traffic management if available. Note: As of the publication date of this plan the RHCA Board of Directors approved the automation of the Crest Road East gate. The installation is scheduled to be completed in August 2020. It is expected that RHCA staff will be able to open the gate remotely upon receiving with an Evacuation Warning or Evacuation Order from First Responders. 2.2.3.3 Traffic Control In the event of an evacuation, the Sheriff’s Department will maintain traffic control based on the level of closure established by the Fire Department. The five evacuation levels are as follows: 872 Page 21 Level 1: Open to general public Level 2: Open to critical-incident resources and all residents. Level 3: Closed to all traffic except fire, law and critical resources e.g. public works, power, LASD volunteers, etc. Note: escorts may be needed. Level 4: Closed to all traffic except fire-department and law-enforcement personnel. Level 5: Closed to all traffic. 2.2.3.4 Temporary Refuge Area(s) Temporary Refuge Area(s) have been recommended to be identified for the community of Rolling Hills by First Responders and consultant, Ms. Carol Rice. At the time of this publication areas have not been identified. 2.2.4 Residents Who May Need Special Assistance in an Emergency Vulnerable populations have special needs that are critical to address during disasters such as wildfire. These populations may be less likely to respond to, cope with, recover from wildfire, and are less likely to get involved in wildfire mitigation activities. Age, physical, and mental limitations can restrict mobility making it more difficult to evacuate in a disaster. Language issues can result in communication barriers to evacuation or support services. 15% of survey respondents indicated that they or family members have special needs. 26% of survey respondents have neighbors with special needs or who may need assistance in an evacuation. The RH Block Captains will identify special needs residents by canvassing their zones and working with the RH Seniors Committee on who they are, where they live and what assistance they may need. Ways to easily identify the homes of these residents is currently being evaluated. The Block Captains along with first responders can provide assistance to these residents in preparing, responding and recovering from a disaster. Information on special needs residents will be saved on an encrypted server and only accessible by city staff and a Block Captain. A printout of special needs residents will only be distributed to the corresponding zone Block Captains. 2.2.5 Large animal/horse evacuations Rolling Hills is considered an equestrian community. Emergency preparedness is important for all animals, but preparedness can be more difficult for large animals (e.g., horses) because of their size and special transportation needs. Evacuation of horses should occur as soon as an evacuation warning is issued. If owners are unprepared or wait until the last minute, they may have to leave their animals behind. The following provides information for pre-planning evacuation with large animals, including horses: 873 Page 22 • Contact Los Angeles County Department of Animal Control Equine Response Team (LACDACERT) for evacuation information for large animals. LACDACERT has trained volunteers who are trained in the evacuation and sheltering of horses in wildfire events. LACDACERT has equipment and personnel available for large animal evacuation and billeting. All requests for emergency assistance are channeled through LA County Sheriff’s Dispatch (911). • Even though the County has assistance available, it is strongly encouraged for horse owners to make their own plan for emergency transportation and sheltering for horses. Many designated sheltering sites may become overcrowded or are far from Rolling Hills. Make plans now to house horses with friends, at a commercial stable, or other suitable location out of the danger area. Discuss plans with everyone in the family and keep the contact information and address of emergency animal shelters and driving directions in an emergency kit. • Make a list of emergency contacts. Keep copies in vehicles or trailer as well as in the house. • Take photographs and prepare a written description of each horse or other large animal(s). Put one set in a safe place and another set in an emergency kit. • Have a halter and rope for each horse/large animal. Make sure halters are marked with contact information or write the information on a piece of duct tape and stick it on the halter. Reflective identification collars are available for purchase from Caballeros. If a horse has medical issues or special needs, record this information on a luggage tag and attach it to the halter. • Microchip horses/large animals. This is an easy, inexpensive way to help identify animals. • Have a three-day supply of feed and water (per large animal). This is particularly important if plans are to shelter in place but bring feed (and buckets) if evacuated. Make sure to include any medications the large animal(s) may need. Label all equipment. • Teach your horses how to trailer. Spend time loading and unloading the animals so they are safe and willing to load, consider practicing loading during the day and night. Continue working with the large animals until you are confident that they will load. • Keep trucks, trailers and vans well maintained and ready to move. Keep gas tanks full, check tire pressure, particularly during Red Flag Warning days. • Horse owners who keep their horses on their property are encouraged to have an orange reflector, available from Caballeros, on their house sign to indicate that horses are on the property. If you evacuate your animals, remove or cover the reflector. • Store non-perishable supplies in a portable container such as a clean trashcan, bucket or canvas duffle bag. Potential issues with evacuating large animals and horses include panicked animals may behave unpredictably and may refuse to respond to normal handling approaches. 874 Page 23 2.2.6 Re-entry back in to the Community Re-entering an evacuated area requires as much forethought and planning as an evacuation order. The safety of residents and emergency responders is of the utmost concern and must drive the decision of when to repopulate. LA County Fire Department and LA County Sheriff’s Department will determine when it is safe for residents, including those with special needs and large animals to move back into the area. Residents re-entering the city will depend upon the evacuation level. Note: Levels 3, 4 and 5 are closed the city to residents. • Level 1: Open to general public • Level 2: Open to critical-incident resources and all residents. • Level 3: Closed to all traffic except fire, law and critical resources e.g. public works, power, LASD volunteers, etc. Note: escorts may be needed. • Level 4: Closed to all traffic except fire-department and law-enforcement personnel. • Level 5: Closed to all traffic. 875 Page 24 3.0 ACTION PLAN The plan below defines the actions needed to lessen the risk of wildfires and to address the community’s greatest risks. The plan lists the action items for each of the four entities – City of Rolling Hills, RH Community Association, RH Residents, LA County Fire Department and LA County Sheriff’s Department. Action Plan (FY2020-2021 to FY2022-2023) City RHCA Residents LACFD LASD 1 Block Captain Program - participate and support program x x XX x x 2 Neighborhood zone meetings x XX x x 3 Emergency communication with residents x x XX x x 4 Evacuation Exercise XX x x x x 5 Workshops and seminars for residents x x XX x x 6 Special needs population x x XX 7 Define communication standards with residents XX x x 8 Define refuge areas x x x XX x 9 City Ordinance Enforcement XX x 10 Fire Department Annual Inspection x XX 11 Evacuation routes (roadside) vegetation management XX x x 12 Bridal trail vegetation management XX x 13 Entry/Exit gates vegetation management XX x 14 Fire Fuel Management in Preserve with Land Conservancy XX x 15 Development of fire fuel management standards XX x x 16 City Ordinance to restrict planting of six high hazard plants per Ready! Set! Go! brochure XX x x x 17 Motorize Crest Road East Gate XX 18 Utility undergrounding projects XX x x 19 Grants for fire fuel management in canyons XX 20 Controlled burns in canyons x x x XX x Legend: XX Primary Responsibility x Secondary Responsibility 876 Page 25 Project Descriptions 1. Block Captain Program This project will focus on the recruitment and the training of the Block Captain volunteers. Training programs will focus on teaching Block Captains about responsibilities and other useful information, such as how to keep specific supplies accessible for when they are called to respond. The project will evaluate the best marketing materials to encourage recruitment, best training vehicles, including multi-media, and enhancements needed to the City’s website to support the management of resident contact information while ensuring privacy and confidentiality. Project Leads: Block Captain Leads and City of Rolling Hills working with First Responders and RHCA Timing: 2020/2023 2. Neighborhood Zone Meetings The project will evaluate available educational materials and videos from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, which highlight priorities documented in the Ready! Set! Go! Brochure. The project will evaluate a cost-effective approach to video for replay on the city’s website. Project Leads: Block Captain Leads and City of Rolling Hills with First Responders Timing: 2020/2023 3. Emergency Communication with Residents The City’s volunteer Block Captains are a crucial liaison between residents in the 24 City zones, first responders and the City’s Emergency Operation Center (EOC) in the event of a large-scale emergency. Block Captains have responsibilities in assisting residents of Rolling Hills before, during and after a disaster including: • What to do in an emergency, in advance of an evacuation and in preparation for a disaster. • During an emergency specific information will provided to emergency responders through the EOC about the state of residents in a Zone. In the event that cell phones, landlines and/or email communications are compromised evaluate other equipment options, such as digital radios, satellite phones (with Push-to- 877 Page 26 talk capability) or other viable options. Purchase equipment and provide training to Block Captains as necessary. Project Leads: Block Captain Leads and City of Rolling Hills with First Responders and RHCA Timing: 2020/2023 4. Evacuation Exercise It is important to periodically conduct a simulation exercise of an actual emergency evacuation with all entities involved during an emergency: First Responders, residents, City of Rolling Hills and the RHCA, including the gate staff. The goals of the exercise can include but are not limited to evacuation of residents and individuals with special needs, communication between the city’s Emergency Operations Center and Block Captains, and traffic control. Assessment and “lessons learned” should be captured and shared. Project Leads: Block Captain Leads and City of Rolling Hills with First Responders and RHCA Timing: 2020/2023 5. Workshops and Seminars for Residents The project will evaluate available educational materials and local experts in wildfire mitigation who can conduct seminars and workshops for the 2000 residents in Rolling Hills. The project will evaluate a cost-effective approach to video seminars and workshops for replay on the city’s website. Project Leads: Block Captain Leads and City of Rolling Hills Timing: 2020/2023 6. Residents with Special Needs This project will focus on the coordination needed between Block Captains and the RHCA Seniors Committee to identify residents who may have special needs during an emergency. This project will focus on teaching Block Captains how best to assist this group of residents, what useful information and/or supplies should be provided to this group, and what resources are available to them in the event of an emergency. Project Leads: Block Captain Leads, RHCA and City of Rolling Hills Timing: 2020/2023 878 Page 27 7. Define communication standards with residents This project will define the protocols for communicating for the City to communicate with Block Captains and for the Block Captains to communicate with residents during emergencies and wildfire events. This project will include the purchase of communication devices for relevant parties. Project Leads: City staff Timing: 2020/2021 8. Define refuge areas This project requires the Fire Department and the Sheriff’s Department to identify refuge areas within the limits of the City in the event of wildfire event. Project Leads: Fire Department/Sheriff’s Department Timing: 2020/2021 9. City Ordinance Enforcement This project requires city staff to enforce ordinances relating to wildfire mitigation including Chapter 8.30 Fire Fuel Abatement. Project Leads: City staff Timing: currently in progress and on-going 10. Fire Department annual inspections The project requires the Fire Department Brush Clearance Unit to conduct inspection at all parcels within the city limits for compliance with 200’ defensible space around structures. Project Leads: Fire Department Timing: currently in progress and on-going 11. Evacuation routes (roadside) vegetation management This project requires fire fuel and vegetation management along three evacuation routes within the city: Portuguese Bend Road, Eastfield Drive, and Crest Road. Fire Code defines the standard for roadside clearance. Project Leads: RHCA, residents Timing: 2020 879 Page 28 12. Bridle Trail Vegetation Management This project requires RHCA contractors to thin out, remove or otherwise manage vegetation on and adjacent to bridle trails as outlined in the Fire Fuel management Standards to include the following: • Thinning native chapparal • Remove hazardous brush and weeds • Remove lower limbs of trees to create a safe vertical clearance for equestrians and emergency vehicles • Remove non-native species such as palm trees, castor beans, Arundo donax, and other highly flammable species • Cut back vegetation to provide adequate horizontal clearance on bridle trails as identified in the Fuel Management Stanards Project Leads: RHCA maintenance staff Timing: 2020/2023 13. Entry/exit gate vegetation management RHCA Board has adopted a policy for roadsides along major roadways in the community to have vegetation cleaned up to 8’ back from the edge of pavement, where practical. RHCA also performs periodic maintenance of roadside trees for safety purposes and to ensure there is 16’ vertical clearance along roadways for emergency vehicles and evacuation. Project Leads: RHCA maintenance staff Timing: currently in progress, on-going 14. Fire Fuel management in the Preserve This project requires the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy to remove fire fuel in the Preserve annually. The City has funded two rounds of fuel removal between 2019 and 2020. Project Leads: City and Land Conservancy Timing: currently in progress, on-going 15. Development of fire fuel management standards This project requires the development of fire fuel management standards for the residents and the community as a whole. 880 Page 29 Project Lead: RHCA Timing: 2020 16. City Ordinance to restrict planting of six high hazard plants per Ready! Set! Go! brochure In April 2020, the City Council considered restricting the planting of the six high hazard plants but decided not to take action. Instead, the City Council directed staff to discourage applicants seeks permits development or landscaping projects from planting the six high hazard plants. The City Council will reconsider taking action in the near future. Project Lead: City Timing: 2021 17. Motorize Crest Road East Gate See section 2.2.3.2 of this report. Project Leads: RHCA Timing: 2020 18. Utility undergrounding projects This project requires the undergrounding of overhead utilities within the city. The Eastfield Undergrounding Project is underway and undergrounding is tentatively scheduled for fall 2020. The city provides incentives for residents to form assessment districts for utility undergrounding projects. The city is developing a policy to incentivize single utility pole undergrounding. Project leads: City Timing: currently in progress, on-going 19. Grants for fire fuel management in canyons This project requires collaboration with property owners of the canyon areas and to find innovative ways to remove fire fuels in difficult to reach areas. Once identified, the City can pursue grant funds to implement the solution. Project Leads: City and residents Timing: 2021 881 Page 30 20. Controlled burns in canyons This project requires collaboration with the Fire Department to determine areas within the City suitable for controlled burns. Project Leads: Fire Department Timing: 2023 882 Page 31 4.0 MONITORING AND UPDATES 4.1 Action Plan Performance Measures Performance measures will be develop in future versions of the CWPP. 4.2 CWPP updates The CWPP will be updated on an annual basis. Updates to document shall be noted at the beginning of the document identified by version number. 883 Page 32 APPENDIX A CITY OVERVIEW AND FIRE ENVIRONEMNT A1. CITY OVERVIEW A1.1 Information about the City The City of Rolling Hills (Rolling Hills) incorporated in 1957. Rolling Hills is 3.0 square miles and a gated community with private roads and three entry gates on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the County of Los Angeles. Rolling Hills has a citizen population of 1,860 and 685 single-family one-story homes that are nestled in a rural equestrian community with no traffic lights. There are approximately 80 horses in Rolling Hills with 19 horse trailers. 90% of the housing units (600+) are owner occupied and less than 10% of the housing units are renter occupied. Rolling Hills homes are 20th century California ranch or Spanish haciendas located on large parcels. As a gated community, Rolling Hills land use pattern was established in 1936 with the sale of parcels around hilly terrain and deep canyons. From its inception in 1936, Rolling Hills created and continues to maintain a residential community that conforms to its unique land form constraints. The City’s minimum lot size requirements were established in recognition of some relevant physical constraints, which includes the following constraints: 1. Steeply sloping hillsides; Land movement hazards 2. Lack of urban infrastructure such as sewer 3. Danger of wildland fires 4. Sensitive animal habitats and species 5. Geological constraints 6. Fire safety constraints 7. Infrastructure constraints 8. Environmental constraints 9. Topographic constraints In particular, unique features to mention is Rolling Hills geological and topographic constraints which are driven by expansive soil combined with ancient landslide which when it reactivates affects lands shift and landslides from time to time, which in turn imposes high repair cost for slope restoration work. A portion of the City is located on severe terrain comprised of steep hills and roads with slope elevations between 25 to 50 percent, deep canyons, and cliffs all surrounded with an abundance of native and non- native vegetation, makes it difficult to meet the zoning requirements for the production of housing development. Furthermore, the California Geological Survey has identified numerous liquefaction zones and areas within city limits that are subject to earthquake induced landslides. 884 Page 33 Rolling Hills fire safety constraint is driven by the fact that in July 2008, all the land in Rolling Hills was determined “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” by the State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. As a result, more restrictive fire safety and landscape standards were adopted into Rolling Hills building code that resulted in higher design and building cost for all new housing development. Another constraint to note is that the Fire Department’s capability to address normal fire calls, not to mention, address wildfire crisis is limited due to its aging distribution water system that is managed by California Water Company. On June 10, 2019, Rolling Hills City Council adopted the fiscal year 2019/20 budget. The budget serves as the City’s roadmap for allocating resources for the management of public programs and services, achieving city priorities and goals that serve residents and the public. The budget also represents the projections necessary for managing and monitoring annual revenue and expenditures in a fiscally responsible manner. For fiscal year 2019/20, Rolling Hills general fund budget projects $2,278,300 in revenue and $2,233,600 in expenditures. The overall financial position of the City’s General Fund remains strong with a projected year-end fund balance of $4, 947,213 at June 30, 2020. A1.2 Information about the Association The RHCA was established in 1936 by developer A.E. Hanson and the Palos Verdes Corporation to develop the community and to carry out their vision of a private, gated community made up of little ranches and family homes. The entire community is on private property and there is no public property inside the city. All roads are located on Association easements. Both the RHCA office and City Hall are located just outside the Main Gate at 1 & 2 Portuguese Bend Road, respectively. Today, the RHCA’s primary purpose is to maintain the roads and other common areas of the community, uphold the architectural standards of the community, operate the gates and assist the members of the Board, committees and members of the community in upholding and maintaining the community's charm and appeal. RHCA’s primary functions include but are not limited to the following activities: • Maintains files on all properties within Rolling Hills • Reviews plans related to architectural features • Maintains roadway & bridle trails • Gate operations • Controls easements • Sells residence signs RHCA places a high value on the privacy and rural character of the community created by the open space around each residence. This is achieved through both the regulation 885 Page 34 of the size and style of buildings and the preservation of open easements that surround each property. Other RHCA that warrant mentioning is through the deed restrictions. Every homeowner has granted control of easements on their property to the RHCA. These easements are used for roadways, bridle trails, utilities and drains. When they are not used for those purposes, easements should remain free of building, planting or other obstructions unless licensed by the RHCA. A1.3 Information about the Residents Rolling Hills has a city population of 1,860 residents, 645 households, and 554 families that reside in 685 housing units within the City. Rolling Hills has a sizable senior population of 513 (27.6%) residents that are 65 years or older. Since Rolling Hills is considered an equestrian community, a large percentage of landowners are also horse owners that engage in horse training, horse care, and horseback riding as part of their quality of life. Rolling Hills landscape does have a lot of vegetation that requires residents to maintain. Rolling Hills does have an ordinance on dead vegetation that requires every person who owns or is in possession of any property, place or area within the boundaries of the City, shall at his or her own expense, maintain the property, place or area free from any dead or alive tumbleweed or dead tree, shrub, palm frond or other plant. Any dead or alive tumbleweed or dead tree, shrub, palm frond or other plant located on any property in the City is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. In addition, RHCA by laws impose deed restrictions that require residents to trim or removal trees and shrubs to acceptable levels and that do not create a public health concern and/or become a fire safety violation. Finally, LA County Ordinance that require vegetation removal and that places fuel mitigation plans near existing structures and natural habitats such as trees, shrubs and other vegetation that may be vulnerable to the spreading of brush fire. A1.4 Information about the First Responders A1.4.1 Los Angeles County Fire Department The Los Angeles County Fire Department provides all hazard emergency response services to approximately 4.1 million residents and businesses throughout 58 cities and the incorporated areas of Los Angeles County. The agency provides service to over 2,300 square miles of diverse geography and demographics and approximately 1.23 million housing units. With a 2017/2018 budget of $1.2 billion, Los Angeles County Fire Department employs approximately 4,700 employees 2. 2 After Action Review of the Woolsey Fire Incident, County of Los Angeles, October 23, 2019 presented by Citygate Associates, LLC Public Safety Services 886 Page 35 The Department is made of three major functional areas: Emergency Operations, Business Operations, and the Leadership and Professional Standards Bureau. Emergency Operations is the arm of the Department responsible for leading and directing emergency response personnel. Emergency Operations is further divided into three geographic Bureaus: North Operations Bureau, Central Operations Bureau, and East Bureau. The three geographically divided operations bureaus of LA County Fire serve 58 cities and unincorporated communities with 22 battalions and nine divisions. An Assistant Chief commands each division and three shift Battalion Chiefs command each battalion. A Community Services Liaison (CSL) and a Secretary support each of the nine Assistant Fire Chiefs. The CSL represents the Department at community and civic events. Rolling Hills participates in the fire district served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The fire district assesses the residents of Rolling Hills community through the property tax roll annually. The City of Rolling Hills is served by Fire Station 56. Fire Station 56 is under Battalion 14 serving Lomita, Palos Verdes Peninsula, and Catalina Island. Battalion 14 is a part of Division 1. A1.4.2 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department employs approximately 18,000 employees including 10,000 sworn and 8,000 non-sworn personnel. The Department is organized into three primary operational areas: Custody Operations, Patrol Operations and Countywide Operations. The Department has approximately $3.2 billion budget. Within Patrol Operations, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department provides service from 23 patrol stations throughout the County. The Lomita Sheriff’s Station at 26123 Narbonne Avenue is located in the City of Lomita serves cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Lomita, and pockets of unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. The Lomita Sheriff’s Station is led by a Captain of the Sheriff’s Department. By law, the County Sheriff’s Department is the mutual aid coordinator for law enforcement in Los Angeles County. To manage operations and resources more efficiently, the 88 cities of Los Angeles County are divided into eight geographical areas: A through H. To ensure continuity of operations, the County Sheriff’s Department and mutual aid partners update mutual aid agreements annually1. The Peninsula Cities including the City of Rolling Hills is located in Area G. The City of Rolling Hills contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement. Rolling Hills share the contract with Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates. 887 Page 36 A2. FIRE ENVIRONMENT A2.1 Topography Rolling Hills unique topography features places the City at risk from damage and wildfire. Rolling Hills is primarily made up of many steep hillsides with high elevations, landslide hazards, dense vegetation, narrow asphalted private roads, and canyons adjacent to the Palos Verdes Peninsula and the Pacific Ocean. Other features include expansive soils and geological hazard conditions that place constraints on existing housing stock and any potential for new development within the City. Rolling Hills Terrain is comprised of several large and steep canyons that limit and challenge vegetation management and present conditions where a fire can quickly travels up and downslope to nearby homes. The alignment of the canyons makes them more at risk from winds of different directions. LA County Fire has categorized the canyons in the following way: Canyons that would be at higher risk during northeast winds: 1. Georgeff Canyon 2. Purple Canyon 3. Willow Canyon 4. Sepulveda Canyon 5. Blackwater Canyon 6. John’s Canyon 7. Agua Magna Canyon Canyons that would be at risk from fires driven by winds coming from the southwest are: 1. Paint Brush Canyon 2. Portuguese Canyon 3. Altamira Canyon 4. Forrestal Canyon RH lot layout and size places the City at risk from fire. The large lot sizes provide opportunities for dense vegetation to grown between homes, in contrast to smaller lots which are largely occupied with building structures. Some lots span long slopes in steep canyons while others are smaller lots on flatter terrain. The placement of homes within the lots also contribute to their vulnerability as they are often located at the top of slopes which preheated fuels beneath them can burn intensely. RH provides importing hiking and equestrian access, but are also areas of high fuel load with little access available for management. These lands are interspersed between 888 Page 37 privately held lots which provides in many locations, places where fire can easily travel between and to structures. Furthermore, trails between lots can provide either an area of low fuel, or thus more opportunities for fire containment, or can be areas of high fuel volume as privacy hedges, and thus exacerbate fire spread. Additionally, most of Rolling Hills population live on smaller branch roads and because this is a gated community, access is restricted which hampers egress during a time of emergency. A2.2 Fire History Fires on the Palos Verdes Peninsula have crossed city lines, including Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes. The Daily Breeze summarized three major fires on the Peninsula on November 7, 2014. Some excerpts are included below: “The blaze started about 2:30 pm on Friday, June 22, 1973. Before it was tamed at 1 a.m. on Saturday, June 23, it had charred about 925 acres, burned 12 homes to the ground, damaged at least 10 others and caused an estimated $2 million in property losses. Somewhat miraculously, no one was seriously injured or killed in the conflagration. Black smoke filled the skies, and hundreds of sightseers clogged nearby roads, including Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards and Highridge, Crest and Crestridge Roads, in an attempt to view the blaze. Luckily, no one was hurt, especially in the early hours of the blaze when bystanders went right up to the edge of the fire area, before perimeters had been established. Houses were destroyed on Cinch Ring, Wrangler, Paint Brush Canyon and Running Brand roads. Three more houses were destroyed as the fire reached the Portuguese Bend area. Three houses at 100 Vanderlip Drive were destroyed. The most recent major brush fire in the South Bay began on Thursday night, Aug. 27, 2009, at the upper ends of Narcissa and Peppertree drives, in the gated Portuguese Bend community near the Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve (now part of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve) just north of the Trump National Golf Club. It burned 230 acres of brush, threatened dozens of homes and forced 1,200 area residents to evacuate. No homes were lost and no injuries to residents or firefighters were reported. Its cause was unknown, though it was speculated that an electrical problem at a utility pole in the area may have been the source. 165 of the 230 acres charred in the blaze were part of the relatively new Nature Preserve, which was created in 2005. 889 Page 38 An earlier fire on July 13, 2005 burned 212 acres of land near Del Cero Park on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, but no homes were lost.” A2.3 Ignition History There has not been significant ignition history in the Rolling Hills Community. The threat of past fires has come from the Conservancy in Rancho Palos Verdes to the south. The Los Angeles County Fire Department has been very efficient in keeping ignitions in the community very small, and holding property damage to a minimum. 890 Page 39 APPENDIX B COMMUNITY SURVEY B1 Process of Conducting Survey Critical to the development of the RH’s CWPP was to obtain the input of the City’s stakeholders, all the residents of Rolling Hills. It was decided that the best vehicle to capture input of all the residents was through a survey. Block Captains would assist in developing the survey, educating residents on the importance of their participation and summarizing the feedback. Block Captains would assist with the development of potential solutions and mitigation strategies. A small group of residents joined representatives from the City of RH, RHCA and Block Captains - Caballeros, Women’s Club, Seniors Club, Tennis Club and developed (35) survey questions. Early notifications of the survey included Block Captains explaining to residents in their zone the purpose of the survey and how the feedback would be analyzed to specify how RH might approach reducing the risk of wildfire. The Wildfire Mitigation Survey was emailed mid-October, 2019 to all RH residents who provided email addresses to either the RHCA or the RH City. For residents who did not have email addresses hard-copy surveys were available at both the RH City Hall and the RHCA. The survey was emailed to 1272 RH residents, which included a small number of duplicates and non-residents (contractors and real estate agents). The survey was open for one month and multiple announcements were made at neighborhood Zone meetings throughout October and in the City and RHCA newsletters. Paper copies were made available at City Hall for those residents who did not have email addresses. 258 surveys were completed and submitted by the deadline of November 15, 2019 including all hand-written surveys. Based upon the Rolling Hills profile and elimination of duplicates and non-residents it was estimated the response rate was 25%. B2 Survey Data RH City Staff summarized each survey question utilizing absolute numbers, percentages, graphs and pie charts. It should be noted that three questions, numbers 14, 29 and 32 were “open ended” questions where participants made comments. The Lead Block Captains analyzed the comments made in the open-ended questions and grouped similar comments into major categories. 891 Page 40 B3 Insights from Surveys The survey provided valuable information regarding: • the best communication vehicles currently used by residents • the best social media platforms residents currently use • the public alert systems currently used by residents • the degree to which residents want more education and training on emergency preparedness • the role of first responders. • the number of residents who have special needs or have family members or neighbors with special needs The City of RH, the RHCA, and First Responders will use the information to guide what content will be developed and how to communicate with residents. Lead Block Captains were tasked with the preliminary analysis and reviewed the survey results both qualitatively and quantitatively. They grouped survey answers and comments into similar categories. They reviewed their analytical approach with a marketing consultant with expertise in surveys and marketing research who validated the process and provided some additional grouping suggestions. Note: Some of the issues raised by residents occur in multiple categories. An example is the concern of the closed Crest Road East gate was raised in both traffic congestion and evacuation routes. A summary of stakeholder input on wildfire mitigation strategies is below: 1) Residents want more communication, education and training from the City, RHCA and First Responders. The need for communication with residents during an emergency is a major concern. Residents are anxious and want information on: traffic congestion during an evacuation, limited exits routes, excessive and unmanaged growth on private properties, easements and in canyons. 2) Residents want better enforcement and compliance to existing ordinances and regulations from both the City, RHCA and Fire Department. 3) Residents are concerned that traffic congestion, bottlenecks will occur just outside of RH exits. Residents view congestion and inadequate traffic control will impede and slow evacuation from the city. Many residents want access to alternate routes and question how the Crest Road East Gate will be opened in the event of an emergency evacuation. 892 Page 41 4) Residents question the adequacy of three main exits of the city as the main evacuation routes. They are concerned about narrow roads, especially Eastfield Drive, the fuel along the exit routes and what happens if a tree or car impedes or prevents evacuation. They want the City of RH and RHCA to proactively identify alternate evacuation routes (unlocking Crest Road East gate or connecting dead-end streets). Residents want help in defining individual evacuation plans and routes. 5) Residents want actions taken to reduce fuel and excessive vegetation on private properties. Residents want hazardous plants and trees removed from easements. Residents want easements along exit routes to be cleared regularly. Dead vegetation and unkempt properties are ranked moderate to high as greatest risk of wildfire. 6) Excessive fuel located in canyons and outside of the RH City limits are perceived by residents as the greatest risk of wildfire. Residents perceive unattended fuel growth in canyons will threaten lives and their properties. 7) Residents with special needs are a small but vulnerable group and may need special support during an emergency or disaster. The elderly may need help in keeping their property safe from wildfire. 8) A small number of residents want utilities moved underground as above-the-ground power lines present a major risk to residents during a fire. 893 Page 42 APPENDIX C WILDLAND RES MGT REPORT BY CAROL RICE NOVEMBER 1, 2019 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 APPENDIX D – September 2022 Update 3.0 ACTION PLAN The plan below defines the actions needed to lessen the risk of wildfires and to address the community’s greatest risks. The plan lists the action items for each of the five entities – City of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Community Association, Residents, LA County Fire Department and LA County Sheriff’s Department. Action Plan (FY2022‐2023 to FY 2024‐2025) City RHCA Residents LACFD LASD 1 Block Captain Program ‐ participate and support program x x XX x x 2 Neighborhood zone meetings x XX x x 3 Emergency communication with residents x x XX x x 4 Evacuation Exercise XX x x x x 5 Workshops and seminars for residents x x XX x x 6 Special needs population x x XX 7 Define communication standards with residents XX x x 8 Define refuge areas x x x XX x 9 City Ordinance Enforcement XX x 10 Los Angeles County Fire Department Annual Inspection x XX 11 Evacuation routes (roadside) vegetation management XX x x 12 Bridal trail vegetation management XX x 13 Entry/Exit gates vegetation management XX x 14 Fire Fuel Management in Preserve with Land Conservancy XX x 15 Development of fire fuel management standards XX x x 16 City Ordinance to restrict planting of six high hazard plants per “Ready! Set! Go!” brochure XX x x x 17 Motorize Crest Road East Gate 18 Utility undergrounding projects XX x x 19 Grants for fire fuel management in canyons XX 20 Controlled burns in canyons x x x XX x 21 Wildfire Camera Detection System XX x x 22 Demonstration of Vegetation Management Project Models XX XX XX Legend: XX Primary Responsibility x Secondary Responsibility 947 Project Descriptions 1. Block Captain Program This project will focus on the recruitment and the training of the Block Captain volunteers. Training programs will focus on teaching Block Captains about responsibilities and other useful information, such as how to keep specific supplies accessible for when they are called to respond. The project will evaluate the best marketing materials to encourage recruitment, best training vehicles, including multi-media, and enhancements needed to the City’s website to support the management of resident contact information while ensuring privacy and confidentiality. Added: In 2020, there were xx Block Captains, and xx Block Captain Support. In 2021, the number of Block Captains grew to xx and the number of Block Captain Support increased to xx. In 2022, additional volunteers joined the program and there were xx Block Captains and xx Block Captain Support. Block Captains recruited new volunteers and the City utilized the Blue Newsletter to announce program goals and activities. In 2021 and 2022, the City emphasized at Block Captain meetings that the role of the Block Captain is to educate the community on preparedness measures. Block Captains and Block Captain Support are to care for themselves and loved ones in the time of emergencies. The City implemented the Emergency Information System (EIS) to manage the resident contact information. Project Leads: Block Captain Leads and City of Rolling Hills working with First Responders and RHCA Timing: 2020/2023 2. Neighborhood Zone Meetings The project will evaluate available educational materials and videos from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, which highlight priorities documented in the Ready! Set! Go! Brochure. The project will evaluate a cost-effective approach to video for replay on the City’s website. Added: In 2021 and 2022, the City produced two educational videos. The first educational video was on hardening the home and the second educational video was on managing fire fuel in the canyons. Both videos are made available to all residents via the city’s website. 948 Project Leads: Block Captain Leads and City of Rolling Hills with First Responders Timing: 2020/2023 3. Emergency Communication with Residents Deleted: The City’s volunteer Block Captains are a crucial liaison between residents in the 24 City zones, first responders and the City’s Emergency Operation Center (EOC) in the event of a large-scale emergency. Block Captains have responsibilities in assisting residents of Rolling Hills before, during and after a disaster including:  What to do in an emergency, in advance of an evacuation and in preparation for a disaster.  During an emergency specific information will provided to emergency responders through the EOC about the state of residents in a Zone. In the event that cell phones, landlines and/or email communications are compromised evaluate other equipment options, such as digital radios, satellite phones (with Push-to- talk capability) or other viable options. Purchase equipment and provide training to Block Captains as necessary. Added: The City of Rolling Hills relies primary on communication tools that require electricity, cellular signals or access to the internet during an emergency. During inclement weather conditions, the City may be susceptible to power outages including during periods of heighted fire danger resulting in an increased risk of not receiving important communications including evacuation orders, via landlines, cellular, internet or radio. Since February 2021, the City embarked on identifying communications systems that will assist the City in the event of a complete power failure. One such system is the outdoor siren system that has intelligible voice and tone coverage for emergency alerting capabilities. Project Leads: City of Rolling Hills with First Responders and RHCA Timing: 2022/2023 4. Deleted: Evacuation Exercise; Added: Emergency Notification Exercise Deleted: It is important to periodically conduct a simulation exercise of an actual emergency evacuation with all entities involved during an emergency: First Responders, residents, City of Rolling Hills and the RHCA, including the gate staff. The goals of the exercise can include but are not limited to evacuation of residents and individuals with special needs, communication between the city’s Emergency Operations Center and Block Captains, and traffic control. Assessment and “lessons learned” should be captured and shared. 949 Added: Based on recommendations from the First Responders, the City’s initial plan to conduct an actual emergency drill where residents evacuate the City did not occur and instead in August 2022, the City conducted its first emergency notification exercise to simulate a fictional emergency incident. The goals of the exercise include but are not limited to test the City’s Alert South Bay system and encourage residents to register to the City’s Emergency Information System and/or Alert South Bay. Assessment and “lessons learned” have been captured and shared. The City is also in collaboration with the County of Los Angeles Office of Emergency Management to develop a Peninsula-wide mass evacuation plan using the Zonehaven software. Zonehaven is a cloud-based evacuation management software that leverages critical data and assists local public safety personnel (e.g., Los Angeles County Fire and Sherriff Departments and Palos Verdes Estates Police Department) by providing actionable insight to emergency responders and the public in the event of a disaster. Project Leads: City of Rolling Hills Timing: On-going 7. Define communications Standards with Residents Deleted: This project will define the protocols for communicating for the City to communicate with Block Captains and for the Block Captains to communicate with residents during emergencies and wildfire events. This project will include the purchase of communication devices for relevant parties. Added: Residents have been informed that the City will be communicating with residents using the Alert Southbay platform for emergencies. Project Leads: City of Rolling Hills Timing: Completed 10. Los Angeles County Fire Department Annual Inspections The project requires the Fire Department Brush Clearance Unit to conduct inspection at all parcels within the city limits for compliance with 200’ defensible space around structures. Added: In addition, in October 2020, the Fire Department conducted year-round roadside clearance inspections, looking at areas ten feet from the edge of pavement. Starting in July 2021, the roadside clearance would be included in the annual brush clearance inspections. Also, the City will receive complementary inspections beyond 200’ starting Fall 2022. 950 Project Leads: Los Angeles County Fire Department Timing: Currently in progress and on-going 14. Fire Fuel Management in the Preserve This project requires the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy to remove fire fuel in the Preserve annually. The City has funded two areas of fuel removal between 2019 and 2020. Added: Since February 2022, the City has funded two additional areas of fuel load reduction in the areas closest to the Rolling Hills border with the Preserve. Project Leads: City and Land Conservancy Timing: currently in progress, on-going 15. Development of Fire Fuel Management Standards This project requires the development of fire fuel management standards for the residents and the community as a whole. Added: In November 2020, the Rolling Hills Community Association adopted the “Fire Fuel Management Strategies” and has disseminated the standards to all City residents. Project Lead: RHCA Timing: Completed 16. City Ordinance to Restrict Planting of Six High Hazard Plants per “Ready! Set! Go!” Brochure Deleted: In April 2020, the City Council considered restricting the planting of the six high hazard plants but decided not to take action. Instead, the City Council directed staff to discourage applicants seeks permits development or landscaping projects from planting the six high hazard plants. The City Council will reconsider taking action in the near future Added: In March 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 375 prohibiting new plantings of high hazardous plants and trees. Project Lead: City Timing: Completed 17. Motorized Crest Road East Gate 951 There is a fourth (4th) gate that is locked and closed located at the end of Crest Road East with no guards. There are several holders of the key to unlock the gate including: • LA County Sheriff • LA County Fire Department • All RHCA Gatehouses • RHCA Manager • Maintenance Supervisor and Staff • Gate Supervisor • Architectural Supervisor During a wildfire emergency the Crest Road East gate is considered by First Responders as an option for residents to use to exit the city. Residents should be informed in advance that Crest Road East is an option and is considered as a one-way exit from Rolling Hills into Rancho Palos Verdes towards Palos Verdes Drive East. Once the Crest Road East Gate is opened, residents will not be granted re-entry through this gate. First Responders will determine if an Evacuation Warning and/or Evacuation Order is needed and will notify the City through the Incident Command Center. During a wildfire emergency an Evacuation Warning may be issued by the Incident Command Center. Residents will be alerted of a potential threat to life and property that is more than two hours away. If the possibility exists that the gate will need to be opened a RHCA staff person will be stationed at the gate ready to open it. An Evacuation Order may be issued by the Incident Command Center. Residents will be alerted of an immediate threat to life and property that is within one to two hours. RHCA staff person or another designee of the RHCA should be onsite to assist with traffic management if available. Note: As of the publication date of this plan the RHCA Board of Directors approved the automation of the Crest Road East gate. The installation is scheduled to be completed in August 2020. It is expected that RHCA staff will be able to open the gate remotely upon receiving with an Evacuation Warning or Evacuation Order from First Added: There is a fourth (4th) gate that is locked and closed located at the end of Crest Road East with no guards. During an emergency, RHCA staff will open the Crest Road East Gate remotely upon receiving an Evacuation Warning or Evacuation Order from First Responders. Project Leads: RHCA Timing: Completed 18. Utility Undergrounding Projects 952 Revised: This project requires the undergrounding of overhead utilities within the City. In September 2020, the City received Federal monies for the Crest Road East utility undergrounding project. Design is expected to be completed by end of 2022. In January 2022, the City received Federal monies for the Eastfield Drive project. In addition, the County of Los Angeles is expected to approve the donation of its Rule 20A work credits to the City in the amount of $1,000,000 for the Eastfield Drive project. The City also provides incentives for residents to form assessment districts for utility undergrounding projects. In July 2020, the City adopted Resolution No. 1259 which provides reimbursements to residents for utility pole removals of up to $3,500. Project leads: City Timing: Currently in progress, on-going 19. Grants for Fire Fuel Management in Canyons This project requires collaboration with property owners of the canyon areas and to find innovative ways to remove fire fuels in difficult to reach areas. Added: In November 2020, the City received Phase 1 approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program through the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) to create defensible space/fuel breaks to protect homeowners from wildfires. The City identified areas for treatment including removing dead vegetation, reducing the volume of vegetation in trees, shrubs and grass, and reducing the height of brush and grass. Phase 1 was completed in April 2022. The City anticipates to receive approval for Phase 2 in the coming months. Project Leads: City and residents Timing: On-going Added new Sections 21 and 22: 21. Wildfire Camera Detection System This new project, which is in the process of deployment, requires collaboration with surrounding Peninsula cities to use a Peninsula-wide fire camera detection system. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes recently received grant funding from Assembly Bill 179 to install four cameras for early detection of potential wildfires, which, upon installation, will cover the entire City. The fire detection system uses cameras and artificial intelligence software to automatically detect the first wisps of smoke and deliver real-time fire images 953 to First Responders and emergency personnel, with the goal of detecting flare-ups quickly and allowing for a quicker response before a fire spreads. Project Lead: City Timing: In-progress 22. Demonstration of Vegetation Management Project Models This new project involves highlighting vegetation management projects throughout the City for residents to replicate at their own property. One such example is the recent completion of the Rolling Hills Community Association’s (RHCA) fuel management demonstration project at Si’s Trail (on the northwest corner of Crest Drive West and Portuguese Bend Road) which the RHCA indicated that they utilized the practices outlined in the City's fuel management in the canyons educational videos. Project Lead: City, RHCA, Residents Timing: In-progress 954 Agenda Item No.: 13.A Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:VANESSA HEVENER, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE MEETING AND APPROVE THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS. DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: On September 13, 2022, the Fire Fuel Committee received updates on the following agenda items, and each was discussed at length: Review Fire Safety Mitigation List developed at the March 1, 2022 Fire Fuel Committee meeting Receive and File a Status Report on the CalOES/FEMA Grant Vegetative Management Project Receive a Report on the Block Captain Brainstorming Session on Measures to Encourage the Community to Manage Fire Fuel in the Canyons Discuss the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA)’s Recent Canyon Management Demonstration Project at Si’s Trail DISCUSSION: Based on discussions at the meeting, the Committee developed three recommendations to the City Council for consideration. Subsequent to the meeting, Staff researched and reviewed each of recommendations and provides the following additional information: Recommendation 1: Develop a preferred list of vendors/providers and pricing for fire fuel removal services that could be used as a resource for the community on canyon management. If necessary, Staff is to work with RHCA. Staff contacted the City Attorney’s Office to inquire whether the City could create a list of preferred vendors/providers for residents to use as a resource on canyon management. The City Attorney confirmed that the City can create a vendor list as long as the City is not guaranteeing or warranting any work of the vendors and is only providing the list as a general 955 resource for the community. To create the list, Staff could reach out directly to vendors, obtain a list from RHCA, and/or prepare a Request for Qualification (RFQ). Prevailing wage requirements would not be applicable provided that there are no public funds used to pay for canyon management on private property. Recommendation 2: Discuss fire safety and canyon management at the Rolling Hills Community Association’s Annual Meeting Staff inquired with RHCA and was informed that they often invite City representatives to the RHCA Annual Meeting. The City Council could ask Staff to contact RHCA and ask that a representative from the Fire Fuel Committee be invited to speak and if the invitation is extended, assign one of the Fire Fuel Committee members to speak at the Annual Meeting. Recommendation 3 : Develop an assessment tool to quantify and/or measure progress on canyon management. For example, explore the use of drones to provide visual evidence of progress made. Over the years, the City has committed significant resources to reduce fuel load in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy property located south of the City's boundaries. Having “before and after” visual comparison would have served a more effective demonstration of progress made. Based on feedback from the Block Captain Brainstorming Session, it was clear that the Block Captains also shared the same sentiment that visual images would be one of the best educational tools to share with residents on canyon management. Staff inquired with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works on their experiences with drone services. Based on their input, the estimated cost for such services is approximately $2,000 for “before and after” images or $10,000 for five years. The Committee is pleased that the Los Angeles County Fire Department will provide inspections beyond 200 feet which will free up the $7500 previously dedicated to Wildland Res Management. If desired, the City Council could be reallocate the $7500 for drone services. The Committee has scheduled the next Fire Fuel Committee meeting on November 16, 2022 with the following items for discussion: Presentation by resident Mr. Dustin McNabb Update on the Wildfire Detection Camera System Update on the Outdoor Siren System Report from City Council on the Fire Fuel Committee’s recommendations FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to receive and file a report on the committee meeting. There may be a fiscal impact if the City Council directs Staff to allocate existing or additional funds for “before and after” images. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: CL_AGN_220913_FF_Agenda.pdf 956 1.PARTICIPANTS 2.ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 2.A.REVIEW FIRE SAFETY MITIGATION LIST FROM THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE DEVELOPED AT THE MARCH 1, 2022 MEETING; AND RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE ON ITEMS ON THE MITIGATION LIST. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 2.B.RECEIVE AND FILE A STATUS REPORT ON THE CALOES/FEMA GRANT VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 2.C.RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE BLOCK CAPTAINS BRAINSTORMING SESSION ON MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE THE COMMUNITY TO MANAGE FIRE FUEL IN THE CANYONS; CONSIDER THE MEASURES; AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO IMPLEMENT THE MEASURES. RECOMMENDATION: Receive a Report on the Block Captains Brainstorming Session on Measures to Encourage the Community to Management Fire Fuel in the Canyons; Consider the Measures; and Recommend to the City Council to Implement the Measures 2.D.DISCUSS THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S RECENT 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 AGENDA Special Fire Fuel Management Committee Meeting FIRE FUEL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, September 13, 2022 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 6:30 PM Executive Order The meeting agenda is available on the City’s website. The Fire Fuel Committee 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 Fire Fuel Committee meetings can be found here: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php Addtl_Fire_Safety_Recommendations.pdf CalOESVegetationManagementGrant-SUPPLEMENTALinfo_CDFW.pdf CL_AGN_220913_FFC_BC Brainstorming Session Notes rev 7.25.2022.pdf 1 957 CANYON MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AT SI'S TRAIL BEGINNING AT THE CORNER OF PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND CREST ROAD RECOMMENDATION: Committee member Mirsch will lead the discussion. 2.E.CONSIDER AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE MEETING AND SET THE NEXT MEETING DATE. RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff. 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 - THIS MEETING WILL BE ADJOURNED IN THE MEMORY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENT AND BLOCK CAPTAIN TUBA GHANNADI WHO PASSED AWAY CL_AGN_220913_FFC_Si's Trail.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. 2 958 Agenda Item No.: 14.A Mtg. Date: 09/26/2022 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:DISCUSS ITEMS PROVIDED IN COMMISSION REPORTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS DATE:September 26, 2022 BACKGROUND: On August 16, 2022, the Planning Commission discussed its roles and responsibilities as an appointed body of the City Council and its purpose of regulating land uses in the City in order to preserve the physical environment and the human needs of residents. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) Section 2.20.010: A. The Planning Commission shall consider all matters presented to it fairly and impartially, recognizing the rights of the applicant as well as its obligation to enforce all zoning ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council. B. The development and use of all land within the City should be directed to the continuation of the existing rural open areas surrounding the existing residences in the City, and each new improvement or use of land should be carefully examined to determine what effect the proposed improvement or use of land will have on the terrain, trees and natural flora in the City. C. The granting of variances and conditional use permits shall be carefully scrutinized to protect bridle trails and provide the proper spacing of residences and accessory buildings so as to prevent overconstruction of the lot or parcel to be improved. DISCUSSION: The role of the Planning Commission is to make land use decisions for the City so as to not burden the City Council. RHMC Chapter 17.54 authorizes any person to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council within 30 calendar days after adoption of a resolution. Additionally, the City Council may on its own initiative review an action of the Planning Commission within 45 days of the action with an affirmative vote from three members. The Planning Commission's action is included on the Council agenda to see if the Council would like to take the item under its jurisdiction or receive and file. If Council decides to take an item under its jurisdiction, then a public hearing is scheduled and the Council can 959 affirm, modify, or reverse the Planning Commission's action. If an item is received and filed, then the action of the Planning Commission stands, provided a timely appeal is not filed. In reviewing previous Council staff reports over the years, there have been differences in how the Planning Commission has reported its actions. Although not always consistent, the vote of the Commission is usually reported and any concerns or major issues discussed. Below is a summary of staff reports over the last three decades, which are included as attachments to this staff report: 1 9 9 4 - 7 Storm Hill Lane, new single-family residence : The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 93-96 and reported special conditions applicable to the project. The action vote was not provided nor a report on resident opposition. 2 0 0 0 - 4 Storm Hill Lane, barn : The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2000-29 on a 5-0 vote. No report on resident opposition was provided. 2011 - 16 Pine Tree Lane, tennis court : The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2011-07 on a 4-0-1-0 vote with one commissioner absent and excused. This staff report was the most detailed in terms of information provided and seemed to be a copy of the Planning Commission report. However, no report on resident opposition was provided. 2 0 1 9 - 8 Middleridge Lane South, new single-family residence : The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2019-13, but not vote was provided. It does mention that the Planning Commission held four public hearings and two field trips, and that many of the neighboring residents provided input, correspondence, and were present at the meetings. A section is included on the Traffic Commission's review and the public participation. Staff has found that staff reports in the 1990s-2000s were general short with a recommendation to receive and file. The 2011 staff report is the most extensive and appears to be a duplicate of the Planning Commission report with some discussion on the Planning Commission's action. The 2019 staff report is condensed to summarize the project and the action of the Planning Commission. This is consistent with earlier reports that present items to the Council for receive and file actions. Vicinity/Proximity Map At recent meetings, Councilmembers have asked that a vicinity map be provided as part of the development plan. A vicinity map is used to show a property's location in relationship to neighboring properties. Staff has noted that the Council looks for measurements of a proposed structure to existing neighboring structures, which is more accurately described as a "proximity" map. Staff has made it a point to have applicants show measurements on the plan. However, there are different ways in which applicants provide the information. On some plans, applicants have shown measurements on the larger site plan. On other plans, measurements are shown on the smaller inset map. Thus, consistency can be a challenge, especially when some maps are hand-drawn and others computer-generated and overlapped over an aerial photo. Staff has made it a point to make sure a clear vicinity map is provided and the proximity of a proposed project to existing structures on other lots is shown. Examples of vicinity maps are included as attachments. Customer Service/Applicant Concerns Staff strives to provide staff reports that are thorough and complete. However, staff has observed that some homeowners and applicants become concerned when it appears Council is considering to take their item under jurisdiction. These homeowners and applicants have 960 endured months of review by staff and the Planning Commission only to go before the City Council for another level of review. They are anxious to get their plans reviewed by RHCA so they can start the plan check process with LA County Building and Safety or Willdan Engineering to obtain building permits and start the project. Staff is looking to improve customer service by providing the Council with a thorough staff report that can be received and filed. The Council certainly should take projects under its jurisdiction if there are legitimate concerns raised by neighbors or issues not considered by the Planning Commission. However, for projects that are not contentious, the decision of the Planning Commission should be received and filed without much discussion. This would help ease concerns from applicants. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide feedback to staff. ATTACHMENTS: 1994_4 Storm Hill Lane - CC Staff Report for SFR 2b.pdf 2000_4 Storm Hill Lane - CC Staff Report for a Barn.pdf 2011_16 Pine Tree Lane - Staff Report for Tennis Court.pdf 2019_8 Middleridge Lane S - CC Staff Report for SFR.pdf Vicinity Map - 8 Middleridge Ln South.pdf Vicinity Map - 11 Flying Mane.pdf Vicinity Map - 12 UBWC.pdf 961 TO: ATTENTION: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: BACKGROUND • • INCORPORATED JANUARY 2,, 1957 AGENDA ITEM 5-A NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BENO ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF 90274 (3101377·1521 F>J (310) 377-7288 ------MEETING DATE 1/10/94 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING CASE NO. 498 Mr. and Mrs. Domenique Claessens, 7 Storm Hill Lane (Lot 169-B-MS) RESOLUTION NO. 93-36: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 498. ZONING CASE NO. 498 7 STORM HILL LANE (LOT 169-B-MS) RAS-2, 63 ACRES MR. AND MRS. DOMINIQUE CLAESSENS MR. DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING 1. The applicants request Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 12,480 square foot residence, a 2,200 ~quare foot attached garage, a 1,365 square foot poo 1 , a 2,100 square foot stable, and a 96 square foot service yard at the southern portion of this 63 acre lot. 2. The Planning Commission approved the subject resolution on December 21, 1993. Special conditions required for this project include: the recordation of a restrictive deed in favor of the City of Rolling Hills requiring any future subdivision of the 63+ acre property to provide for a lot of at least 15 acres in size for this development project, the recordation of a road easement over a portion of the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. James Bird at 4 Storm Hill Lane {Lot 169-A-MS) and a portion of the Claessens' property, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural development will require the filing of a. new application for approval by the Planning Commission, t_he driveway access must be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Commission, and the vegetation selected to minimize the bui 1 dings on the pad must utilize to the maximum extent feasible trees of a determinate height that wi 11 minimize future obstruction of views from properties on Buggy Whip Drive. 0 ©;: .. ·-· .. 962 • ZONING CASE NO. 498 PAGE 2 • 3. At the request of the Planning Commission, staff conducted a study of residences in the vicinity of the proposed project which showed an average residence size of 4,195 square feet. The Commission found that even if the existing lot is further subdivided, the southern portion of the lot will have 15 acres and a structural lot coverage of 2. 6\, the lot coverage maximum wi 11 not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this very large lot. 4. The length of the house from west to east is 189 feet, and from north to south is 213 feet at the west wing and 83 feet at the east wing. 5. The plans show a residential pad that will be below the brow of the hill facing north, surrounded by varying slopes that do not exceed 2:1 slopes. The building pad proposed is 57,920 square feet and structures on the building pad cover 31.4\ of the pad. 6. Access to the property will be from a new road off Storm Hill Lane that transverses the Bird property at 4 Storm Hill Lane. Plans show a hammerhead turnaround area where the driveway access meets Storm Hill Lane to accommodate safety vehicles. 7. A 4 foot wide bridle trail of decomposed granite is proposed adjacent to the 20 foot wide roadway along Storm Hill Lane to access the s\able at the southern portion of the building pad. 8. Grading for the project site will require 17,300 cubic yards of cut soil and 17,300 cubic yards of fill soil. 9. The structural lot coverage proposed is 18,241 square feet or 0.67\ and the total lot coverage proposed is 37,255 square feet or 1.37%. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 93-36. ® 963 City Op eOlt;r`•IZy INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.: 4.C. Mtg. Date: 11/27/2000 DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD TO CONSTRUCT A BARN AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 4 STORM HILL LANE IN ZONING CASE NO. 623. Mrs. Claudia Bird, 4 Storm Hill Lane, (Lot 169-A-MS) BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution No. 2000-29 on November 21, 2000 at their regular meeting approving a Variance to encroach into the front yard to construct a barn at a single family residential development. The vote was 5-0. 2 The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit the construction of a 449 square foot barn within the front yard area. There are other existing equestrian facilities within the front yard that include a 2,064 square foot barn, corral, riding ring, and horse exercise area. Other existing structures include a 10,344 square foot residence and garage, a 2,000 square foot pool cabana, and a 76 square foot pool/spa. The Planning Commission did not find it necessary to conduct a field inspection of the property. 3. On March 19, 1985, Mr. and Mrs. James Bird were granted a Conditional Use Permit for a pool house and tennis court in Zoning Case No. 309 with standard conditions for tennis courts and guest houses/servants quarters. The existing residence was completed in 1986 and the pool house was completed in 1989. Site Plan Review was adopted in 1988). On May 19, 1998, the Planning Commission granted a request for a Variance to permit encroachments into the Printed on Recycled Pape. 964 front yard for a barn, corral, riding ring, and granted a request for Site Plan Review approval to permit grading for the barn, corral, riding ring, and horse exercise area. 4. The existing driveway access off Storm Hill Lane will remain. 5. Grading for the project will not be required. 6. The barn will be accessed by a 15 foot wide trail that begins west of Storm Hill Lane and exits to Johns Canyon Road in the front yard. 7. The structural lot coverage proposed is 22,005 square feet or 4.5% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 48,770 square feet or 10.1% 35% permitted). 8. Structural coverage of the 47,480 square foot residential building pad is 10,344 square feet or 21.8%, building pad coverage on the 15,820 square foot tennis court and pool house pad is 9,072 square feet or 57.3%, the barn building pad coverage on the 9,560 square foot barn building pad is 2,064 square feet or 21.5% for the barn and corral area, and the proposed stable building pad coverage on the 3,000 square foot building pad is 449 square feet or 15.0 (The former graded exercise area became an additional pad for the proposed stable. Also, the applicant's calculations did not include that pad in the total building pads, hence the discrepancy in their calculation of pad coverage). Much of the existing residence encroaches into the front yard setback. The total pads are 75,860 square feet and coverage will be 22,005 square feet or 29.0% for all the pads. The Planning Commission's guideline is 30%. 8. The disturbed area of the lot will be 91,976 square feet or 19.1% (40% maximum permitted; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious "surfaces exist. 9. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 2000-29. 965 eere/ Reel", qieed INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 4B Mtg. Date: 6-13-11 DATE: JUNE 13, 2011 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THROUGH: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2011-07. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT, A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING FOR THE TENNIS COURT AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED GRADING QUANTITIES AND THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED GRADED AREA FOR A TENNIS COURT AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON A PROPERTY DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 801, AT 16 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 81-1-RH), (BHARADIA). PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1. ' Dr. and Mrs. Bharadia request Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Site Plan Review SPR), and Variances for a proposed 6,502 square foot tennis court and a Variance to encroach with 8 feet with an addition into the side yard setback on a property currently developed with a single family residence and accessory structures. The CUP is required because of the accessory sport court use, the SPR because grading is proposed, and ZC NO. 801 16 Pine Tree Ln. 966 Variances are required theof(1,430andth ebecausequantitygradingc.y.) t e surface area of grading (11,240 sq.ft.) exceed the maximum permitted for a sports court. A portion of the existing residence currently encroaches into the required side yard setback. 2. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution by a 4-0-1-0 vote, granting the request. Chairperson Smith was absent and excused. When the Planning Commission voted to direct staff to bring forth resolution of approval Chairperson Smith abstained. Chairperson Smith stated that the reason she abstained is that she felt that the development of the tennis court does not meet the intent and spirit of the General Plan in that it disturbs too large of a natural area of the lot. She also stated that the set aside area for a future stable and corral is not practicable for such construction. The resolution contains standard findings of facts and conditions, including: a. No parking is allowed in the cul-de-sac or on Pine Tree Lane. b. If access for construction is to be from the adjacent vacant lot, the applicant shall obtain permission, and proof submitted to City, from the property owners of said lot c. There shall be no grading on the adjacent lot for access to the construction site d. The applicant shall submit pictures of the adjacent site in the area of the access before and after construction e. The area used for access shall be returned to the pre -construction condition f. All conditions for a tennis court in Section 17.16.210 A7 shall be met, except where a Variance is granted g. The approval includes variances for the additional area of grading and greater quantity of grading to eliminate a 5' wall h. Access to the tennis court, after its completion, shall be provided on the same lot as the tennis court. The on grade existing access shall be utilized, which may not be graded. i. The tennis court shall be screened with shrubs and trees in a manner that would not result in a hedge like design and the trees at full maturity shall not result in obstructing of views. j. A landscaping plan and a bond (plus.15%) shall be submitted and held by the City for the landscaping. When approving this project, the Planning Commission found that the, project is tucked in and will be landscaped and screened from view from adjacent residents; the lot is large and significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property and maintain natural terrain; the project is not located in a canyon or on existing slopes that exceed 25%; the lot would not look overbuilt; the existing encroachment into the setback is greater than the proposed addition encroachment. BACKGROUND 3. The property is currently developed with a 4,749 square foot residence, 484 square foot garage, 759 square foot swimming pool, 597 square foot detached pool house, 200 square foot trellis, 122 square foot barbeque area and 129 square foot entryway. As ZC No. 801 16 Pine Tree Ln. 2- 967 indicated on the submitted Site Plan, an area has been set aside for a future stable and corral. The main residence was originally built in 1957, and over the years has undergone a number of additions and remodeling . (1957, 1966, 1967, 1977). In 2001 an extension of Pine Tree Lane and a new cul-de-sac were constructed, which was required for a lot -split approved for the site in 1996. 4. The applicants propose to demolish the existing 484 square foot garage and replace it with an 800 square foot garage, add a new entryway and a 975 square foot basement. With the dedication of the extension of Pine Tree Lane to the RHCA as a roadway easement, as part of the subdivision, the current residence and portion of the proposed residence would encroach into the side setback. 436 square feet of the existing residence encroaches between 8 and 20 feet into the side yard setback. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance a side yard setback of 35-feet is required in the RAS-2 zone, except that if a dedicated and developed roadway is adjacent to the side yard, then the setback is measured 25-feet from the roadway easement line. 5. The property is zoned RAS-2. The gross lot area is 2.73 acres. The net lot area for construction purposes is 2.31 acres or 100,624 square feet. Prior to the roadway easement dedication, the setback was measured from the property line, whereas after the dedication it is measured from the roadway easement line. 6. The applicants also propose to construct a 6,502 square foot tennis court towards the rear of the lot. A maximum 4-foot tall wall will be constructed along the interior sides of the court, and a 10-foot fence is proposed to wrap around the entire court. City's ordinance is silent on the height of tennis court fences. RHCA regulations allow maximum 10' high tennis court fences. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 7. To accommodate the new court surface, the applicant proposes to grade a maximum 2:1 slope on the south and east sides of the proposed court. The proposed earthwork would involve a total cut and fill of 1,430 cubic yards, which will remain on site including re -compaction. Vegetation is proposed along the sides of the court. The applicants propose to utilize a path along the existing natural grade to access the court from the pool area above. 8. The project requires a Conditional Use Permit for the recreational court use (RHMC 17.16.2109.A.7) and a Site Plan Review due to the grading (RHMC 17.46.020A.1). Variances are required for the tennis court because the amount of total graded material proposed 1,430 cubic yards) exceeds the maximum permitted (750 cubic yards) and the area of grading permitted (10,000 sq.ft.) exceeds the maximum permitted by 1,240 square feet and is proposed at 11,240 sq.ft. A Variance is also requested for the encroachment of the addition to the residence into the side yard setback. 9. Originally a not to exceed 5-foot high wall was proposed at the limit of grading for the tennis court, which would reduce the graded area by 1,000 sq.ft. The Planning Commission inquired if the wall could be -Dowered or eliminated, if more surface area was ZC No. 801 16 Pine Tree Ln. 968 allowed to be disturbed. The applicant proposed, and the Commission approved a continuation of the 2:1 slope from the tennis court, without the 5' wall. 10. The proposed 9,120 square foot pad for the new court will have 71.3% coverage. Although exceeding the guideline of maximum 30% coverage, the coverage proposed for the court is considered necessary to achieve the owner's goal for a recreational tennis court. The residential building pad is 12,800 square feet and will have coverage of 6,091 sq.ft. or 47.6%. Currently the pad coverage is at 41.6%. The pool pad is 3,950 square feet and has coverage of 1,420 sq.ft. or 35.9%. 11. The structural lot coverage is proposed at 14,663 square feet or 14.6%, which includes all the structures, including the tennis court (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage including the structures and all paved areas is proposed to be 25,960 square feet or 25.8% (35% permitted). 10. With the project, (including future stable and corral) 37,572 square feet or 37.3%.of the lot will be disturbed, an increase of 12.6% compared to existing, (40% total disturbance permitted). 11. Section 17.16.210 (A)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for recreational game courts, subject to approval of a use permit. These conditions, listed below, are intended to ensure that such structures: are ancillary recreational uses, do not eliminate an existing or future development for a stable, do not create visual or other impacts and blend in with the existing topography and landscape or views. Recreational Game Courts are defined as: tennis, racquetball and squash courts, and any other fenced, enclosed, paved or hard -surfaced areas used for recreational purposes. They shall adhere to the following conditions: REQUIREMENTS: A legally required and accessible stable and corral area shall be provided on site A game court shall not be located in the front yard or any setback; A game court shall not be located within fifty feet of any paved road or street easements; Retaining walls constructed for a game court shall not exceed four feet in height at any point along the wall; retaining walls shall not be exposed to the exterior; and if necessary to minimize the visual impact, the game court surface shall be inset or sunken below grade; ZC No. 801 16 Pine Tree Ln. PROPOSED: 1,000'sq.ft. accessible area is provided for a future stable and corral Proposed project is not in setback or front yard Proposed project is not located within fifty feet of any paved road or street easements 4' high retaining wall proposed along two sides of the inside court perimeter. This wall will not be visible from outside the court. 969 The construction of a game court shall conform to the lot coverage limitations as set forth in Section 17.16.070; A game court shall not be located on a slope that exceeds a 2:1 grade; A game court shall not be located on the side or bottom of a canyon or in the path of a natural drainage course; When grading is required for a game court, cutting and filling shall be balanced on site and shall not exceed a total cut and fill of 750 cubic yards; When grading is required for a game court, cutting and filling shall be balanced on site and shall not exceed 10,000 square feet; The existing topography, flora and natural features of the site shall be retained to the greatest extent possible; Drainage systems shall be incorporated into the game court and shall be approved by the City Engineer; A game court shall be adequately screened on all four sides; Landscape screening shall include native or other drought -tolerant mature trees and shrubs, which shall be maintained in a healthy condition. The landscape screening shall not exceed the mature height determined by the Planning Commission or City Council. Landscaping shall not interfere with the views of surrounding properties or pursuant to Chapter 17.26; Game court lighting shall not be permitted; Design and construction of a game court shall include methods to mitigate visual and noise impacts. ZC No. 801 16 Pine Tree Ln. All development standards for coverage are within the permitted standards Existing slope in court location is 4.5:1 in compliance) Location of proposed court is not in a canyon or in a natural drainage course Grading proposed to be balanced on site; however a Variance is requested because total is greater than 750 c.y. of dirt allowed. (1,430 c.y. is proposed). Graded area for the proposed court exceeds 10,000 sq.ft. (11,240 sq.ft.) and requires a Variance. Grading is proposed only to accommodate the sports court. Drainage improvement proposed - water collected on court to be conveyed to a dissipater to the rear, below the court area. Detailed landscaping plan is required during project plan -check. Conceptual plan shows vegetation to be planted on exterior sides of court for visual screening. Planning Commission condition to require that the applicant submit detailed plan. Landscaping bond is also required. Landscaping to be planted around court perimeter to be designed to screen the perimeter fencing, not in hedge like configuration. Condition imposed prohibiting lighting. Landscaping plan to be required for purpose of beautifying, and buffering the development. Daytime use only will minimize noise. 970 12. The plan provides for installation of a 6-inch diameter inlet pipe that will collect water at the outer northeast corner of the court and direct it to a dissipater at the base of the slope behind the court. This will prevent erosion of the slope below the court. CONCLUSION 13. When reviewing this development application the Planning Commission considered whether the proposed project is consistent with the ;City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 14. A tennis court is a use that requires a conditional use permit and must meet certain criteria as set by the State Zoning and Planning Law. In reviewing a CUP the Planning Commission must find that the use is consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City, including provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the use will not adversely affect adjacent properties. 15. With respect to the Conditional Use Permit, the applicants' representative states that the location of the proposed tennis court is the most ideal on the lot, and there are other recreational facilities in the neighborhood. The location will not obstruct views or be a nuisance to other residences and is isolated from other properties. With respect to the Site Plan Review, the applicant's representative states that the proposed grading is the minimum needed to create an almost regulation size court while maintaining all slope, drainage, setback and other requirements. 16. In response for justification for the Variances request to exceed the maximum permitted grading quantities and area of grading, the applicant's agent states that the current requirements for grading are not reasonable or practical in a hillside community. 750 cubic yards total, allows only 3-feet of depth over a 7,200 square foot area. The additional graded area is the minimum necessary to construct an almost regulation sized tennis court. The property overall, with 25.6% total coverage, which includes the court is not overbuilt. 17. With respect to the request for an addition that encroaches into the side setback, the applicant states that when the property was subdivided, the access was not a roadway easement and the setbacks were calculated differently. Since the RHCA took possession of the access as a roadway easement, the setbacks have changed in mid -stream of having the project approved. With the changes in the setbacks, a portion of the existing house encroaches into the side setback and is nonconforming. 18. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 19. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (e) of the California Environm i al Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines in that it ZC No. 801 16 Pine Tree Ln. 971 involves construction of a new accessory structure to the primary residential use and a small addition to an existing residence. Zoning Case 801 SITE PLAN REVIEW II EXISTING RA-S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Side: 35 ft. from side property line AND ACCESSORY Rear: 50 ft. from rear property line STRUCTURES Residence Garage Service yard Pool Pool equip. Pool house Stable (future) Entry Trellis Outdoor Kitchen Sports Court Basement I TOTAL GRADING N/A. Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft.) must be balanced on -site. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) Residential Pool pad Tennis Court Stable (future) DISTURBED AREA 40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SO.FT. 550 SO.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC No. 801 16 Pine Tree Ln. 4749 sq.ft. 484 sq.ft 96 sq.ft 759 sq.ft 64 sq.ft. 597 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft 129 sq.ft. 200 sq.ft. 122 sq.ft. 7,200 sq.ft. II PROPOSED TENNIS COURT AND ADDITION SPR, CUP and VARIANCES) Residence Garage Service yard Pool Pool equipm. Pool house Stable (future) Entry Trellis Outdoor Kitchen Sports Court Basement TOTAL 1,430 cubic yd total 715 cubic yd cut / 715 Variance required 4924 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 759 sq.ft. 64 sq.ft. 597 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 129 sq.ft. 200 sq.ft. 122 sq.ft. 6502 sq.ft. 975 sq.ft. 14,785 sq.ft cubic yd fill 6.7% I 14,663 s.f. or 14.6% of 100,624 sq.ft. net lot area (excl. bbq) 118.2% 125,960 s.f. or 25.8% of 100,624 sq.ft. net lot area 41.6% 35.9% of 3,950 sq.ft. pad 24.7% N/A N/A IExisting driveway approach from Pine Tree Lane. I N/A I N/A CO 47.6% of 12,800 sq.ft. pad 35.9% of 3,950 sq.ft. pad 71.3% of 9,120 sq. ft. pad 45% 37.3% (w/future stable) Future Future path adjacent to driveway north-west of home Existing driveway approach from Pine Tree Lane. Planning Commission conditions Planning Commission conditions 972 SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions ZC No. 801 16 Pine Tree Ln. 973 and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title. SOURCE:. City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Reauired findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and . G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC No. 801 16 Pine Tree Ln. 974 City of Rolling Hills INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 - 1 - Agenda Item No.: 5B Mtg. Date: 08/12/2019 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THROUGH: ELAINE JENG, P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE RESOLUTION NO. 2019- 13 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE, INCLUDING ATTACHED GARAGE AND BASEMENT, RETAINING WALL, SWIMMING POOL, AND GRADING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE; AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED COVERAGE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY IN ZONING CASE NO. 956 AT 8 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (ZHANG). AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE DRIVEWAY APRON. DATE: AUGUST 12, 2019 ATTACHMENT: 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-13 _______________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND The Planning Commission at their July 18, 2019 meeting adopted Resolution No. 2019- 13 granting a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the 975 - 2 - construction of a new residence with a basement, garage, swimming pool, guest house, driveway and other outdoor amenities on a vacant parcel. The Planning Commission found that the final project is compatible with the neighborhood, that the lot is not overbuilt nor the structures obtrusive and the project meets the development standards for coverages and setbacks, leaving a substantial portion of the lot in its natural state. They also fund that the Variance for the coverage of the setback by a driveway is a health and safety compliance driven by the Fire Department. DISCUSSION Site Plan Review The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review, (SPR), to construct a 6,201 square foot residence with 3,000 square foot basement, 880 square foot garage, 1,222 square feet porches, an entryway, 1,172 square foot swimming pool with 40 square foot pool equipment, 400 square foot outdoor kitchen, service yard area and grading of 6,790 cubic yards of cut and 5,955 cubic yards of fill, with 835 cubic yards of dirt to be exported from the excavation of the basement and pool. A SPR is also requested for one not to exceed 5’ high retaining wall along the driveway. Conditional Use Permit A Condition Use Permit is requested to construct an 800 square foot guest house with 337 square foot attached porch. Variances Variances are requested to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot to up to 49.9%, where maximum permitted is 40%; and to exceed the 20% maximum permitted coverage of a setback with a driveway. The driveway is proposed to cover 33.3% of the front setback. The proposed driveway follows the length of the house and its configuration is dictated by the Fire Department. Zoning and Land Size The property is zoned RAS-2 and excluding roadway easement the lot is 3.45 acres in size. For development purposes the net lot area is 3.1 acres, (137,810 sq.ft.). The lot is vacant. The lot is long and narrow, having a very long frontage along Middleridge Lane South. Development Standards The project will be developed to the following development standards:  8.2% - Structural Coverage of the net lot  20.5% - Total coverage of the net lot (structures and hardscape)  35.9% - Building pad coverage  Grading - 6,790 cubic yards cut and 5,955 cubic yards fill; 835 cubic yards to be exported (basement and/or pool)  49.9% -Disturbance of the net lot (variance requested)  33.3% - Driveway coverage of the front setback (variance requested) 976 - 3 -  Height - The highest ridgeline of the house is proposed at 18’2” from the finished grade. The ridge is then steppes down to 13’3”. The guest house will have a height of 14’10” along the north elevation and 13’10’ elsewhere.  1,000 square foot set aside area has been designated for a future stable and corral Environmental Review The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 3, Section 15303. New construction of a single family residence and accessory structures. TRAFFIC COMMISSION REVIEW Driveway Prior to applying to the City for development and a driveway, the architect developed a conceptual plan of the house, fitting it on the flattest portion of the lot, where least amount of grading would be required, and submitted the plan to the Fire Department. The Fire Department informed the applicant that regardless of the shape and location of the house, a 20’ wide driveway would be required and a turn around area for fire engines. Subsequently, the architect submitted an application to the Traffic Commission for a driveway apron. Due to Middleridge Lane South residents’ comments and opinion on preferred location of the apron and Traffic Engineer's recommendations, the Traffic Commission reviewed several iterations of the driveway apron. Due to the curved nature and steepness of the lot, the applicant had difficulty in meeting the required sight distances for visibility of on-coming traffic. Ultimately, the Traffic Engineer concurred that the proposed location would be acceptable. At the May 23, 2019 Traffic Commission meeting, members of the Traffic Commission memorialized the recommendation to approve the driveway apron. The City Council makes the final decision on Traffic Commission’s recommendations. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND AMENDED PROJECT Throughout the public input process during the Planning Commission proceedings, the project was substantially decreased in scope. The Planning Commission held four public hearings and 2 field trips, before approving the project. Many of the residents of Middleridge Lane South provided input, correspondence and were present at all of the meetings. The applicant made the following changes since the first submittal in February:  Reduced the size of the house by 1,163 sq.ft.  Reduced the size of the garage by 277 sq.ft.  Reduced the size of porches by 478 sq.ft.  Increased the basement by 1,000 sq.ft.  Shrunk the length of the house/garage by 30’ 977 - 4 -  Lowered the building pad by 6’  Stepped down the roof line on both sides of the entry  Eliminated a long retaining wall along the driveway and a wall along the guest house  Moved the guest house away from the street  Moved the house footprint about 6-10’ east and south for additional separation to northerly neighbor.  Created gentler grades with 2.5:1 and 3:1 slopes throughout the graded areas RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report and approve the driveway apron. 978 City of Rolling Hills 2979 980 981