Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Rolling Hills City Council
January 10, 2022

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
January 10, 2022
Body
Rolling Hills City Council
Pages
6
Original file
174.2 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on rollinghillsca.api.civicclerk.com. That file is the official record.

The responses suggest stronger demand for traditional ADUs than Junior ADUs, given the large number of respondents indicating they would built or convert an accessory structure, rather than use space within their own homes.

Likely Use of Future ADUs
Respondents were asked how they would use an ADU on their property if they developed one in the future. The responses to this question are important, as the objective of the program is to create rental housing opportunities or opportunities for on-site care givers. Using the ADU as a home office or space for occasional house guests would not accomplish State-mandated housing program goals. Figure C-4 shows the responses to the question.

Figure C-4: Likely Use of Future ADUs (N=192)
The responses indicate that roughly one-third would use the ADU for another household, including 16 who suggested they would rent it to a tenant and 48 who suggested they would use it for a domestic employee or caregiver. The latter statistic is particularly important, as it suggests a potential resource for health care workers, elder care professionals, construction and landscape workers, and others who may work in Rolling Hills but lack the financial resources to live here. Nearly a third of the respondents indicated they would use the ADU for a family For rent to a tenant
(16)
8%
For a family
member
(60)
31%
For
myself
(18)
9%
For an employee or
caregiver (48)
24%
For occasional
visitors (50)
25%
Other (5)
3%
Question: If you had a legal
ADU on your property, how
would you most likely use it?
(192 replies)
296

D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-7 member. The family member could be an extension of their own household or a relative or relatives living independently as a separate household. It is worth noting that only a quarter of the respondents indicated they would use the ADU for occasional visitors—historically, this has been the intended use of guest houses in the city.

Use of ADUs as Affordable Housing
Respondents were asked if they would consider limiting the rent on an ADU so that the unit was affordable to a lower income household. The question specifically asked if the respondent would consider a deed restriction that maintained the rent at a reduced rate (such as $1,200/ month for a two-person household) to help the City meet its State-mandated affordable housing requirements. Of the 194 surveys returned, 25 indicated they would consider this and another 20 indicated they might consider this (“maybe”). This represents nearly one-quarter of the total respondents. Another one-quarter indicated they would need more information before deciding.

About 35 percent indicated they would not consider a lower income affordability restriction and 15 percent did not respond.

Figure C-5 shows the responses to this question. The data suggests that an “affordable” ADU program could generate sufficient participation for the City to meet its entire lower-income housing allocation through ADUs.

Figure C-5: Viability of ADUs to Meet Very Low Income Housing Assignment (N=194) For the 98 respondents who answered “Yes”, “Maybe,” or “Need More Information”, the survey asked a follow-up question, which is the maximum length of time the respondent would consider acceptable for an affordability deed restriction. Two respondents did not reply, but the other 96 provided the answers below:
• 20 would consider a 5-year term
• 2 would consider a 10-year term
Yes (25)
13%
Maybe
(20)
10%
Need More Info
(53)
27%
No (68)
35%
Didn't reply (28)
15%
Question: If you
had a legal ADU
on your property,
would you
consider a deed
restriction that
maintained the
rent at a reduced
rate to help the
City meet its
State-mandated
affordable
housing
requirements?
297

D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-8 • 3 would consider a 20-year term
• 17 would consider a deed restriction that ended when they sold the house • 59 were not sure or answered “other”
The responses suggest that long-term deed restrictions (10 or 20 years) and affordability contracts that “run with the land” would have limited participation. Residents are more open to short-term arrangements such as five-year affordability terms, and flexible arrangements that would not encumber the resale of their homes. This is an important consideration in the event a program is established.

Incentives
The final question in the survey asked respondents to select from a menu of possible incentives that might make a rent-restriction on an ADU more acceptable to them. Respondents were invited to select as many of the choices as they wanted. The most frequently selected options are shown in descending order in Figure C-6 below:

Figure C-6: Ranking of Potential Affordable ADU Incentives The most frequently selected option was “nothing.” However, 55 respondents indicated that fee waivers or reductions would be an incentive, and 50 said expedited permitting would be an incentive. Many respondents were also supportive of the idea of rent-restricted ADUs serving local essential service workers such as fire-fighters and teachers. The least popular incentive was assistance in finding a tenant.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Question: What
incentives might
make a rent
restriction more
attractive to you?
298

D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-9 Other Comments
The survey provided an opportunity for residents to make general open-ended comments on ADUs and housing issues in Rolling Hills, as well as the factors the City should consider as new ADU policies and regulations are developed. Feedback was provided by 52 of the respondents.

This is summarized below.

Most of the open-ended comments expressed negative views about ADUs and their potential impacts on the character of Rolling Hills, as well as concerns with State housing mandates and the erosion of local land use control. Numerous concerns were raised about safety, security, and privacy. There were also concerns expressed about noise, parking, traffic, evacuation capacity, and impacts on the community’s rural, equestrian feel. Some respondents expressed concerns that they would not be able to choose their own tenants if they created an ADU or would be penalized if they created an ADU but did not rent it. Questions were also raised about property tax impacts, septic system impacts, and whether tenants would pay association dues and have access to RHCA facilities.

There were also supportive comments, particularly from persons interested in creating ADUs for aging parents, or for themselves to age in place while renting out their primary home. Several respondents indicated an interest in renting space to a care giver. One respondent suggested prioritizing rentals to employees of the RHCA. Some respondents expressed their support for the idea of using the school property to meet affordable housing needs rather than relying on ADUs.

Survey
A copy of the survey mailed to residents follows this page. 299

D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-10 300

D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W
Appendix C: ADU Survey Report Page C-11
City of Rolling Hills Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey
October 2020
Dear Resident:

Please take a few minutes to complete this survey about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Rolling Hills. Your
responses will help us understand community goals and
concerns and will be used to develop new policies for
consideration by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission and City Council.

State law requires that all cities and counties allow ADUs, provided they meet certain standards. Some of the
potential benefits of ADUs include rental income for
homeowners, on-site living space for caregivers or
household employees, and accommodation of extended
family (adult children, parents, etc.). ADUs can also help residents “age in place,” particularly as homeowners need more care or assistance.

The City’s objective in carrying out this survey is to
determine the level of interest in ADUs among Rolling Hills residents and evaluate their potential to meet local housing needs. Like all cities in California, Rolling Hills is required by State law to provide for its “fair share” of the region’s housing needs, including low- and very low-income
households. ADUs provide a way to do that without
significantly changing the character or appearance of the community. Some communities even provide special
incentives for homeowners who rent ADUs at reduced rates to very low-income households, including household
employees and local essential service employees.

The deadline for returning your survey is November 20,
2020. Please use the enclosed postage-paid envelope to
return the survey to City Hall by this date. If you would prefer to complete the survey on-line, please visit
www.surveymonkey.com//rollinghillsADUsurvey.

Please do not include your name or address on the survey as the intent is for all responses to be anonymous. If you have questions about the survey or about ADUs in Rolling Hills, please call Meredith Elguira at (310) 377-1521.

What are ADUs and JADUs?
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are
sometimes referred to as “in-law
apartments” or “second units.” They are
small independent dwelling units that exist
on single family properties, either in a
detached structure or as part of the
primary structure with a separate
entrance. ADUs include a bedroom or
sleeping area, a bathroom, and cooking
facilities.

Rolling Hills has adopted specific zoning
standards for ADUs as required by state
law. The maximum allowable size is 850
square feet for a studio or one-bedroom
and 1,000 square feet for a two bedroom.

Other standards also apply.

Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs)
are a type of ADU created by converting
existing living space inside a single-family
home (usually a bedroom) to a separate
living space. They have a maximum size
of 500 square feet. JADUs may have their
own kitchenette or bathroom, or they may
share the facilities in the primary
residence.

State law allows a property to have both
an ADU and a JADU if certain
requirements are met.
301

D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W
Appendix C: ADU Survey Report Page C-12
Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey!
Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey

1. Does your property include any of the following features? (circle all that apply) A. A legally permitted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) with kitchen, bath, and separate entrance? B. A guest house, pool house, casita, barn or other outbuilding that has heat and plumbing? _____ Check here if the space has a kitchen or other cooking facilities C. A space inside your house with a separate entrance from outside and independent living quarters, including a bedroom/ sleeping area and bathroom?
_____ Check here if the space also has its own kitchen or cooking facilities D. Another space within your house that could easily be converted into an accessory dwelling unit?

2. If you circled one of the choices above, how is the space currently used? (If you circled more than one choice, please provide a response for each applicable space on your property. Use the blank line to the right of each choice below to describe the space you’re referring to).

A. It is occupied by a tenant paying rent ____________________________________ B. It is occupied by a family member or long-term visitor who is not part of my household ___________ C. It is occupied by a caretaker or household employee(s) ____________________________________ D. It is used occasionally by guests or visitors ____________________________________ E. My own household uses the space ____________________________________ F. The space is currently not occupied by anyone, or is used for storage ___________________________ G. Not applicable
2A. About how large is the space of each applicable feature from Question 1 (in square feet)? (please skip question if not applicable)
__________________ ___________________ _________________ 2B. If rent is collected for the space, what is the monthly amount? (if multiple spaces are rented, please indicate the rent for each area). (Please skip question if not applicable) __________________ ___________________ _________________ 302

D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W
Appendix C: ADU Survey Report Page C-13

3. If you have space on your property occupied by a household other than your own, please circle the category in the table below that most closely matches their annual income based on the number of persons in their household, if you know that amount. Recent data from the US Census indicates that 16 percent of Rolling Hills households have annual incomes below $50,000. ADUs (or potential ADUs) may provide a resource for these households. If Question 3 does not apply to your property, please skip to Question 4.

Number of Persons in the Household (for other occupants only, not your own household) 1 2 3 4 5 6
Annual Income
$23,700 or less $27,050 or less $30,450 or less $33,800 or less $36,550 or less $39,250 or less $23,700-
$39,450
$27,050-
$45,050
$30,450-
$50,700
$33,800-
$56,300
$36,550-
$60,850
$39,250-
$65,350
$39,450-
$63,100
$45,050-
$72,100
$50,700-
$81,100
$56,300-
$90,100
$60,850-
$97,350
$65,350-
$104,550
$63,100 or
more
$72,100 or
more
$81,100 or
more
$90,100 or
more
$97,350 or more $104,550 or
more

4. If you don’t currently have a legal ADU on your property, would you consider developing one? (circle one answer)
No Probably Not Not Sure/ Neutral Maybe, but not at
this time Yes
4A. If you answered A, B, or C, what are the reasons? (Circle All that Apply) No Interest Cost Loss of Privacy Permitting
Process
Don’t Want to
Deal with
Tenants
No Space
Other (please explain below)_____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

5. If you decided to build an ADU on your property, where would it be located? (circle one) New
detached
structure
on my
property
Conversion of an
existing accessory
building on my
property (e.g., guest
house, barn, etc.)
An addition
to my house
Conversion of space
already within the
footprint of my house
Not sure
I would not add
an ADU on my
property

6. If you had a legally approved ADU on your property, how would you most likely use it? (circle one) For rent to
a tenant
For a family member
For myself For a household
employee of caregiver
For occasional
visitors
Other
303

D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W
Appendix C: ADU Survey Report Page C-14

7. If you had a legally approved ADU on your property, would you consider a deed restriction that maintained the rent at a reduced rate (for example $1,200/month, which is considered the threshold for an “affordable” housing unit for a two person very low income household) to help the City meet its State-mandated affordable housing requirements? (circle one) A. Yes
B. Maybe
C. I would need more information first
D. No
7A. If your answer to Question 7 was A-C, what would be the maximum length of time you would consider for the rent restriction? (circle one)
A. Five years
B. 10 years
C. 20 years
D. Until I sell the house
E. Not Sure
F. Other _______________________
7B: What incentives might make a rent restriction more attractive to you? (circle all that apply) A. No parking requirement
B. Reduced (or no) permit fees
C. Expedited permit processing
D. Assistance in finding a tenant
E. Rent supplement for the tenant
F. Local tenant (e.g., school teacher,
fire fighter, child care worker)
G. Senior tenant
H. Low-interest financing to create the ADU
I. Permission to build a unit larger
than 1,000 square feet
J. Nothing
K. Other _______________________

8. To ensure that we are hearing from a cross-section of the community, please tell us a little about you:

How Long Have You
Lived in Rolling Hills?
Less than 10 years
10-19 years
20-29 years
More than 30 years
Circle one choice in each box
Are you a Homeowner
or a Renter?
Homeowner
Renter
Age
Under 35
35-49
50-64
65+
How Many People Are
in Your Household?
1 4
2 5
3 6 or more

9. Please share any concerns you may have about ADUs in Rolling Hills, or factors you’d like us to consider as new ADU policies and regulations are developed:
304
1/10/2022
1 2021-2029

ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT
City Council Hearing
JANUARY 10, 2022
Background
 Required element of every General Plan
 Expresses City policies for housing
conservation, housing production, and
affordable housing
 Contents established by State law—many
prescriptive statutory requirements
 Subject to certification by State HCD
 Failure to comply can lead to loss of
eligibility for funds and legal risk
 Updated on eight-year cycle
Fifth Cycle:

Oct 2013 – Oct 2021
Sixth Cycle:

Oct 2021 – Oct 2029
305
1/10/2022
2 Timeline
 5th Cycle Element adopted in February 2014 -- not certified by State  City amended Element in 2020-2021 in response to HCD objections  Other cities were preparing 6th Cycle elements during this time  Amended Element certified in July 2021
 6th Cycle Element prepared in August-November 2021
 6th Cycle adoption deadline was October 15, with 120-day “grace period” (February 12, 2022)
Status of Elements in LA County
(1/5/22)
9 25
42 12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Nothing Submitted to HCD Yet
Draft Currently Under Review
Draft Reviewed and Found Non-Compliant
Adopted, Compliance Determination Pending
306
1/10/2022
3 Adoption Process
City prepares
HCD Draft,
circulates draft
for 30 days
(plus 10 days to
respond to
comments)
City submits
Draft to HCD.

HCD has 90 days
to issue
comments (per
AB 215).

City amends HCD
Draft in response to
HCD comments
(iterative process with
HCD)
City adopts Draft
(Planning Commission
and City Council
hearings, plus CEQA
review)
Amended Draft
submitted to HCD.

HCD has 60 days to
make compliance
determination.

Further
amendments if
non-compliant
Finding of
Compliance
Contents
Evaluation of
Prior Element
Needs
Assessment
Constraints
Analysis
Sites Analysis
Resources
Analysis
Affirmatively
Furthering
Fair Housing
Goals, Policies, Programs, and Objectives
307
1/10/2022
4 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA)
8 5 20
9 5
11 10
5 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
2005-2021
Cycle 6
2021-2029
Cycles 4+5
• City must plan for 60%
increase in number of
units relative to last
Element
• Number of “lower
income” units has
increased by 123%
Meeting the RHNA
 5 new market rate single family homes (3 already approved)  16 units of affordable multi-family housing on Rancho Del Mar site  5 accessory dwelling units per year (plus 9 already approved)  City has provided data demonstrating that at least 13 of these ADUs will be affordable to lower-income households
 Units created and occupied by family members or household employees for no rent or reduced rent may be counted as long as they can be documented by the City
308
1/10/2022
5 Data on ADU Rentals
Citation: SCAG survey of ADU
rents in coastal LA County
indicates 15% were affordable
to extremely low income HH
Citation: Craigslist ads for ADUs on
PV Peninsula indicates several
units at $1,200 or less
Program Recommendations
 Many recommendations are carried over from 5th Cycle
 State-mandated Zoning code amendments
 Ongoing activities (code enforcement, permit streamlining)  New recommendations relate to:
 Incentives for ADUs
 Record-keeping to track ADUs
 Education and outreach about ADUs
 Amend RHCA guidelines to address ADUs
 Fair housing enforcement
309
1/10/2022
6 Review Process for HCD Draft
 Document was published December 3, 2021
 Notice was provided to every household through Blue newsletter  Notices were sent to housing advocacy groups/ supportive service providers
 Tribal notification was conducted (for CEQA)
 Planning Commission held hearing on December 16, 2021  30-day review period ended on January 2, 2022
 No substantive comments on the Housing Element were received Next Steps
 January 11: Transmit draft to HCD for expedited review  Receive HCD comments and revise Element
 Release Revised Draft and CEQA document
 Return to Planning Commission and City Council for adoption  By February 12 if possible
 Otherwise, by March-April 2022
310
1/10/2022
7 2021-2029

ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT
City Council Hearing
JANUARY 10, 2022
THANK YOU!
311
Agenda Item No.: 9.A
Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE THE FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SEWER

CONNECTIONS ALONG PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH
(WILLIAMSBURG AND MIDDLERIDGE LANE) AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF.

DATE: January 10, 2022
BACKGROUND:

At the May 24, 2021 City Council meeting, two residents reported that they plan to construct sewer main lines along Williamsburg Lane and Middleridge Lane to serve the residents along these streets.

The residents also noted that their proposed lines need an outlet. Since the City secured approvals from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District to discharge effluent from 235 homes within city limits to the County's treatment facility, the residents requested the City to allow the effluent from their proposed lines to discharge to the new 8" sewer main along Rolling Hills Road. In May, the residents expressed that the design of the 8" could be expanded to include a future connection to their proposed lines. The design of the 8" sewer main is complete as of November 2021. As a part of the design process, the completed plans are being reviewed by adjacent agencies for comments.

In response to the residents' request, in June 2021, the City Council engaged Willdan Engineering (Willdan) to provide a feasibility study possible connections from the residents' proposed sewer lines to the 8" sewer main along Rolling Hills Road. The scope of work for the feasibility study also included analyzing upstream areas that could connect to the residents' proposed sewer lines in the future.

DISCUSSION:

The feasibility study recommended three options to discharge the effluent from the residents' proposed sewer lines. Option 1 includes the Middleridge line discharging to an existing Los Angeles County trunk line along Crenshaw Boulevard via gravity flow. Option 2 includes Williamsburg line discharging via gravity flow to Rolling Hills Estates existing pump station at Dobbin Lane. Option 3 includes Middleridge and Williamsburg lines discharging to the 8" sewer main along Rolling Hills Road via a pump station. There is a low point along Palos Verdes Drive North (due to the existing utilities lines underground), between the extension of the Middleridge and Williamsburg streets.

Running sewer lines through the low point would result in the sewer line having only approximately three to four fee of cover (dirt above the pipeline). Design standards call for the sewer line to be much 312
deeper to avoid impacts from surface activities.

Each option excluded the cost of the sewer connection from Middleridge Lane North and Williamsburg Lane to Palos Verdes Drive North. This cost is assumed to be included the residents' cost of installing the private sewer lines. Willdan noted that there are potential constraints on Palos Verdes Drive North that went beyond the scope of work of the feasibility study and would need to be analyzed in the design phase to verify that option 1 and option 2 are viable.

Willdan worked with the City's Project Manager Alan Palermo to develop estimates of probable cost for each option.

Option 1: $1,352,284
Option 2: $1,012,363
Option 3: $1,703,300
Willdan also analyzed the effluent discharge of the homes located upstream of the residents' proposed limits for the sewer lines. Based on the number of homes, the proposed size of the residents' pipes, and topography, Willdan concluded that the upstream effluent can be accepted in the downstream proposed lines and that the topography will allow the upstream effluent to be accepted via gravity flow.

Attached to this report is the final feasibility study.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost of the feasibility study was $14,588. This amount was budgeted in the Utility Fund for FY2021-2022.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file study and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

RH Sewer Feasibility Study Ph III 09-3-2021-Complete (1).pdf 313

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
SEWER SERVICE FEASIBILITY STUDY – PHASE III

MIDDLERIDGE LANE AND WILLIAMSBURG LANE
Prepared Under the Supervision of
Tyrone Peter, P.E.

R.C.E. No. 81888
Willdan Engineering
2401 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 300
Anaheim, California 92806
(714) 940-6300
September 2021

FINAL SUBMITTAL
314

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Project Area…………………………………………………………………………………... 3
Methodology………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
Sewer Pipe Capacity Analysis…………………………………………………………….. 7 Flow Coefficients…………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Flow Generation Analysis………………………………………………………………….. 9
Option 1……………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
Option 2……………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Option 3……………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
Other Options………………………………………………………………………………… 17
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Appendices
A Project Location Map
B Project Area Map and Conveyance Options Map
C Conveyance of Upstream Parcels to Rolling Hills Road
D As-Built Information
E Zoning Information
F LACDPW Sewer Capacity Policy
G LACDPW Flow Generation Coefficients
H Google Earth Image
I Option 1 Exhibits
J Option 2 Exhibits
K Option 3 Exhibits
315
1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Rolling Hills, CA (“City”) has retained Willdan Engineering to conduct research and analysis to study the feasibility of providing sanitary sewer service to two streets located west of City Hall; Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane (See Project Location Map - Appendix A).

Properties on these streets, and the area upstream thereof, are not currently served by sanitary sewer lines. Willdan has performed three separate studies over the last 13 years to study the general nature of the sewer service potential in the area, however this study is specific to the Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane streets.

The three previous studies are:

City of Rolling Hills Sewer Feasibility Study, September 2008 (2008 Study):

This study analyzed gravity sewer systems, Low Pressure Sewer (LPS) systems and combination gravity/LPS to serve the City.

Sewer Feasibility Study Including City Hall and Tennis Court Site” (Phase I), October 2018:

This study conducted concept level research and engineering feasibility evaluation regarding the potential of connecting the Project Area (City Hall, POA building, and the tennis court site, and upstream properties) to existing downstream sanitary sewer systems.

Sewer Feasibility Study Including City Hall and Tennis Court Site” (Phase II), May 2020:

This study involved the preparation of a Sewer Area Study and preliminary engineering plans for the extension of the sewer in Rolling Hills Road to serve the City Hall and Tennis Court Site. The documents prepared were submitted to and approved by:

City of Rolling Hills Estates
City of Torrance
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW)
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (CSD) 316
2 The three studies included research and conceptual level design of the sewer drainage of parcels south of Palos Verdes Drive North (PVDN), upstream of City Hall. It was noted in all three studies that providing sewer service to these properties may require pumps and easements due to topographic constraints. The 2008 report also studied a LPS to provide sewer service in this area.

Subsequent to the Phase II Study, the City contracted with another consultant to produce construction documents for the extension of the sewer in Rolling Hills Road to serve the City Hall and Tennis Court site. The City now seeks to study providing sanitary sewer to Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane. The project proposal included the study of two potential conveyance options; convey northwest within PVDN to a trunk sewer in Crenshaw Boulevard; or convey southeast within PVDN to the sewer being constructed within Rolling Hills Road. During the performance of the study a third conveyance option was studied; convey north across PVDN to the existing sewer within Dobbin Lane.

In the performance of this study as-built information for downstream sewers was obtained and evaluated to determine conveyance feasibility. Topographical information was based on available GIS topography information and Google Earth data. Sewer flow generation rates were also calculated to evaluate downstream pipe capacity. The evaluation performed is concept level as limited topographic information was available and further design and evaluation will be required to produce preliminary engineering designs. Design concepts are presented which contain both gravity flow and pumping conditions; LPS systems were not considered in this study as they were thoroughly addressed in the 2008 Study.
317
3 PROJECT AREA
The project area for this study is Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane. However, as sewer design must account for future conditions, the area of Rolling Hills upstream of these two streets was also evaluated. The overall project area is shown on the Project Area Map in Appendix B.

The 2008 study determined sewersheds within the Project Area based on topography and this same information was utilized for this study. The conveyance options are also shown on the Project Area Map and in Figure No. 1 below as follows:

Option 1: convey northwest within PVDN to a trunk sewer in Crenshaw Boulevard Option 2: convey north across PVDN to the existing sewer within Dobbin Lane Option 3: convey southeast within PVDN to the sewer being constructed within Rolling Hills Road Conveyance Options
FIGURE NO. 1
318
4 As mentioned above, the area upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane was also researched and evaluated. This area was previously included in the 2008 Study and the Phase II Study. Utilizing the information from the 2008 Study, Sewer Areas 9, 13, 18 were evaluated.

The 2008 Study evaluated Area 9 as being pumped south to Crest Road to keep all sewer lines within existing rights of way. Areas 13 and 18 (portion) convey by gravity flow to Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane respectively. For the subject study, to be conservative, Area 9 was also evaluated as conveying north into Area 18, to agree with the topography, even though right-ofway does not exist between these two areas. This conveyance would require an easement, but would eliminate the need for pumping back to Crest Road. For the scope of the subject project, what is required is that the sewer flow from Area 9 is accounted for in the sewer modeling, not whether it is in right-of-way or in an easement. Also, for the subject study, the upper portion of Area 18 was assumed to flow into Area 17, based on the topography and the conveyance path to Rolling Hills Road, which concurs with the Phase II Study.

It should be noted that the Phase II Study evaluated the upstream area of Areas 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 as tributary to Rolling Hills Road. A Will-Serve Letter was obtained from the Sanitation District of Los Angeles County and a Sewer Area Study was prepared and approved by LACDPW for the conveyance of this much larger area to Rolling Hills Road. Therefore, the subject study evaluated the potential of conveying flow from portions of Areas 9, 13 and 18, upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane, to Portuguese Bend Road / Rolling Hills Road (see Figure No. 2 below and in more detail in Appendix C). This conveyance pattern agrees with the Phase II Study and would minimize the amount of flow to the downstream connection points. To be conservative, the analysis also evaluated the flow from Areas 9, 13 and 18 (portion) conveying to PVDN and to the connection points in Options 1, 2, and 3. It is noted that although the conveyance to Portuguese Bend Road is feasible, engineering challenges would need to be addressed including shallow sewers, deep manholes, and the potential need for pump stations. 319
5 Area Upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane FIGURE NO. 2
320
6 METHODOLOGY
This study performs analyses of the sanitary sewer lines assuming full build out conditions. The model determines all areas conveying to the sanitary sewer line and analyzes the hydraulic characteristics of the flow in the pipes. To perform this analysis, the following information was required:

1. Information on the existing sewer: pipe size, slope, and lengths

2. Information on the zoning and land use of the contributing parcels

3. Information on the contributing parcel sizes
Existing information was obtained through research of available as-built information online and contained within the referenced studies. Available relevant as-built information from LACDPW is contained in Appendix D.

Zoning and Land Use information was obtained by utilizing topographical, land use, zoning, and parcel information available online, in GIS databases and from the referenced studies. (See Appendix E)
Information obtained was utilized to determine the waste flow generated by the properties. The flow generated by the parcels is a multiplication of the parcel acreage and a zoning flow coefficient for existing development. Discussion on the flow coefficients is contained in a following section of this report. Once the generated flow is determined, it is added to the sewer system proceeding upstream to downstream. The pipes between successive manholes are then analyzed to determine the hydraulic characteristics. This is accomplished by utilizing the as-built information obtained in Item 1 and performing hydraulic calculations in accordance with LACDPW requirements.
321
7 The hydraulic modeling begins at the upstream end of the system and proceeds downstream.

Flows from the contributing parcels are accumulated at the manholes where they enter the system. Each pipe segment along the critical path is then hydraulically analyzed. LACDPW Capacity Policy (See Appendix F) defines capacity of the sewer mainline as:
< 15” diameter ½ full = 100% Capacity (flow depth / pipe diameter) > 15” diameter ¾ full = 100% Capacity (flow depth / pipe diameter) All pipes in the system are 8” diameter pipes, therefore the design capacity is ½ full. Each pipe segment was then compared to the 100% capacity (1/2 full) value to determine its’ relative capacity, i.e., < 100% (< ½ full) is under capacity and > 100% (> ½ full) is over capacity. Segments that are over 100% capacity would be required to have the pipe size increased to bring that segment under capacity.

SEWER PIPE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
As mentioned previously, the design capacity is ½ full for pipes < 15” in diameter. LACDPW requires that the pipe flow be calculated by using Kutter’s formula, which is stated below:

Q = AC(RS)^(1/2)
C = 41.65 + (0.00281/S) + (1.811/n)
1 + (41.65 + 0.00281/S) * n/(R)^(1/2)
Where Q = Discharge (cfs)
C = Chezy coefficient
A = Flow Area (sf)
R = Hydraulic Radius (ft)
S = Pipe Slope (ft/ft)
n = 0.013
322
8 It is noted that for ½ full, R = Diameter / 4
Utilizing Kutter’s Formula, the analyses determined the Design Capacity for each pipe segment.

This was calculated in a spreadsheet and is included on each exhibit.

FLOW COEFFICIENTS
Information regarding flow generation coefficients and rates was obtained from the LACDPW.

The LACDPW table (See Appendix G) provides information on Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies and Zoning Coefficients based on zoning. The upper table values are gallons/day and must be multiplied by 2.5 to obtain peak flow values. The lower table values are in cfs/acre and are multiplied by the appropriate acreage to achieve peak flows. The parcels in the project area are large. Per the City of Rolling Hills zoning information in Appendix E, the parcels in the study area are RAS-1, minimum lots size 1 acre, and RAS-2, minimum lot size 2 acres. The zoning information for the City of Rolling Hills Estates in Appendix E indicates the residential parcels in the study area are Residential Low Density (20,000 sq. ft.). LACDPW zoning information in Appendix E indicates R-A-20000, however, to be conservative, this area is analyzed as 12,000 sf lot size. For the Phase II Study, LACDPW indicated that the zoning coefficients to be used for large residential lots is to be based on a proration of 0.001 cfs/ac as follows:

Rolling Hills:

RAS-1, minimum lot size 1 acre (43,560 sf):

Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/43,560) = 0.001 cfs/ac RAS-2, minimum lot size 2 acres (87,120 sf):

Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/87,120) = 0.0005 cfs/ac 323
9 Rolling Hills Estates:

Low Density Residential (1 acre) (43,560 sf):

Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/43,560) = 0.001 cfs/ac Low Density Residential (20,000 sf):

Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/20,000) = 0.0022 cfs/ac Los Angeles County:

Low Density Residential (10,000 sf):

Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/12,000) = 0.0036 cfs/ac

FLOW GENERATION ANALYSIS
The calculations for the flow generated by each area are shown in the tables on the Study Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 in Appendices I, J, and K. The calculations proceed from upstream to downstream.

The cumulative flows are added to obtain the flow within each pipe segment. This flow is then compared against the Design Capacity Flow (1/2 full) to determine the % of Design Capacity. As stated previously, < 100% (< ½ full) is under capacity and > 100% (> ½ full) is over capacity.

Having outlined the methodology utilized to evaluate the sewer capacities, each conveyance option is discussed further below.
324
10 OPTION 1 (SEE APPENDIX I)
FIGURE NO. 3
Option 1 (see Figure No. 3 above) studied the conveyance of flows northwest within PVDN to a trunk sewer in Crenshaw Boulevard. A review of as-built information reveals that a gravity system exists in PVDN approximately 400 feet west of Middleridge Lane. The topography in the area was evaluated using GIS and Google Earth elevation data to determine the feasibility of connecting to this sewer. The upstream segments of the PVDN sewers are at shallow slopes and the downstream segments closer to Crenshaw Boulevard are steeper, which allows for the potential of lowering the sewer if needed to gain elevation.

The Study Exhibit 1 shows the areas tributary to this conveyance option. Specifically, the areas and respective zoning analyzed are:

Area 9 – RAS-2 = 67.6 ac
Area 13 (yellow) – RAS-2 = min. lot size 2 ac = 176.8 ac Area 13 (green) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 19.3 ac
Area 18 (portion, pink) - RAS-2 = min. lot size 2 ac = 94 ac 325
11 Area 18 (orange) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 28.5 ac D/S area south of PVDN (LA County) = min. lot size 12,000 sf = 55.6 ac D/S area north of PVDN (City of Rolling Hills Est.) = min. lot size 20,000 sf = (5.7 ac + 6.2 ac = 11.9 ac)
D/S area north of PVDN (City of Rolling Hills Est.) = Institutional = 2.8 ac These areas were modeled to determine the conceptual flow rates within the pipes and to evaluate the sewer flow relative to Design Capacity. A preliminary plan and profile was also prepared to conceptually design the horizontal and vertical alignment of the sewer. As mentioned previously, the downstream portions of the PVDN sewer are at steeper slopes. In order to gain sewer depth, the analysis assumes reconstructing portions of the existing sewer with 8” VCP at shallower slopes. The requirement for this must be determined by obtaining field survey information and utility location information. However, for the scope of this project, reconstructing the existing sewer segments is considered acceptable to evaluate feasibility. Using the conceptual design profile, the analysis indicates that the sewer line has capacity to convey the flow. Using the GIS/Google Earth information available indicates that the sewer would be as shallow as 4.40’, which may not be acceptable. However, this should be further evaluated with site specific topographical survey information.

A review of the GIS topography indicates low points on PVDN east and west of Middleridge Lane.

Google Earth reveals that drop inlets exist on PVDN east of Middleridge Lane. Google Earth does not indicate drop inlets west of Middleridge Lane, however it is reasonable to assume that a culvert exists in this area to convey the flow in the low point beneath PVDN. Location and elevation data for these drainage facilities, as well as detailed surface topographic survey and utility determination/mapping must be provided to further assess the feasibility of this option. 326
12 OPTION 2 (SEE APPENDIX J)
327
13 FIGURE NO. 4
(see Figure No. 4 above) A review of as-built information reveals that a gravity system exists in Dobbin Lane approximately 500 feet north of Middleridge Lane. The topography in the area was evaluated using GIS and Google Earth elevation data to determine the feasibility of connecting to this sewer. This sewer is at lower elevation than the study area and gravity connection to this sewer is feasible. However, this sewer conveys to the Lariat Lane Pump Station and adding flow to this pump station must be studied and the impact to the pump station would have to be evaluated. Due to the conveyance to the Lariat Lane Pump Station, two scenarios were modeled under Option 2, Study Options 2A and 2B. Option 2A modeled the following areas and respective zoning as tributary to the system:

Area 13 (green) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 19.3 ac
Area 18 (orange) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 28.5 ac D/S area north of PVDN (City of Rolling Hills Est.) = min. lot size 20,000 sf = (5.6 ac + 3.5 ac + 4.4 ac = 13.5 ac)
Option 2A assumes the flows upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane are conveyed to Portuguese Bend Road and are not tributary to the sewer system conveying to Lariat Lane Pump Station (see Appendix C). Under this scenario, the downstream system has capacity for this conveyance. Regarding the Lariat Lane Pump Station, the as-built information indicates that the pump is rated to deliver 160 gpm at 60’ TDH. The model indicates that the flow conveyed to the pump station is 0.078 cfs = 35 gpm. Under this conceptual design, the pump would have the capacity for this added flow.
328
14 Option 2B modeled the following areas and respective zoning as tributary to the system:

Area 9 – RAS-2 = 67.6 ac
Area 13 (yellow) – RAS-2 = min. lot size 2 ac = 176.8 ac Area 13 (green) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 19.3 ac
Area 18 (portion, pink) - RAS-2 = min. lot size 2 ac = 94 ac Area 18 (orange) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 28.5 ac D/S area north of PVDN (City of Rolling Hills Est.) = min. lot size 20,000 sf = (5.6 ac + 3.5 ac + 4.4 ac = 13.5 ac)
Option 2B assumes the flows upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane are conveyed to this sewer system and conveying to Lariat Lane Pump Station. Under this scenario, the downstream system has capacity for this conveyance. Regarding the Lariat Lane Pump Station, the as-built information indicates that the pump is rated to deliver 160 gpm at 60’ TDH. The model indicates that the flow conveyed to the pump station is 0.247 cfs = 111 gpm. Under this conceptual design, the pump would have the capacity for this added flow.

As with Option 1, GIS and Google Earth indicate a low point and drop inlets between Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane. Invert elevation information for the apparent storm drain was not available and the design assumes no conflict with the storm drain. Location and elevation data for drainage facilities and utilities, as well as detailed surface topographic survey and must be provided to further assess the feasibility of this option. Also, the addition of sewer flows to the Lariat Lane Pump Station would require discussion with LACDPW and the City of Rolling Hills Estates regarding coordination, permitting, and possible pump station upgrade improvement design.
329
15 OPTION 3 (SEE APPENDIX K)
FIGURE NO. 5
(see Figure No. 5 above) This alternative would convey flow from the study area southeast along PVDN to the intersection of Rolling Hills Road. The topography in the area reveals that the intersection of Rolling Hills Road is approximately 60 feet higher than the Middleridge Lane/PVDN area. The sewer flow from Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane could convey to a common manhole and then be pumped to Rolling Hills Road to the project currently under design. As with Option 2, two scenarios were modeled under Option 3, Study Options 3A and 3B. Option 3A modeled the following areas and respective zoning as tributary to the system:

Area 13 (green) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 19.3 ac
Area 18 (orange) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 28.5 ac 330
16 Option 3A assumes the flows upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane are conveyed to Portuguese Bend Road and are not tributary to the sewer system in PVDN. Under this scenario, the downstream system has capacity for this conveyance as it was established in the Phase II Study.

Option 3B modeled the following areas and respective zoning as tributary to the system:

Area 9 – RAS-2 = 67.6 ac
Area 13 (yellow) – RAS-2 = min. lot size 2 ac = 176.8 ac Area 13 (green) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 19.3 ac
Area 18 (portion, pink) - RAS-2 = min. lot size 2 ac = 94 ac Area 18 (Orange) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 28.5 ac Option 3B assumes the flows upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane are conveyed to this sewer system. Under this scenario, the downstream system has capacity for this conveyance the downstream system has capacity for this conveyance as it was established in the Phase II Study.

As with Option 1, GIS and Google Earth indicate a low point and drop inlets between Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane. Invert elevation information for the apparent storm drain was not available and the design assumes no conflict with the storm drain. Location and elevation data for drainage facilities and utilities, as well as detailed surface topographic survey and must be provided to further assess the feasibility of this option. 331
17 OTHER OPTIONS
Although not studied in detail, other possible conveyance options are available. These would entail multiple sewer lines be constructed and conveyed to more than one of the outlets. That is, the flow could be conveyed to Crenshaw Boulevard, Dobbin Lane, and Rolling Hills Road, or any combination of those 3 connection points. To be conservative, the subject study analyzed all of the flow conveyed to one outlet.

CONCLUSIONS
The analyses provided reveal that all conveyance options studied are feasible, yet warrant more detailed design information regarding the following:

Right of Way verification
Topographic survey
Storm drain location and invert elevation
Utility locations and sizes
Lariat Lane Pump Station design information
Additionally, the conveyance options may require coordination and submittal of documents to:

Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (San District) to obtain a “Will Serve Letter”; Submittal of a Sewer Area Study to the San District, LACDPW and the City of Rolling Hills Estates;
Obtaining sewer flow measurements to correlate field conditions with the sewer modeling. 332

APPENDIX A
Project Location Map
333
Middleridge Lane Williamsburg Lane City Hall Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Road
Crenshaw Boulevard
Dobbin Lane

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

PROJECT
AREA 334

APPENDIX B
Project Area Map and Conveyance Options Map
335
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.

Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
Ú[
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1 $1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1 $1 $1 $1
$1
$1 $1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1 $1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !. !. !. !.
!.
!.
!. !. !.
!.
!.
!.
!. !. !.
!.
!.
!. !. !.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!. !.
! !. .
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !. !. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !. !.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
0 5
8 17
2 18
19 7
9 11
1 10
12 4
13 3
14 6
16 20
15 290
340
360
310
350
320
260
330
270
300
190
180
370
210
150
280
160
250
380
220
170
230
240
200
400
390
130
140
120
410
110
100
90 80 70
420
430
440
60 240
200
290
180
120
150
410
160
330
200
240
220
210
70 330
210
250
120
100
190
280
430
200
400
270
170
140
350 270
180
230
390
300
170
310
270
390
360
320
370
390
140
190
360
440
90 140
400
140
190
130
130
220
160
100
110
280
260
110
160
220
130
180
260
300
170
290
250
220
120
300
300
370
160
240
170
140
180
370
280
380
130
270
140
110
DR
RD
LN
RD
RD
CYN
RD
BLVD
CHES
PALOS
JOHNS

SILVER SPUR RD

CRENSHAW

CREST RD

BURMA RD

HILLSIDE

OUTRIDER

BRONCO DR

GANADO DR

BUGGY WHIP

SADDLEBACK

CABALLEROS

CREST RD E

CREST RD W

WESTVALE
RD

EASTVALE
RD

VERDES DR E

QUAIL RIDGE

GEORGEFF
RD

FORRESTAL DR

BUCKBOARD
LN

EASTFIELD DR

EASTFIELD DR

SUNNYRIDGE RD
CRE
N
S
HAW
BLVD

STRAWBERRY
LN

CRENSHAW BLVD

EUCALYPTUS LN
CH
U
C
KWAG
ON
RD

SOUTHFIELD
DR

BUGGY WHIP
DR

PORTUGUESE BEND

ROLLING
HILLS
RD

PALOS VERDES DR N

BLACKWATER
CYN
RD
®
City of Rolling Hills
Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Study
Gravity Sewer System with Tributary Areas
Appendix D - Exhibit A - Gravity Sewer Conceptual Design (NOT TO SCALE)
Legend
!. Sewer Manholes
$1 Grinder Pumps
Ú[ Lift Stations
Sewer Pipes
Sewer Laterals
Force Mains
Force Laterals
LA County Sewer Pipes
LA County Sewer Manholes
City Boundary
Area Boundary
!.

Middleridge
Lane Williamsburg
Lane
Document referenced
from 2008 Study
336
Williamsburg Lane Middleridge Lane Palos Verdes Drive North Dobbin Lane
Option 1 Option 2
Option 3
337

APPENDIX C
Conveyance of Upstream Parcels to Rolling Hills Road
338
(507) FS
(540) FS
(526) FS
(534) FS
(527) FS
(535) FS
(514) FS S=0.0040
S=0.0040
S=0.0040
(511) FS
(540) FS

PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH
(550) FS/HP
S=0.0200 PT1 PT2 PT3 PT5 PT4 PT6 PT7 PT8 PT10 PT11 PT12 (528) FS PT9 PT13 349.00' 237.43' LC=157 .07 ' 65.07' LC=2 41.9 0' LC=177 .8 4' LC=61.6 2 ' 119.52' LC=2 4 0 .4 5 ' LC=2 3 3 .3 5 ' (509) FS 316.17' (513) FS (545) FS (524) FS PT9.5 257.94' (538) FS LC=5 6 .01' S=0.0401 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS OF Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. ® 1 3 LEGEND: (513) FS = Surface Elevation per Google Earth 502.79 INV. = Design sewer invert elevation at slope of 0.004 ft/ft EL (509.71) = Surface Elevation per GIS = Point Number for Manhole PT5 339

APPENDIX D
As-Built Information
340

PROJECT AREA
341

PROJECT AREA
342

PROJECT AREA
343

PROJECT AREA
344
6'-8 3/4" 5'-3/4"
143'-6 3/4"
13'-9 1/2" 8'-7 1/2" 13'-3 1/2"
345
8'-10 3/4"
146'-11 3/4"
440 Google
earth
346
347
348
6'-4" 11'-8"
349
11'-1 1/4" 15'-4 1/2"
350
351
8'-4 3/4" 10'-1 1/2" 7'-10" 7'-10 1/2"
352
353
354
355
356
357
PORTUGUESE BEND/ROLLING HILLS ROAD SEWER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Know what'sbelow. Calltwo working before you dig.

R PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. C50129 LUA N

NE BEA N

C I V I L

REGISTERED PROFES

SIONA L ENGINEER

S T A T E
O F
C
A

L I F O R N I A
358
Know what'sbelow.

Calltwo working before you dig.

R

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
No. C50129

LUA NNE BEA N

C I V I L

REGISTERED PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER

S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
359
1 inch = ft.

GRAPHIC SCALE
20 Know what'sbelow.

Calltwo working before you dig. R

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
No. C50129 LUA NNE BEA N C I V I L REGISTERED PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A

CRENSHAW BLVD
360
1 inch = ft.

GRAPHIC SCALE
20 Know what'sbelow.

Calltwo working before you dig. R

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
No. C50129 LUA NNE BEA N C I V I L REGISTERED PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A 361
1 inch = ft.

GRAPHIC SCALE
20 Know what'sbelow.

Calltwo working before you dig. R

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
No. C50129 LUA NNE BEA N C I V I L REGISTERED PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A 362
1 inch = ft.

GRAPHIC SCALE
20 Know what'sbelow.

Calltwo working before you dig. R

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
No. C50129 LUA NNE BEA N C I V I L REGISTERED PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A

PALOS VERDES DR
363
1 inch = ft.

GRAPHIC SCALE
20 Know what'sbelow.

Calltwo working before you dig. R

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
No. C50129 LUA NNE BEA N C I V I L REGISTERED PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A 364
Know what'sbelow.

Calltwo working before you dig.

R

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
No. C50129

LUA NNE BEA N

C I V I L

REGISTERED PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER

S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
STA. 10+00 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 10+34.94 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 12+43.44 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 12+93.11 SEWER MANHOLE TO BE REMOVED STA. 15+93.95 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 40+00 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 43+50 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 47+78.69 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 52+28.69 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 56+70± SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL 365
SHEET NOTES:

MANHOLE PENETRATION CONNECTION
Know what'sbelow.

Calltwo working before you dig.

R

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
No. C50129

LUA NNE BEA N

C I V I L

REGISTERED PROFESSIONA L ENGINEER

S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
366

APPENDIX E
Zoning Information
367
368

CREST RD

HAWTHORNE BLVD
*****

SILVER SPUR
RD

HIGHRIDGE RD

COUNTRY LN

CRENSHAW BLVD

INDIAN PEAK RD

ROLL NI G HILLS RD
PALOS
VERDES
DR

DEEP VALLEY DR

RANCHVIEW RD

CLUB VIEW LN

KINGSPINE RD

BUC KSKI N LN

SILVER SADDLE LN

PONY LN

STEIN HALE NATURE TR
ASPEN
WY

ROCKBLUFF DR

ENCANTO
DR

WILLOW WOOD RD

PENNSYLVANIA DR

SADDLE RD

DEERHILL DR

CYPRESS WY

ELMDALE DR

DAPPLEGRAY LN

SUGARHILL DR

INDIAN VALLEY RD
D

MOCCASIN LN

UNWOOD RD

GAUCHO DR

ROLLINGWOOD DR

BLUEMOUND RD

MISTY ACRES RD

MONTECILLO DR

CONESTOGA DR

AURORA DR

SANTA BELLA RD

SORREL LN

MARINA DR

REAL DR

MARLOMA DR

STONECREST RD

SHADY VISTA RD

COUNTRY MEADOW RD

STRAWBERRY LN
SANTA
CRUZ

HIDDEN VALLEY RD

CARRIAGE DR

GR ANADA

PALOS VERDES LN

SYCAMORE LN

ANACAPA

LARIAT LN

HILLCREST MNR

ESTRIBO DR

EMPTY SADDLE RD

BRIDLEWOOD
CIR

LATIGO LN

MASONGATE DR

OAKTREE LN

SEVILLA

PINTO LN

DORADO PL

CRESTRIDGE RD

ROANWOOD DR

CLEAR VISTA DR

COTTONWOO D CIR

QUAILWOOD DR

SEAVIEW
DR

CROSSFIELD DR

SADDLEBOW LN

DOBBIN LN

SEAHURST RD

HITCHING POST DR

PALOMINO LN

WILDHORSE LN

FOXPOINT LN

SANTA ROSA

CHADWICK LN

BEECHGATE DR

CELESTE PL

SCOTWOOD DR

HORSESHOE LN

SILVER ARROW DR

AVOCADO LN

PONDEROSA LN

ROLLANDO DR

ROLLING MEADOWS
RD

TANGLEWOOD LN

FERNCREEK DR

WHITLEY COLLINS DR

S HADO W LN

SAN MIGUEL

EMPTY SADDLE LN

PEACOCK LN

SPRUCE WY

SWEETGRASS LN

SILVERBIT LN

SILVER EAGLE
RD

HI D DEN LN

EASTVALE RD

CRESTA VERDES DR

BROKENBOW LN

GOLDEN SPAR PL

HARBOR SIGHT DR

SUNNYFIELD
DR

RAWHIDE LN

DRYBANK DR

COLINA LN

PLEASANT HILL D
L
R

AZY C REEK LN

PEAR T REE LN

BRANDING IRON LN

SINGLETREE LN

STABLE WY

BLACKHORSE RD

SILVERLEAF DR

CE RRITO PL

LANTA N A PL

TERRACE DR

MAJORCA

HILLCRES T MEADOW

COVERED WAG ON LN

RANGE HORSE LN

ROXCOVE
DR

SILVER SPRING DR

QUAR TERHORSE LN

SUNDOWN
DR

SPINNING WHEEL LN

ACADEMY DR

POTRILLO RD

LA CROIX DR

RUSTLER LN

BASSWOOD AV

CHALMETTE LN
*****
*****

ROLLANDO DR
*****

EMPTY SADDLE LN

ANACAPA
*****

FERNCREEK DR
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****

LARIAT LN
*** **
*****

HAWTHORNE BLVD
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****

CRENSHAW BLVD
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****

SEAVIEW DR
Legend
City Boundary
Zoning
Residental Low Density (1 Acre)
Residental Low Density (20,000 Sq. Ft.)
Residental Medium Density (15,000 Sq. Ft.)
Residental Medium Density (10,000 Sq. Ft.)
Residental Planned Development
Commercial General
Commercial Office
Commercial Limited
Commercial Recreation
Agricultural
Institutional
Quarry
Open Space Recreation
1 inch = 700 feet
City of Rolling Hills Estates
Zoning Map
369
https://rpgis.isd.lacounty.gov/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=GISNET_Public.GIS-NET_Public ZONING MAP FOR UNINCORPORATED LA COUNTY AREA 370

APPENDIX F
LACDPW Sewer Capacity Policy
371
,CL, '",' :'.,,' ": " ,l", ' .. ~,:~(;.( '';~~(,;,
October 12, 2005 ~~ o~jj
Approved
--
'TO:

FROM:

Dean Efstathi0l;\ V
Dennis Hunte( ~
Land Development Division

POLICIES FOR MANAGING AVAILABLE SEWER CAPACITY

AND SEWAGE DISCHARGE IN EXCESS OF DESIGN CAPACITY
The following will set forth Public Works' policies related to managing sewer infrastructure capacity. Design capacity of the sewer mainline is defined as follows:
c: 15" diameter
;: 15" diameter
~ full = 100% capacity (dID)
% full = 100% capacity (dID)
When Public Works determines there is available capacity in a mainline sewer for infil and redevelopment projects, the remaining available capacity shall be allocated on a first come - first serve basis.

Sewer Advisory Committee
A Sewer Advisory Committee (SAC) will be formed for the purpose of recommending courses of action to address proposed development connecting to existing sewers that will cause them to be operating beyond their design capacity. The SAC will make their recommendations to Dean Efstathiou, Assistant Director. The SAC will be chaired by Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance Division and will have representatives from Design and Land Development Divisions. Each Division will appoint a Principal Engineer or Senior Civil Engineer as a representative to the SAC and will convene whenever sewer decisions are required to address developmental impacts. Sewer Maintenance will maintain records of SAC meetings and will prepare recommendations to Administration for approval. The SAC may require other Division representatives to participate on a case-by-case basis when necessary, such as Building and Safety and Programs Development.

Divisional Responsibilties
Desiqn Division

1. Support activities of the SAC.

2. Prepare sewer area studies when required.
372
Dea n Efstath iou
August 25, 2005

Page 2 ends

3. Maintain records/archive of all approved sewer area studies and flow measurements.

Land Development Division

1. Support activities of the SAC.

2. Impose sewer area study requirements for private developments if necessary and reviewlapprove all submittals.

3. Refer cases to SAC when both sewer area studies and flow measurements indicate that a potential overload situation exists or will exist based on criteria described below.

4. Provide copies of all approved sewer area studies and flow measurements to Design Division for archiving.

Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance Division
1 . Chair the SAC, maintain meeting records and prepare position papers to Administration.

2. Advise the SAC when an overload condition is observed during maintenance activities.

3. Initiate effort to track and map all overload areas within the Consolidated Maintenance District.

4. Keep database of all flow measurement results.

Desiqn Criteria

1. Capacity of sewer mainlines less than 15" in diameter are considered full (100 percent) when the ratio of the depth of flow (d) over the pipe diameter (D) is equal to 0.5, expressed as dID = 0.5.

2. Capacity of sewer mainlines equal to or greater than 15" in diameter are considered full (100 percent) when the ratio of the depth of flow (d) over the pipe diameter (D) is equal to 0.75, expressed as dID = 0.75. 373
Dean Efstathiou
August 25, 2005

Page 3 ends

3. When an area study indicates that flow conditions based on calculated discharges is between 101 percent to 150 percent of capacity, no flow measurements and no mitigation will be required. If maintenance records warrant, a flow test may be required.

4. When an area study for a development that proposes to increase the density or change the zoning indicates that flow conditions are between 151 to 200 percent of capacity, flow measurements shall be required. If the flow test indicates that the actual flow condition is below 151 percent, no mitigation wil be required. If the flow test results indicate the actual flow is above 151 percent, the case shall be referred to the SAC to evaluate options and make recommendations to Administration for approval. These options may include, but are not limited to: requiring full mitigation from the development, assessing pro-rata shares, creation of a reimbursement district, or establishing a County Improvement (CI) district.

AHN:ca
P:\LDPUB\SUBPCHECK\SEWER\MISCELLANEOUS\SEWER IN FRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT cc: Administration (Kelly)
BUil?ing and Safety (Patel) D,). Design (Kumar) (Itl. ¡Art ¿~ Land Development (D'Antonio, Burge~hong, Witler, Narag) Programs Development (Afshari) ,
Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance (Del Real, Lehto)
374

APPENDIX G
LACDPW Flow Generation Coefficients
375
Occupancy Abbreviation *Average daily flow
Apartment Buildings:

Bachelor or Single dwelling units Apt 150 gal/D.U.
1 bedroom dwelling units Apt 200 gal/D.U.
2 bedroom dwelling units Apt 250 gal/D.U.
3 bedroom or more dwelling units Apt 300 gal/D.U.

Auditoriums, churches, etc. Aud 5 gal/seat
Automobile parking P 25 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Bars, cocktails lounges, etc. Bar 20 gal/seat
Commercial Shops & Stores CS 100 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Hospitals (surgical) HS 500 gal/bed
Hospitals (convalescent) HC 85 gal/bed
Hotels H 150 gal/room
Medical Buildings MB 300 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Motels MB 150 gal/unit
Office Buildings Off 200 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Restaurants, cafeterias, etc. R 50 gal/seat
Schools:

Elementary or Jr. High S 10 gal/student
High Schools HS 15 gal/student
Universities or Colleges U 20 gal/student
College Dormitories CD 85 gal/student
Zone Coefficient (cfs/Acre)
Agriculture ---------------------------------- 0.001
Residential*:

R-1 -------------------------------------------- 0.004
R-2 -------------------------------------------- 0.008
R-3 -------------------------------------------- 0.012
R-4 -------------------------------------------- 0.016* Commercial:

C-1 through C-4 ---------------------------- 0.015*
Heavy Industrial:

M-1 through M-4 -------------------------- 0.021*
exceed the coefficients shown
* Use 0.001 (cfs/unit) for condominiums only
Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies *Multiply the average daily flow by 2.5 to obtain the peak flow Zoning Coefficients
* Individual building, commercial or industrial plant capacities shall be the determining factor when they Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
For large lots, per LACDPW, use a coefficient prorated on 0.001 cfs/ac as follows:
1 ac lot: Coeff. = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560 / 43,560) = 0.001 cfs/ac 2 ac lot: Coeff. = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560 / 87,120) = 0.0005 cfs/ac 20,000 sf lot: Coeff. = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560 / 20,000) = 0.0022 cfs/ac 376

APPENDIX H
Google Earth Image
377
Drop inlets Possible Culvert
Location
378

APPENDIX I
Option 1 Exhibits
379
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
0 5
8 17
2 18
19 7
9 11
1 10
12 4
13 3
14 6
16 20
15 300
310
340
320
350
260
330
270
360
370
290
200
190
180
210
280
150
220
250
380
170
160
230
240
400
390
130
140
120
410
110
100
90 80 70
420
430
440
60 160
240
300
200
120
180
410
280
330
240
160
220
160
180
70 260
190
150
370
120
100
290
180
430
400
270
170
140
310
240
330
200
170
390
270
380
270
390
300
320
190
390
140
370
300
440
90 140
400
140
290
130
130
220
280
100
110
210
350
110
210
250
130
260
360
170
300
220
250
120
360
370
190
280
160
170
140
200
230
180
220
130
270
140
110
®
City of Rolling Hills
Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Study
(NOT TO SCALE)
TIE-IN
No 1
TIE-IN
No 2
TIE-IN
No 3
TIE-IN
No 4
TIE-IN
No 5
TIE-IN
No 6
City Boundary
Legend
Boundary No 5
Boundary No 1
Boundary No 6
Boundary No 2 & 3
Boundary No 4
(483) (155) (153) (152) (154) (156) (157) (151)
Area 13
GREEN

19.3 AC
(483) EXISTING MANHOLE NUMBER
MH 10 PROPOSED MANHOLE NUMBER
PROPOSED 8" GRAVITY VCP

MH 10 MH 11 MH 21 MH 22
STUDY EXHIBIT 1
Convey Northwest to Crenshaw Boulevard
PROPOSED 8" VCP
(14)

JOIN EXISTING
426.3 INV
(502) (503)

LARIAT PUMP

STATION
(501) (500) (499) (493)
Area 18
ORANGE

28.5 AC
MH 23
Area 13
Yellow
176.8 AC Middle Ridge Ln
Williamsburg Ln
Area 18
Pink
94 AC
Area 9
Blue

67.6 AC Dobbin Ln
MH 24 MH 25 MH 26 Rawhide Ln
Branding Iron Ln
Crenshaw Blvd.

6.2AC5.7AC 2.8 AC

55.6 AC
See Enlarged
Image at Left
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
150
120
130
100
110
130
T
(483) (155) (153) (152) (154) (156) (157) (151)
Area 13
GREEN
MH 10 MH 11 MH 21 MH 22
8" VCP
(502) (50 (501) (500) (499) (493) MH 23
e Ridge Ln
Ln
Dobbin Ln
MH 24 MH 25 MH 26 Rawhide Ln
Branding Iron Ln
Crenshaw Blvd.

6.2AC5.7AC 2.8 AC

55.6 AC
Upper portion of Area 18
assumed to convey into
Area 17.
380
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS OF Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. ® 3 1" = 100' CONVEY NORTHWEST TO CRENSHAW BOULEVARD EXHIBIT 1 1 DOBBIN LN

SUNNY FIELD

WILLIAMSBURG LN MIDDLE RIDGE NORTH

RAWHIDE BRANDING IRON LN

EAST VALE ROAD PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH 381

APPENDIX J
Option 2 Exhibits
382
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
0 5
8 17
2 18
19 7
9 11
1 10
12 4
13 3
14 6
16 20
15 300
310
340
320
350
260
330
270
360
370
290
200
190
180
210
280
150
220
250
380
170
160
230
240
400
390
130
140
120
410
110
100
90 80 70
420
430
440
60 160
240
300
200
120
180
410
280
330
240
160
220
160
180
70 260
190
150
370
120
100
290
180
430
400
270
170
140
310
240
330
200
170
390
270
380
270
390
300
320
190
390
140
370
300
440
90 140
400
140
290
130
130
220
280
100
110
210
350
110
210
250
130
260
360
170
300
220
250
120
360
370
190
280
160
170
140
200
230
180
220
130
270
140
110
®
City of Rolling Hills
Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Study
(NOT TO SCALE)
TIE-IN
No 1
TIE-IN
No 2
TIE-IN
No 3
TIE-IN
No 4
TIE-IN
No 5
TIE-IN
No 6
City Boundary
Legend
Boundary No 5
Boundary No 1
Boundary No 6
Boundary No 2 & 3
Boundary No 4
(483) (155) (153) (152) (154) (156) (157) (151)
Area 13
GREEN

19.3 AC
(483) EXISTING MANHOLE NUMBER
MH 10 PROPOSED MANHOLE NUMBER
PROPOSED 8" GRAVITY VCP

MH 10 MH 11 MH 21 MH 22
STUDY EXHIBIT 2
Convey Northeast to Dobbins Lane
PROPOSED 8" VCP
(14)

JOIN EXISTING
430.70 INV
(502) (503)

LARIAT PUMP

STATION
(501) (500) (499) (493)
Area 18
ORANGE

28.5 AC
MH 23
Area 13
Yellow
176.8 AC Middle Ridge Ln
Williamsburg Ln
Area 18
Pink
94 AC
Area 9
Blue

67.6 AC Dobbin Ln
(506) (505) (504) (492) (494) (496)
Upper portion of Area 18
assumed to convey into
Area 17.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
120
140
130
130
TI
3)
N
55) MH 10 MH 11 MH 21 MH 22 (502) (503) (501) (500) (499) (493) MH 23 Dobbin Ln
(506) (505) (504) (492) (494) (496)
See Enlarged
Image at Lower
Right
383
S=(0.0100)
S=0.0200 S=0.0200
S=0.0595
S=(0.0630) MH NO. 22 MH NO. 10 MH NO. 11 A = 6.2 AC DOBBIN LN

SUNNY FIELD

WILLIAMSBURG LN MIDDLE RIDGE NORTH

RAWHIDE BRANDING IRON LN

EAST VALE ROAD
PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (480) FS (437) (464) FS FS (446) FS (438) FS S=0.0201 S=0.0040 S=0.0241 (439) FS (502) (503)
(501)
(500)
(499)
(497)
(495)
(496)
(498)
(493) (492)
(506)
(505)
(504) LARIAT LANE PUMP STATION P PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH A = 28.5 AC A = 5.7 AC A = 3.5 AC A = 19.3 AC S=(0.0608) MH NO. 21 MH NO. 23 A = 4.4 AC (494) A = 5.6 AC 8" VCP SEWER 8" VCP SEWER 8" VCP SEWER 8" VCP SEWER S=(0.0630) ALERT EXIST. RCPS=(0.1332) S=(0.0040) CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS OF Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. ® 3 CONVEY NORTHEAST TO DOBBIN LANE EXHIBIT 2 2 384

APPENDIX K
Option 3 Exhibits
385
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
0 5
8 17
2 18
19 7
9 11
1 10
12 4
13 3
14 6
16 20
15 300
310
340
320
350
260
330
270
360
370
290
200
190
180
210
280
150
220
250
380
170
160
230
240
400
390
130
140
120
410
110
100
90 80 70
420
430
440
60 160
240
300
200
120
180
410
280
330
240
160
220
160
180
70 260
190
150
370
120
100
290
180
430
400
270
170
140
310
240
330
200
170
390
270
380
270
390
300
320
190
390
140
370
300
440
90 140
400
140
290
130
130
220
280
100
110
210
350
110
210
250
130
260
360
170
300
220
250
120
360
370
190
280
160
170
140
200
230
180
220
130
270
140
110
®
City of Rolling Hills
Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Study
(NOT TO SCALE)
TIE-IN
No 1
TIE-IN
No 2
TIE-IN
No 3
TIE-IN
No 4
TIE-IN
No 5
TIE-IN
No 6
City Boundary
Legend
Boundary No 5
Boundary No 1
Boundary No 6
Boundary No 2 & 3
Boundary No 4
(483) (155) (153) (152) (154) (156) (157) (151)
(483) EXISTING MANHOLE NUMBER
MH 10 PROPOSED MANHOLE NUMBER
PROPOSED 8" GRAVITY VCP

PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
PUMP STATION MH 10 MH 11 MH 21 MH 22
PROPOSED 8" VCP P
(14) P

PROPOSED FORCE

MAIN JOIN EXISTING
469.21 INV
STUDY EXHIBIT 3
Convey Southeast to Rolling HIlls Road Area 13
GREEN

19.3 AC
Area 18
ORANGE

28.5 AC
Area 13
Yellow
176.8 AC
Area 18
Pink
94 AC
Area 9
Blue

67.6 AC Middle Ridge Ln N
Williamsburg Ln
Upper portion of Area 18
assumed to convey into
Area 17.

See Enlarged
Image at Lower
Right
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
20 140
140
130
No
(483) MH 10 MH 11 MH 21 MH 22
P
(14)
e Ln N
Williamsburg Ln
386
S=0.0200 S=0.0200
S=0.0620
S=(0.0630) MH NO. 22 MH NO. 10 MH NO. 11 A = 6.2 AC DOBBIN LN

SUNNY FIELD

WILLIAMSBURG LN MIDDLE RIDGE NORTH

RAWHIDE BRANDING IRON LN

EAST VALE ROAD
PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH S=0.0050 S=0.0075 (502) (503)
(501)
(500)
(499)
(497)
(495)
(496)
(498)
(493) (492)
(506)
(505)
(504) LARIAT LANE PUMP STATION P PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH A = 28.5 AC A = 5.7 AC A = 3.5 AC A = 19.3 AC MH NO. 21 A = 4.4 AC (494) A = 5.6 AC ALERT EXIST. 18" RCP P FORCE MAIN PUMP STATION 8" VCP SEWER ALERT EXIST. 18" RCP ALERT EXIST. RCP CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS OF Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. ® 3 CONVEY SOUTHEAST TO ROLLING HILLS ROAD EXHIBIT 3 3 387
Agenda Item No.: 9.B
Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN PALERMO, PROJECT MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT FROM HQE

SYSTEMS (SIREN STUDY) AND DIRECT STAFF CONDUCT A
COMMUNITY SURVEY.

DATE: January 10, 2022
BACKGROUND:

In the FY2019-2020 approved budget, the City Council allocated funding to purchase radios for the Block Captain program. These handheld radios were intended to provide a method of communication between City Hall and the community during emergencies with prolonged power failure.

Approximately $500 of the $6,600 budget was used to purchase four test radios. The radios were recommended by the President of the Peninsula Amateur Radio Club. When the Peninsula Amateur Radio Club could not longer serve the City, a qualified professional was needed to get the test radios programmed.

In FY2020-2021, the City Council approved budget for the Block Captain Program to purchase 65 communication devices and provided support to continue with the communication project. In February 2021, staff advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from qualified firms to assist the city in designing a turnkey Emergency Communications System to support the Block Captain Program.

The city was seeking a proposer who had experience in emergency communication solutions that would meet the needs of the end user in functionality and financial outlays. In lieu of specifying the purchase of handheld radios, the RFP allowed proposers to provide alternative solutions to meet the City's needs.

On March 25, 2021, the City received one (1) proposal from HQE Systems, Inc. After reviewing the proposal, staff contacted HQE Systems, Inc. and scheduled an interview to learn more about the firm and discuss the proposal and City project.

On April 8, 2021, staff met via video conference with HQE Systems, Inc. and received a presentation on the firm's history and core capabilities. Discussion ensued on the City's needs, the Block Captain Program, and HQE Systems, Inc. proposal and fee proposal. During the course of the interview, HQE Systems, Inc. outlined a recommended system, alternative to the handheld radios, that would meet the City's needs. It was apparent that an analysis of multiple emergency communication systems would not be warranted. On April 26, 2021, staff recommended to the City Council to engage the services of HQE Systems Inc. for the Block Captain Communications project for a feasibility study of the 388
recommended system. City Council decided to delay the item and directed Councilmember Jeff Pieper to work with staff to better understand the evolution of the communication project, from purchasing handheld radios to a siren system and the scope of the feasibility study.

As directed, staff met with Councilmember Pieper on four occasions: May 20, 2021, July 15, 2021, July 23, 2021 and August 12, 2021. Some of the meetings with Councilmember Pieper included the Lead Block Captains Arlene and Gene Honbo. In preparation of other meetings with Councilmember Pieper, staff worked with the City's Project Manager Alan Palermo and HQE Systems Inc. to provide technical information requested by Councilmember Pieper. The feasibility study would be comprised of HQE Systems Inc. to identify the hardware, the location of the hardware, software, system integration, and detailed cost estimate to install a siren system for the community. The Lead Block Captains, along with many members of the Block Captains are in support of the project.

At the August 23, 2021 City council Meeting, City Council approved a Professional Services agreement with HQE Systems, Inc. to prepare a feasibility study for a city-wide emergency notification system.

DISCUSSION:

In the fall of 2021, HQE Systems, Inc. prepared and submitted to the City a draft of the feasibility study for installation of a Mass Notification System. The draft feasibility study was reviewed by City staff and returned to HQE Systems, Inc. with comments. HQE updated the feasibility study and submitted the final study for City use and presentation to City Council. This final feasibility study is attached to this staff report.

HQE conducted a detailed site survey gathering information to identify constraints that could impact the system's operational and technical performances. HQE assessed power options and locations. Sound engineer assessed buildings in the community to determine the best locations to maximize sound coverage. HQE also conducted a sound propagation analysis to model optimal signal distribution using the company's proprietary outdoor siren planning software. The coverage models took into consideration varying geographical topology and environmental factors such as foliage and building density.

HQE provided two options for installation of an outdoor siren system.

Solution A is the low visibility installation option that would require nine (9) 30 feet poles throughout the City. The 30 feet poles are mounted with a modern design intelligible speakers. At 30 feet, the outdoor warning speakers will be slightly above the height of the residential homes, allowing for the best sound transmission without placing the poles too high above the roofline. The poles can be covered with tree façade to blend in the with the surrounding vegetation.

Solution B is the low cost installation option that would require three (3) 50 feet poles mounted with the intelligible horns positioned in a 360 degree transmission position. The 50 feet pole allows for the sound to be projected from a higher elevation, providing greater coverage and reducing overall number of poles.

The genesis of the communication project is the feedback from the 2019 community survey on emergency preparedness and from the Block Captains consistently and frequently asking the question, how will the community be notified by the City in the event of complete power failure. With the feasibility study completed, and high level pricing available on implementing an outdoor siren system, staff recommends that the City Council conduct another community survey and ask the residents if they want an outdoor siren system.
389
FISCAL IMPACT:

Solution A recommended by HQE utilized the SiRcom-Vector outdoor speaker arrays. This solution considered aesthetic and the rough order of magnitude pricing for Solution A: $310,602.

Solution B recommended by HQE utilizes the SiRcom outdoor warning intelligible sirens. HQE noted that this solution is the lowest in price, and offers the most reliable solution in the market today. The rough order of magnitude pricing for Solution B: $144,573.

The FY 2021-2022 adopted budget does not include funding for the outdoor siren project.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file report and direct staff to conduct a community survey.

ATTACHMENTS:

HQE Systems - Mass Notification Systems Installation Report - The City of Rolling Hills - Final JW (Email Version 2).pdf
390
Mass Notification Report
Global Headquarters | 42075 Remington Ave. Suite 109 | Temecula, CA 92105 | 800.967.3036 www.HQESystems.com
Prepared December 2021
For The City Of Rolling Hills, California
391
Disclaimer of Liability
Neither HQE Systems, Inc., nor its contributors shall be held liable for any improper or incorrect use of the information described and/or contained in this report herein and assumes no responsibility for anyone's use of the information. In no event shall HQE Systems, Inc. or its contributors be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages (including, but not limited to:
procurement of substitute goods or services; loss of use, data, or profits; or business interruption) however caused and on any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict liability, tort (including negligence or otherwise), or any other theory arising in any way out of the use of this report, even if advised of the possibility of such damage. This disclaimer of liability applies to any damages or injury, whether based on alleged incorrect data, negligence or any other cause of action, including but not limited to damages or injuries caused by any failure of performance, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, delay in operation or transmission, computer virus, communication line failure, and/or theft, destruction or unauthorized access to, alteration of, or use of any record. 392
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA
HQE Systems, Inc. is a privately owned and operated Minority Owned FEMA Certified Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB).
“It is our goal at HQE to continue to serve our veterans through our ‘Hire Veterans Policy HQE-2015-2025’. We appreciate all of our current and past customers who have helped us meet our goals of hiring veterans throughout the years. Your support in HQE is directly impacting the support of our amazing veterans. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you and your community!” Thank You from the team of HQE Systems Inc.

Qais Alkurdi Henry Hernandez
CEO, Disabled Veteran / Retired COO, Disabled Veteran
2 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 393
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA
Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary 4

2. Background 5

3. The City of Rolling Hills Consideration Factors 6

3.1 General Information 6

3.2 Topographic Information 6

3. Report Development Methodology 7

2.1 Kick-Off Meeting (Clear Project Guidelines) 7

2.2 Site Survey (Gathering Information) 7

2.3 Sound Propagation Analysis (Data-Driven Planning) 7

2.4 Mass Notification Systems Installation Study 8

4. Mass Notifications System Types Overview 9

4.1 Electronic Notification Solutions (ENS) Web & Cellular Alerting 9

4.2 Indoor Notification Solutions 10

4.3 Outdoor Notification Solutions 11

4.3.1 Outdoor Warning Sirens & Speakers 12

4.3.2 The Leading Outdoor Warning Siren System 13

5. Proposed Solution Options 17

5.1 Installation Solution Options 17

5.1.1 Option A: Low Visibility Installation Option Sound Coverage 18

5.1.2 Option B: Lowest Cost Installation Option Sound Coverage 20

5.2 Outdoor Warning Siren Pole Tree Facade 22

5.2.1 Simulated View Of Siren Poles With Tree Facades 24

5.3 Mobile Alert Expeditionary Unit (Si-MAX) Option 25

6.0 Conclusion of Report 27
3 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 394
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

1. Executive Summary
To the distinguished City of Rolling Hills’s City Council Members, HQE Systems, Inc. (HQE) is a Minority-Owned, FEMA Certified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) with its global headquarters in Temecula, CA. Since 2014, HQE has been designing, engineering, installing, and maintaining Mass Notification Systems (Central Control Units, Outdoor Sirens, Control Cabinets, Radios, Solar Chargers, and Subcomponents of Mass Notification Systems) solutions for a host of clients worldwide. HQE is a brand agnostic systems integrator that has installed over 1,000+ Mass Notification Systems for all levels of the Government and Federal Agencies.

HQE was retained by The City of Rolling Hills, California, to investigate the feasibility of installing an effective Mass Notification System. The intent of the system is to provide Mass Alerting and Warning in the event of natural and manmade disasters including wildfires, terrorist events, and severe weather.

HQE’s Mass Notification Systems installation Report would provide the decision-makers with the information needed to identify the ideal solution for The City of Rolling Hills.

To develop the report, HQE conducted an installation study. The study includes open-source data research, site survey, and sound propagation analysis.
❖ Open Source Data: Researching the latest solution from the key manufacturers. This includes technical/operational features and rough order of magnitude pricing. ❖ Site Survey: Study of the local environment/infrastructure to include the availability of power, potential installation points, residential buildings, and topography (manmade and natural). In addition, to analyze the presence and signal capabilities of cellular, radio, and other communications channels.
❖ Sound Propagation Analysis: Utilizing the information gathered during the site survey, GIS, and DoD planning maps, HQE utilizes a proprietary machine-learning algorithm Sound Propagation Analysis to determine the ideal locations for the Mass Notification points.

With all of the information reviewed and analyzed during the report development, HQE’s Mass Notification Subject Matter Experts have determined two ideal installation options for The City of Rolling Hills. These options were developed with the following priorities (not in order): Alerting Effectiveness, Initial Budget, Sustainment Budget, Project Timeline, and System Installed Visibility.

Solution A (Low Visual Signature Installation Option): This solution was developed to provide The City of Rolling Hills with a solution that provides the best visually pleasing option. This option will utilize the SiRcom-Vector outdoor speaker arrays. These modern intelligible speakers will provide the “best-look” for the City. The rough order of magnitude pricing for Solution A is, $310,601.53 Solution B (Lowest Cost Installation Option): This solution was developed to provide the best price while maintaining the highest quality of outdoor warning capabilities. The solution utilizes the SiRcom outdoor warning intelligible sirens. Although lowest in price, SiRcom is determined to be the most reliable solution in the market today. The rough order of magnitude pricing for Solution B is, $144,572.93
4 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 395
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

2. Background
The City of Rolling Hills (City) sought an installation report for Mass Notifications System (MNS). The requirement specifically desired an effective outdoor solution that could operate in any threat event environment.

The City of Rolling Hills relies primarily on communication tools that require electricity, cellular signal, or access to the internet during an emergency. These methods include The City of Rolling Hills Website, Alert Southbay, and local television/radio networks. Areas of California regularly experience power outages during adverse, especially windy, weather conditions. The local utility provider utilizes a Public Safety Power Shut-off (PSPS) program during inclement weather conditions. Because of the PSPS program, residents of The City of Rolling Hills could possibly be without power during periods of heightened fire danger, resulting in an increased risk of not receiving important communications, including evacuation orders, via phone, internet, or radio. Unfortunately, disruption to the electrical power also has a negative impact on local cellular towers which have limited generator power to sustain its operational needs from the planned PSPS or electrical systems failures from the hazard (fire, wind, etc). Environmental events like these must be fully understood when planning and designing an MNS, so the system can clearly and effectively communicate alerts to residents and visitors. The MNS must be designed to rely on solar power and have enough battery-backup capacity to send critical alerts, when required, at night, or days when the sun may be blocked by smoke or clouds.

The infamous 2020 wildfires that overtook the northern regions of Los Angeles and Ventura County exposed the dangers of only relying on web-based or cellular-based emergency alert systems. With over 33 deaths, many of the Cities and Counties have since implemented a radio-based mass notifications system to mitigate this unnecessary risk in the future.

The City of Rolling Hills contracted with HQE Systems, Inc. (HQE) to develop a comprehensive and actionable MNS report to enhance its ability to disseminate emergency alerts, especially in wildfire situations. Since then, HQE has utilized its expertise in Mass Notifications Systems (MNS) to develop this report to assist The City of Rolling Hills in the pursuit to save lives and protect property. 5 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 396
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

3. The City of Rolling Hills Consideration Factors

3.1 General Information
Line Description The City of Rolling Hills Data
1 Access To The City of Rolling Hills Gated Community (Limited Access Roads) 2 Population (2020) 1,739
3 Housing Units 702
4 Land Area 2.99 Square Miles
5 Water Area 0.00 Square Miles
6 Geographic Coordinates 33.760016 -118.347164
7 AVG. Annual RainFall 15 Inches
8 AVG. High Wind Speed 7-8.6 MPH (November to May is the high winds season) 9 Fire Season May to October
10 Fire Threat Region Tier 2 (Elevated Fire Threat Identified By: California Public Utilities Company Fire Threat Mat V.3 (08.19.21)
11 Last Large Fire That
Impacted The City of
Rolling Hills On The Palos
Verdes Peninsula
Aug. 27, 2009, burned 235 acres and was of unknown origin according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention website. The fire, which burned for two days, caused minor damage to six Rolling Hills homes and forced 1,200 people to evacuate. Additionally, 3,000 customers in the area lost electrical power.

3.2 Topographic Information
6 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 397
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA
HQE has studied The City of Rolling Hills’s general and topographic information. These factors will be taken into careful consideration when developing the final solution options.

3. Report Development Methodology

2.1 Kick-Off Meeting (Clear Project Guidelines)
HQE conducted a project kickoff meeting in October 2020 with The City of Rolling Hills that established mutual acquaintance, clarified roles, and confirmed the desired outcomes and deliverables. Utilizing its experience and expertise in MNS, HQE was able to help better understand the constraints of the project and how HQE could best serve The City of Rolling Hills in achieving its ultimate goal of Saving Lives and Protecting Property.

2.2 Site Survey (Gathering Information)
HQE conducted a detailed site survey and spent time on-site gathering information to fully understand the constraints that could impact the system’s operational and technical performances. During the on-site interview, HQE reviewed each element of an MNS and documented expectations and requirements of the system. The City of Rolling Hills provided site information based on the current desires of The City of Rolling Hills and potential pitfalls to consider when planning for the new MNS.

HQE’s analysis began with the initial City provided project considerations to ensure that HQE’s efforts would be aligned with The City of Rolling Hills’s desires. While on-site, HQE assessed the power options and locations. In addition, HQE’s sound engineer assessed the residential and commercial building layouts to determine the best locations of the new MNS points to maximize sound coverage.

2.3 Sound Propagation Analysis (Data-Driven Planning)
HQE conducted a sound propagation analysis to ensure the outdoor emergency alert signal is distributed optimally throughout The City of Rolling Hills. HQE produced sound propagation maps using site collected data and HQE’s proprietary outdoor siren planning software to determine the levels of coverage achieved from potential sites. The coverage models take into consideration varying geographical topology and environmental factors such as foliage and building density.

The study considered various environmental factors including:
❖ Temperature
❖ Humidity & Rainfall
❖ Vegetation (types and disbursement)
❖ Wind speed and direction
❖ Man Made structures (buildings, towers, etc)
❖ Topography (elevation changes)
7 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 398
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA
Environmental factors that will be present during inclement weather were important when modeling coverage, including understanding the effects of the Santa Ana winds. In addition, much of The City of Rolling Hills has steep hills and canyons, which pose a challenge for proper coverage.

The analysis resulted in recommendations for the most efficient outdoor warning alert sound distribution across The City of Rolling Hills, including:
❖ A sound coverage area for each proposed siren site, considering environmental data ❖ Identification of any areas of The City of Rolling Hills in which sirens will be ineffective due to geography or other characteristics

2.4 Mass Notification Systems Installation Study
HQE compiled the data collected into this report, which provides a baseline assessment and includes the following:
❖ Solution options available on the market
❖ Costs to include initial and long term sustainment
❖ Recommended ideal installation options
8 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 399
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

4. Mass Notifications System Types Overview

4.1 Electronic Notification Solutions (ENS) Web & Cellular Alerting ❖ Solution Types: Electronic Notification Systems (ENS) have gained popularity due to the advancement of technology. ENS utilizes the local cellular networks to disseminate emergency alert notifications. These notifications can be accessed from the recipient’s mobile devices and computers.
➢ Hosted Cloud-Based Solution (SaaS): Requires no hardware to deploy the solution. ➢ On-Premise Server Solution: Requires a local server to be installed. ❖ Alerting Methods: The City of Rolling Hills Utilizes the local cellular towers to transmit the following alerts.
➢ Voice Calls: A custom live or pre-recorded voice message can be transmitted to all telephone numbers in the database for the City.
➢ SMS Text: A custom drafted or pre-drafted template message can be transmitted as a text to the number in the database for the City. The recipient can also send back an acknowledgment or a specific prompt response to the City. ❖ Strengths & Vulnerabilities:
➢ Strengths: Fast deployment. Easy to utilize. Requires limited or no hardware installation.
➢ Weakness: Completely reliant on the local cellular network. During PSPS or disaster failures, ENS solutions will not work. If the recipients have their phones on silent or off, they will not be alerted by the notification.
9 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 400
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

4.2 Indoor Notification Solutions
❖ Solution Types: Indoor Notification Systems are utilized to provide coverage visually and audibly to ensure that the alerts are clearly received inside buildings. These notifications consist of workstation desktop alerts, overhead paging/intercom alerts, mounted digital displays, and any networked signs and TVs.
➢ Indoor audio alerting: Integrates with in-building paging or intercom systems, telephones, and other networked audio devices. This ensures full compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
➢ Indoor visual alerting: Integrates with workstations, digital signs, and other networked displays (TVs, wall mounted tablets). This ensures full compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
➢ Life Safety Systems Integration: Integrates with local fire alarm, earthquake sensors, and electronic security systems to ensure that the legacy alarms are reinforced with intelligible audio and visual alerts (ADA compliance).
❖ Strengths & Vulnerabilities:
➢ Strengths: Unifies the indoor spaces with the outdoor warning alerts. This ensures that all alerts are instantly received by all residents and the City’s staff. ➢ Weakness: Requires indoor wiring and cabling (unless self-powered and wireless solutions are implemented)
10 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 401
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

4.3 Outdoor Notification Solutions
❖ Solution Types: Outdoor Warning Sirens (OWS) are the industry standard and the accepted capability by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). OWS allow for immediate alerting across a large area by utilizing all weather outdoor warning sirens. ➢ Intelligible Audio Alerts: Intelligible sirens that can be clearly heard from miles away. ➢ Wireless & Self Powered: Siren control cabinet systems configured to operate on wired/wireless communication infrastructure and self-powered/self charging systems. ➢ Central Control System: Mass Notifications System management software to quickly and easily create, transmit, and manage all alerts.
❖ Alerting Methods: The City of Rolling Hills Utilizes various communications media to transmit the following alerts.
➢ Live Custom or Pre-Recorded Voice Alerts: A custom live or pre-recorded voice message can be transmitted to all or selected siren points.
➢ Tone Alerts: Transmit pre-established tone alerts.
❖ Strengths & Vulnerabilities:
➢ Strengths: Self-powered and can communicate on networks not affected by PSPS or other types of power outages.
➢ Weakness: Has the highest cost to cover the desired area. 11 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 402
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

4.3.1 Outdoor Warning Sirens & Speakers
Description SiRcom Whelen Federal Signal ATI
Sirens
Configuration
Options
2-36 Omni, Bi, or
Directional
Better Coverage
1-10 Omni 1-8 Omni, 2-6
Directional
4 or 8 Omni or
Directional
Directional
Capable
Yes
More Flexibility
No Yes Yes
Max Output
Power
5,400 Watts
More Efficient
4,000 Watts 3,200 Watts Omni,
600 Watts
Directional
3,200 Watts
Max Effective
Range @
70dBc
6,800’ (2,270m)
Longer Range
6,100’ (1,859m) 4,300’ Omni, 3,400
Directional
-
Max dB
Output @ 30m
137dB
Better Intelligible
Sound
124dB 124dB 124dB
Battery
Configuration
12V, 24V
Less Maintenance
Lower Upfront Cost
48V 48V 48V
Capable of
Operating on
AC Mains
ONLY
Yes
Real Redundancy
Fail-Safe PWR System
No (Charges from,
AC & Operates
From Battery Only)
No (Charges from,
AC & Operates
From Battery Only)
No (Charges
from, AC &
Operates From
Battery Only)
Solar Charging Yes Yes Yes Yes
Standby Time 30 Days
Longer Standby Time
72 Hours 72 Hours 8 Days
Max Alarm
Duration
No Limit
Better Performance
30 Minutes 30 Minutes 30 Minutes
Comms IP, VHF, UHF, SATCOM,
GPRS, LOS, 4G/5G, Mesh
Better Performance

IP, VHF, UHF IP, VHF, SATCOM,
4G/5G

IP, VHF, UHF,
Cellular
Cloud-Based
and
On-Premise
Controllers
Cloud, On-Premise, or
Hybrid Servers
More Options
Better Performance
On-Premise On-Premise On-Premise
Cost Per Siren
Pole (For Like
Capabilities +
Labor)
$25K Per Pole *
Lower Cost For Better
Performance
$48K Per Pole $45K Per Pole $35K Per Pole
12 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 403
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA
Note *: SiRcom launched the SiRcom-Vector Speaker Line in 2021. The new product is lower in profile with a modern look without sacrificing any of the top capabilities and performance features.

4.3.2 The Leading Outdoor Warning Siren System
Outdoor Warning Sirens Reviewed: Intelligible Sound Advantage Higher intelligibility: High Power Speaker Array’s (HPSA)’s vertical line arrays provide a narrow vertical output pattern for focusing sound at audiences, without wasting output energy on the floor and up in the air; the more narrow the beam, the less distortion due to reflections, resulting in higher intelligibility Equalized intelligibility: HPSA’s vertical line arrays approximate a line source of sound, creating a nearly cylindrical sound propagation pattern, resulting in balanced sound power output; messages are clearly heard at 100 feet as well as 1,500 feet Directing sound where you need it: HPSA speakers can be mounted for omni-directional and directional speaker coverage Intelligibility ratings: 0.8 Common Intelligibility Scale (CIS) rating; Phonetically Balanced Word Score Test—better than 95%* This very high intelligibility rating ensures the clearest voice alerts.

1. Energy Efficient HPSAs only need one 100-watt driver per horn; two drivers needed for 360° coverage, equalling a fraction of the number of drivers required for traditional speaker system designs

2. Better Power Management utilizing Class D amplification technology, the HPSA amplifier is better than 90% efficient, enables lower current draw and increased battery life, requiring fewer speakers and significantly less power for a substantially larger range 13 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 404
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA
Outdoor Warning Sirens Reviewed: Control Cabinet
The SiRcom Outdoor Warning System is the world’s most modern and capable solution on the market today. It starts with the SMART engineering design of the SiRcom Control Cabinets. The SiRcom Control Cabinets are compact, efficient, and easy to manage.

SiRcom Control Cabinet: Key Advantages Over Other Reviewed OEM Solutions Description SiRcom Whelen Federal Signal ATI
Hot Swappable Yes
Simple Maintenance
No No No
Simple Emergency
Battery Shut Off
Yes
Increased Safety
No No No
Advanced
Amplifiers
Yes
Efficient Power
No No No
Wireless Proximity
Maintenance
Report
Yes
Faster Systems Checks
No No No
Remote Alert On
Site
Yes
Increased Flexibility
Yes Yes Yes
Receive Signals VIA
Secure Mesh
Network From
Other Siren Poles
Yes
Increased Redundancy
No No No
Note: Other advantages are not listed for brevity of the proposal. 14 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 405
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA
Outdoor Warning Sirens Reviewed: Battery Requirement
The SiRcom Outdoor Warning Siren System’s control cabinet and the sirens are highly efficient and utilize less power to perform better. A single 12VDC battery will operate the entire siren system which only requires once a year checks for annual preventative maintenance that has a 5-7 year shelf life (depending on use). In addition, the SiRcom back single 12VDC battery can power an entire multi-siren pole for up to 30 days during power source failure (AC or Solar). This is due to the advanced amplification and power management system prebuilt into the solution being provided to The City of Rolling Hills.

Outdoor Warning Sirens Reviewed: Local Control Units
The SiRcom Outdoor Warning Siren System’s local control units mimic the same features and capabilities of the Central Control Unit. This familiarity to the controls builds confidence for the Controllers. The SiRcom Local Control Unit is Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant and secure. The unit allows for the Controllers to quickly utilize the local alerting without limited hot keys or functions. 15 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 406
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA
Outdoor Warning Sirens Reviewed: SiRcom SMART Alert Software (SiSA) The SiRcom SMART Alert Software (SiSA) is the control software for the outdoor warning sirens. The software can manage the outdoor warning sirens and transmit electronic notifications via voice calls, SMS text, emails, and social media page updates.

The SiRcom SMART Alert Software (SiSA) was developed utilizing deep machine learning algorithms. This is the core baseline for the SMART software technology. Due to this, SiSA is able to provide the following features:
❖ Access The Solution From Anywhere
➢ Mobile Devices
➢ Workstations
❖ Secure Software
➢ Advance Encryption Security (AES) 256 BIT
➢ At Rest & In Transit (Military Grade Encryption)
➢ Secure Server Site (Military Approved)
➢ Encrypted Log-in & Single Sign On (SSO)
❖ Easy To Operate
➢ Three Interactive Map Options
➢ Easy To Use Quick Menu To Save You Time
➢ Quick Menu & Standard Menu
➢ Easy 1-2-3 Send Functionality
➢ Automatic User List Updates
❖ SMART Functions
➢ Real-Time Systems Status of All Alert Points
➢ Life like Text-To-Speech
➢ Real-Time Historical Reporting
16 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 407
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

5. Proposed Solution Options

5.1 Installation Solution Options
HQE has developed the below two (2) options for The City of Rolling Hills’s considerations. Both options provide the desired intelligible emergency voice alert coverage. ❖ Option A: The Low Visibility Installation Option utilizes nine (9) 30’ poles throughout the City (see image below). The 30’ poles are mounted with the modern designed intelligible speakers.

At 30’, the outdoor warning speakers will be slightly above the height of the residential homes.

This will allow for the best sound transmission without placing the poles too high above the roofline. In addition, these 30’ poles can be covered with tree facades that will blend in with the local vegetation.
❖ Option B: The Low Cost Installation Option utilizes the standard 50’ poles mounted with the intelligible horns positioned in a 360 degree transmission position. The 50’ pole allows for the sound to be projected from a higher elevation. This allows for a greater coverage area which reduces overall equipment requirements.
17 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 408
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

5.1.1 Option A: Low Visibility Installation Option Sound Coverage This option takes into consideration that the community desires to have a low visibility outdoor warning system. This option utilizes the nine (9) SiRcom Vector speaker option mounted on shorter 30’ poles to provide the required emergency alert notification coverage. 18 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 409
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA
❖ Cost: $310,601.53
❖ Installation Time: ~30 Workdays
Equipment Required
❖ (1) SiRcom Central Control Unit
➢ Includes
■ (1) SiRcom SMART Alert Software (SiSA) - Annual Subscription ■ Dell Server
■ LCD Monitor
■ Keyboard, Mouse, Mouse Pad
❖ (9) SiRcom Outdoor Warning Vertical Speaker Arrays
➢ Mounted on 30’ poles (Poles With Life-Like Tree Facades) ❖ (9) SiRcom Control Cabinets
➢ Each Control Cabinet Includes
■ Motorola VHF Radio, and GSM Integration Module
■ Solar Power Module
■ (1) 12VDC Sealed Battery
■ Local Activation Module
19 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 410
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

5.1.2 Option B: Lowest Cost Installation Option Sound Coverage This option takes into consideration providing The City of Rolling Hills with the lowest cost option available on the market. This option utilizes the three (3) SiRcom omni-directional horn option mounted on 50’ poles to provide the maximum coverage utilizing the least amount of poles for the City. 20 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 411
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA
❖ Cost: $144,572.93
❖ Installation Time: ~14 Workdays
Equipment Required
❖ (1) SiRcom Central Control Unit
➢ Includes
■ (1) SiRcom SMART Alert Software (SiSA) - Annual Subscription ■ Dell Server
■ LCD Monitor
■ Keyboard, Mouse, Mouse Pad
❖ (3) SiRcom Outdoor Warning Sirens
➢ SiRcom SPT (16 Speakers Per Pole)
➢ Mounted on 50’ poles (Poles With Life-Like Tree Facades) ❖ (3) SiRcom Control Cabinets
➢ Each Control Cabinet Includes
■ Motorola VHF Radio, and GSM Integration Module
■ Solar Power Module
■ (1) 12VDC Sealed Battery
■ Local Activation Module
21 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 412
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

5.2 Outdoor Warning Siren Pole Tree Facade
The following are HQE’s proposed life-like tree facades included with Low Visibility Installation Option.

The facades do not require maintenance and will be installed by HQE. 22 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 413
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA
23 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 414
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

5.2.1 Simulated View Of Siren Poles With Tree Facades
Below: SiRcom Outdoor Warning Siren Poles mounted with no tree facade.

Below: SiRcom Outdoor Warning Siren Poles mounted with tree facade. The tree facade will provide a lower visual signature of the poles and sirens. In addition to the tree facades, when taking into consideration the final installation points, when possible the hills will be used to mask the silhouette of the sirens.
24 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 415
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

5.3 Mobile Alert Expeditionary Unit (Si-MAX) Option
The SiRcom Mobile Alert Expeditionary Unit (Si-MAX) and the Mobile Alert Expeditionary Unit Lite (Si-MAX Lite) are two way emergency mass notification devices.

Si-MAX Unit operates on the SiRcom SMART Alert Software (SiSA). All of the features found on the standard SiSA Emergency Alert Menu will be available on the Si-MAX display. This ensures that any authorized user can access, draft, and transmit emergency notifications while on the move. Si-MAX will communicate the alert message via any WiFi, Cellular, or VHF communications network. (Not included in the proposal pricing)
Key Features of the SiRcom Mobile Alert Expeditionary Unit (Si-MAX) ❖ Control Features
Alert All Outdoor Sirens 10” Digital Color Display Touch Screen Easy To See In Daylight Digital Keyboard Secure Log-In
Encrypted Software Integrated Speaker GPS Tracking
Continuous SOS Signal Camera & Mic
❖ Power
110VAC (House Power) 12VDC (Car Outlet) Internal 20 Hour Battery Solar Battery Panel (Option)
❖ Communications
WiFI (Local Internet) Cellular (4G/5G) Radio (VHF/UHF)
NFC Bluetooth RFID
❖ Commercial Info
MSRP $2295 / EA 1 YR Warranty Free Updates
25 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 416
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA
Si-MAX Lite is a two way emergency communications device that each residential home can possess.

The Si-MAX Lite can be plugged into the residents home power while not in use. Once an emergency alert notification is transmitted by the local emergency managers and received by the Si-MAX Lite Unit, the resident can take the Si-MAX Lite Unit with them to maintain real-time situational awareness as the emergency event progresses. This device also allows each resident to transmit a GPS signal that can be tracked by The City of Rolling Hills’s emergency managers during the emergency. This feature can assist the The City of Rolling Hills’s emergency response team to get to the resident quickly to provide assistance or to ensure they are on the safest path out of the danger area. (Not included in the proposal pricing)
Key Features of the SiRcom Mobile Alert Expeditionary Unit (Si-MAX) ❖ Control Features

3.5” Digital Color Display Rugged Screen Easy To See In Daylight Easy Navigation Button All Environments Encrypted Software Integrated Speaker GPS Tracking Continuous SOS Signal
❖ Power
110VAC (House Power) 12VDC (Car Outlet) Internal 7 Hour Battery Solar Battery Panel (Option)
❖ Communications
WiFI (Local Internet) Cellular (4G/5G) Radio (VHF/UHF)
NFC Bluetooth RFID
❖ Commercial Info
MSRP $395 / EA 1 YR Warranty Free Updates
26 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 417
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA

6.0 Conclusion of Report
HQE is pleased to conclude this report for The City of Rolling Hills. Although The City of Rolling Hills faces several challenges that were identified by HQE, the solutions being proposed mitigates all of the challenges. The report proposes two (2) unique outdoor warning systems installation options for the City. These options were designed and proposed after careful analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of all of the current options in the market today. The SiRcom Mass Notifications System allows The City of Rolling Hills to meet the initial mass alerting requirements and to scale later with any indoor alerting and security systems integrations that the City may require. This solution being proposed is truly a capability that will allow The City of Rolling Hills to install a solution that will not be outdated due to the modern unified mass notifications system design.

The proposed Mass Notifications System is the world’s most comprehensive solution with multiple redundant alerting channels pre-built into the system. The SiRcom SMART Alert System enables The City of Rolling Hills to provide the desired emergency response alerting in the event that the power or cellular communications have failed. It is a Fully Certified Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) System. The above Unified Mass Notifications System solution ensures that The City of Rolling Hills is able to maximize the resources available in the mission to Save Lives and Protect Property. The unified solution doesn’t rely on a single network but a family of networks to ensure that when the Emergency System is required to perform its purpose, even in the event of power outages, the system WILL WORK! The proposed solution installed will provide The City of Rolling Hills with the solution to mitigate the risks faced by the Cities and Counties of California in the infamous 2019 wildfires. In addition to the actual installation options for the outdoor warning system, HQE would suggest a community outreach program that would allow the residents of the community to talk directly with Mass Notification Systems experts.

This will allow The City of Rolling Hills to help the residents better understand why the solution is so important for the life safety program of The City of Rolling Hills. 27 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 418
Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report
The City of Rolling Hills, CA
Thank You For Your Continued Support of HQE Systems, Inc.

A Minority Owned, FEMA Certified Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business End of Mass Notifications System Installation Report
28 | Page
HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 419
42075 Remington Ave. Suite 109
Temecula, CA 92105
800.967.3036
www.HQESystems.com
420
Agenda Item No.: 10.A
Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN PALERMO, PROJECT MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: DISCUSS THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S

REQUEST RELATING TO THE CITY HALL CAMPUS EMERGENCY
POWER PROJECT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF.

DATE: January 10, 2022
BACKGROUND:

To replace the non-functioning standby generator that provides emergency power to City Hall and the Rolling Hills Community Association, the City Council authorized an assessment report and considered three options for replacement at the May 10, 2021 City Council meeting. On May 24, 2021, after City Council discussed the three options, staff was directed to: 1) design the solar option; 2) consider leasing portable generator to provide emergency if necessary; and 3) remove the existing non-functioning emergency standby generator, and repair the water intrusion problem at the existing generator structure.

At the June 14, 2021 City Council meeting, City Council approved a second amendment with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. for preparing plans to remove the existing standby generator including repairing of the water intrusion at the generator housing and prepare design plans to implement the solar option..

The second amendment with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. (PAE) was executed in July 2021 and PAE proceeded with preliminary design. City Staff and PAE held several meetings to discuss the proposed solar option and layout. After a period of research and information gathering, PAE provided preliminary design plans for layout of the solar panels in November 2021. The preliminary design plan was reviewed by staff. The available roof surface area, the orientation of the surface area to the sun, and other design/cost factors were considered. The most efficient and cost effective design was to position all the solar panels on the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) building.

The preliminary design was provided to RHCA and the plans were reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee on December 7, 2021. The Architectural Committee requested to have solar panels over the entry of the RHCA building be removed and placed on the City Hall Building. The preliminary design plans submitted to the Architectural Review meeting and the meeting minutes are attached to this report.
421
DISCUSSION:

Removing solar panels from the RHCA Building and placing them on the City Hall building will have several impacts/issues to consider:

There is a tree at City Hall making the panels less efficient. The city could consider cutting this tree down so that the panels would have more exposure to the sun.

There is space for 29 panels on the City Hall roof versus 66 panels on the RHCA building. Panels on both buildings will drive up the cost of the project. Cost of re-roofing one roof vs two roofs (roughly savings of $20,000 just for roof and waterproofing, and additional $30,000-$50,000 if structural reinforcement is needed).

FISCAL IMPACT:

The overall project cost will be impacted if the solar panels are divided between roofs of City Hall and the RHCA building. High level estimation shows the cost differential between placing all solar panels on the RHCA building and dividing the panels is approximately $20,000 to $60,000.

RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

Rolling Hill Maintenance Buildings One Two- SFR V3_Review.pdf 2021.12.07 RH Architectural Review_Solar Panels.pdf
422
%
$($*$!('-'("$)"#('
'744B#C<14@ 

8;4%0B7

 




   


'
#()&
N

BUILDING TWO BUILDING
ONE

4=4@0;#>B4A&.1*48.(*
&1*/ 
" 
 &035 -.5
-26282/6&.(:56*0(215.5652+7./).1,
1* &19-&


!

  *1*4&(
29*4:56*05#  $
"%18*46*4

 :+'(

 :+%(
AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G


 :+7
-.5
-26282/6&.(:56*0(215.5652+

&19-&


!

 
 *1*4&(
29*4:56*05#  $
"%18*46*45

 :+'(



 :+%(
AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G

 :+7
@0E=1G EE411&4D8A8>=

Project Address:Project Name:Project contact:
0B4

8BG>5&>;;8=6
8;;A
%>@BC6C4A44=3&>03&>;;8=6
8;;A 




 '(%7>B>D>;B082'GAB4<
'!*&
$,&#+!' !!


 
>>B78;;;D3
'C8B4

@20380  


!82  
C=
C98B0
0;;





INVERTER & BATTERY STORAGE EQUIPMENT LOCATION

INVERTER & BATTERY

STORAGE EQUIPMENT

LOCATION
2 IN SCHEDULE 90 PVC

CONDUIT TO BE

CONNECTED BETWEEN

THE TWO BUILDING FOR

SOLAR ARRAY
423
%
$($*$!('-'("$)"#('
'744B#C<14@ 

8;4%0B7




 


'
#()&

4=4@0;#>B4A&.1*48.(*
&1*/ 
" 
 &035 -.5
-26282/6&.(:56*0(215.5652+7./).1,
1* &19-&


!

 
2/&43&1*/562'*/2(&6*)21422+2+7./).1, 92 *1*4&( 29*4:56*05#  $
"%18*46*4



:+'(

 :+%(
AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G


 :+7
@0E=1G EE411&4D8A8>=

Project Address:Project Name:Project contact:
0B4

8BG>5&>;;8=6
8;;A3<8=8AB@0B8>=C8;38=6
%>@BC6C4A44=3&>03&>;;8=6
8;;A 




:+'(%7>B>D>;B082&>>5'GAB4<
'!*&
$,&#+!' !!


 
>>B78;;;D3
'C8B4

@20380  


!82  
C=
C98B0
0;;




N

BUILDING ONE

INVERTER & BATTERY STORAGE

EQUIPMENT LOCATION
424
%
$($*$!('-'("$)"#('
'744B#C<14@ 

8;4%0B7




 


'
#()&

4=4@0;#>B4A&.1*48.(*
&1*/ 
" 
 &035 -.5
-26282/6&.(:56*0/2(&6*)217./).1, 92 &19-&


!

 
 *1*4&(
29*4:56*05#  $
"%18*46*4


:+'(

 :+%(
AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G



 :+7
@0E=1G EE411&4D8A8>=

Project Address:Project Name:Project contact:
0B4

8BG"08=B4=0=24C8;38=6
%>@BC6C4A44=3&>03&>;;8=6
8;;A 




'(%7>B>D>;B082'GAB4<
'!*&
$,&#+!' !!


 
>>B78;;;D3
'C8B4

@20380  


!82  
C=
C98B0
0;;




N

BUILDING TWO

INVERTER & BATTERY STORAGE EQUIPMENT LOCATION
425
%
$($*$!('-'("$)"#('
'744B#C<14@ 

8;4%0B7
 





 


'
#()&

4=4@0;#>B4A&.1*48.(*
&1*/ 
" 
 &035 -.5
-26282/6&.(:56*0(215.5652+7./).1,
1* &19-&


!

  *1*4&(
29*4:56*05#  $
"%18*46*4

 :+'(

 :+%(
AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G


 :+7
@0E=1G EE411&4D8A8>=

Project Address:

Project Name:Project contact:
0B4

8BG"08=B4=0=24C8;38=6
%>@BC6C4A44=3&>03&>;;8=6
8;;A 



 '(%7>B>D>;B082'GAB4<
'!*&
$,&#+!' !!


 
>>B78;;;D3
'C8B4

@20380  


!82  
C=
C98B0
0;;





8=
 8=

#&%+&!!A<0@B10BB4@G


:+720?028BG0=3

:+7CA01;44=4@6G$)($$&&(#"
&"#'$#'!F+F F

F



 8=


 8=


#&%+&4;;
4=4@02%>E4@'GAB4<A,*(


.

*/"#'$#'!F+F
F

F 
'$!&'$##(

#&%+&4;;
CB><0B82(@0=A54@'E8B27

17.1 kwh City Hall 8 kwh Community Association Building When batteries are used in a black out event: 42 cells dedicated to City Hall 24 cells dedicated to Community Association Buildings 426
427
Agenda Item No.: 10.B
Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER CONTRACT FOR SERVICES TO TEMPORARILY STAFF THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

DATE: January 10, 2022
BACKGROUND:

On October 8, 2021, the Director of Planning and Community Services resigned from the City. On October 11, 2021, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with Michael Baker International (MBI) for $10,000 to provide planning services in the absence of a director. On November 22, 2021, the City Council approved an amendment for an additional $10,240 to continue with MBI.

The amendment allowed MBI to serve until December 3, 2021, and provided an overlap between MBI and the new director who was hired on November 22, 2021. On December 17, 2021, the Code Enforcement Officer/Planner, Stephanie Grant, gave her resignation from the City. Her last day was December 31, 2021.

DISCUSSION:

The new director, who has been with the City for just over a month, is currently operating the department without staff. The Department is also working on finalizing the 6th cycle Housing Element, and the Safety Element (grant funded). Both plans have strict deadlines.

In order to effectively operate the City's planning and community services, it is imperative to hire experienced staff who can continue processing planning projects and code enforcement cases. While considerations are being made for permanent staff, MBI can provide planning services since its planner is already familiar with the requirements and procedures of the City. This will help provide customer service and keep development projects from being delayed. MBI has staff specialized in specific areas, so if the contract planner has a question on environmental impacts, new legislation, or common practices then the planner can reach out to others within the organization. This breadth of expertise would be beneficial for the City. Staff is confident the contract employees will be able to provide services while the City considers options for permanent employees.

Staff is also considering a contract code enforcement officer to handle code cases related to illegal construction, dead vegetation, and nuisance complaints. Staff is opting for contract employees at this time because they can be hired more quickly than regular employees. 428
FISCAL IMPACT:

Professional service agreements will be paid using salary savings from the Planning Department. A total of approximately $39,000 of salary savings are available for contract services for the next two to three months. Of the total, approximately $22,000 will be dedicated to a contract planner and the remaining $17,000 will be dedicated to code enforcement services.

RECOMMENDATION:

Direct staff to engage professional services.

ATTACHMENTS:

PSA_with_MICHAEL_BAKER-_executed_10.13.21.pdf
Rolling Hills First Amendment Michael Baker-c1_12.01.21_executed.pdf Michael Baker Letter Proposal for additional hours Updated_11.29.21.pdf Rolling Hills Second Amendment Michael Baker_01.10.22-c1.pdf 429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
99999.91799\34571294.1
Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
Planning Services
This Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement (“Second Amendment”) is made and entered into this 10th day of January 2022 by and between the City of Rolling Hills, a municipal corporation (“City”), and Michael Baker International, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (“Consultant”).

BACKGROUND
A. On October 13, 2021, the City and Consultant entered into an Agreement for on call land use planning services (“Agreement”).

B. On November 22, 2021, the City and Consultant entered into a First Amendment to increase the original scope of work and the do not exceed amount to address City needs (“First Amendment”).

C. The City and Consultant desire to amend the Agreement a second time to increase the original scope of work and the do not exceed amount and extend the term of the Agreement to address City needs (“Second Amendment”).

D. The Consultant warrants to the City that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities to perform properly and timely the services.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements set forth below, the City and Consultant agree as follows:

1. Paragraph 1.0 (SCOPE OF THE CONSULTANT’S SERVICES) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

1.0 SCOPE OF THE CONSULTANT'S SERVICES. The Consultant agrees to provide the services and perform the tasks set forth in the Scope of Work, attached to and made part of this Agreement as Exhibit A, except that, to the extent that any provision in Exhibit A conflicts with this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern.

The Consultant shall provide 224 hours of service. The Consultant shall begin work upon a written notice to proceed from the City and shall stop work upon any written notice to stop from the City. The Scope of Work may be amended from time to time in writing and signed by both parties by way of written amendment to this Agreement. The location where services are to be performed shall be determined by mutual agreement of the parties' representatives.

To the extent that services are performed in City Hall, Consultant agrees that its employees will abide by any COVID-19 protocols then in effect. Consultant shall perform all services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. 457
99999.91799\34571294.1

2. Paragraph 2.0 (TERM OF THE AGREEMENT) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

2.0 TERM OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement will become effective upon execution by both parties and will remain in effect for a period of one year from said date unless otherwise expressly extended and agreed to by both parties in writing through written amendment to this Agreement or terminated by either party as provided herein.

3. Paragraph 3.0 (COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

3.0 COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES. The City shall pay the Consultant for its professional services rendered and costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit A subject to a do not exceed amount in the amount of $42,640.

Compensation shall under no circumstances be increased except by written amendment of this Agreement. The Consultant shall be paid within forty-five (45) days of presentation of an invoice to the City for services performed to the City's reasonable satisfaction. The Consultant shall submit invoices monthly describing the services performed, the date services were performed, and any other information requested by the City.

4. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by the First Amendment and this Second Amendment remain in full force and effect.
(Signatures on following page)
458
99999.91799\34571294.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment on the date and year first above written, and it is effective as of January 10, 2022.

CITY
City of Rolling Hills
By:

Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Attest:

By:

Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

By:

Michael Jenkins, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
Michael Baker International, Inc.

By:

William Hoose, Associate Vice President
459
Agenda Item No.: 10.C
Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER HIRING A PENINSULA CITIES JOINT HOUSING/LOCAL CONTROL LOBBYIST.

DATE: January 10, 2022
BACKGROUND:

Rolling Hills recognizes the State of California’s efforts in addressing the housing crisis and support initiatives in achieving workable solutions, but believe SB 9 will have significant impacts on how the cities effectively regulate and develop. Senate Bill (SB) 9 eliminates single-family zoning across California by allowing lot splits and multiple units on each split. With the possibility of more state housing bills in the future, the Peninsula cities have been collaborating on how to bolster our combined voices by seeking the expertise of state lobbyist.

This joint effort started with all four Peninsula cities. Along the process, Rolling Hills Estates expressed they will continue to seek the services of the Cal Cities on the legislation front. The three Peninsula cities jointly issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on 9/10/2021 for lobbyists services for housing and local control issues. The effort resulted in two proposals from Renne Public Policy Law Group (RPPG) and Joe A. Gonsalves & Son.

In November 2021, Palos Verdes Estates decided not to participate in the effort.

DISCUSSION:

Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes scheduled/conducted interviews with proposers. After a thorough evaluation, RPPG was selected. In December 2021, Rancho Palos Verdes presented the solicitation effort to the Council subcommittee and the subcommittee will recommend to the Council to engage the services of RPPG. Both proposers provided the ability for individual cities to contract for services independently.
460
Each staff member involved in the assessment process of both firms filled out objective scoring criteria evaluating the firms approach to meet the project scope of work, ability to demonstrate effective use of resources, qualifications, credentials and relevant experience, and dedication to complete the project in a timely manner. Through this assessment and interview interaction our cities determined RPPG would better fit the cities needs.

Rolling Hills can collaborate with Rancho Palos Verdes via a joint contract for service with RPPG, or contract independent with RPPG for service or not engage service.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The adopted FY 2021-2022 budget did not include funds to engage the services of a lobbyist.

Renne Public Policy Law Group (RPPG)
Fees: $6,500.00/ monthly flat fee retainer agreement ($3,250 per month, per agency, 2 agencies) $39,000.00 Rolling Hills Annual Fee
RECOMMENDATION:

Consider and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

RFP_JointPeninsulaLobbyist_2021-08-27_assembled.pdf
Renne Public Policy Law Group Proposal.pdf
Joe A. Gonsalves & Son Lobbyist Proposal- Received 9.10.21.pdf 461

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

STATE LOBBYIST ON LEGISLATIONS RELATING TO LOCAL CONTROL AND HOUSING FOR THE

THREE PENINSULA CITIES
PROPOSALS DUE 3 PM, SEPTEMBER 23, 2021

BACKGROUND
The Palos Verdes Peninsula is comprised four cities: Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills. This Request for Proposal is a joint effort between three of the four Peninsula cities: Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills with Rolling Hills leading the solicitation effort.

The Peninsula is located southwest of the City of Los Angeles with an approximate population of 65,000. The Peninsula is primarily comprised of residential zones and open space. The area is entirely located within a Cal Fire designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

Residential activities are the major land use in the Peninsula.

The State of California is focusing on the housing crisis. In recent years, state legislators have drafted numerous housing bills that have or will dramatically change unique characteristics of communities without consideration for local constraints with respect to public health and safety.

The Peninsula cities recognize the State of California’s efforts in addressing the housing crisis and support initiatives in achieving workable solutions. Eroding land use authority and local control however, is a one-size-fits all approach that only removes checks and balances on development projects but not address the affordability of housing. The three Peninsula cities (Joint Cities) believe densification must be balanced by local capacity assessments including utility infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, natural disaster risks, and proximity to job centers.

The Joint Cities are seeking to leverage resources to share a state lobbyist to preserve the characteristics of the Peninsula community and have a voice at the State level to offer solutions from a local perspective.
462
SECTION 1
Purpose / Scope of Work
Through this Request for Proposal, the Joint Cities are seeking proposals from firms to provide government relations and lobbying services in order to assist the Joint Cities to: (1) build relationships with state elected and appointed officials; (2) advance the joint cities legislative priorities in Attachment A (Rancho Palos Verdes Policy Platform); and (3) provide political communication and coalition support.

SECTION 2
Scope of Work
• Review and analyze legislations affecting the interests, business and affairs of the Joint Cities related to housing and local land use and keep the joint cities advised of the status of all such legislation.
• Seek to influence legislative and administrative action taken by the State in connection with local government issues with an emphasis on protecting local land use control. • Perform duties customarily performed by legislative advocates and governmental affairs representatives on behalf of the Joint Cities to the best of the consultant’s ability, experience and expertise.
• Work closely with the City Councils, City Managers, and key staff to develop a detailed legislative strategic plan.
• Develop and evaluate strategies for the support, opposition, or amending of pending legislation and regulations.
• Review all existing and proposed state policies, programs and legislations, including bills and amendments, and identify those issues that may affect the Joint Cities, or its citizens and regularly inform the joint cities on these matters. • Advise the Joint Cities of significant actions taken by the California Legislature in matters of interest to the client and recommend appropriate actions for the joint cities. • Respond to issues and assist the Joint Cities in providing appropriate communication to key legislators and regulators including individual and joint communications on bills that one or all three cities take a position on.
• Engage in advocacy on behalf of the Joint Cities on state matters and on client sponsored legislative proposals.
• Meet with members of the Legislature and officers of state government when necessary to advocate the Joint Cities legislative policies and objectives. • Schedule meetings between City Councils, City Mangers, and members of the Legislature and officers of state government when necessary to advocate the Joint Cities legislative policies and objectives.
• Assume full responsibility for preparation of reports required by lobbyist pursuant to the Fair Political Practice Act.
• Concurrent with monthly invoices and in order to process monthly invoices, submit timely periodic reports (either monthly, quarterly, or as circumstance demand, more frequently) summarizing significant legislative and governmental developments affecting the joint cities and describing specific activities of lobbyist on the Joint Cities’ behalf. 463
SECTION 3

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Understanding of the Scope of Work:

Firms shall provide a narrative to the approach to complete the Scope of Work efficiently and economically.

2. Organization, Credentials and Experience:

Provide a summary of the Firm’s qualifications, credentials, and related past experience.

Describe the firm, including the personnel who will be assigned to the contract. Provide a list of three of the firm’s projects within the last five years of similar scope and content.

3. Fees:

Under separate cover, provide a rate proposal for the scope of work. The cost proposal shall be identified for each task. The proposed cost budget shall present the labor rates and proposed labor hours of proposed staff for each work task described in the consultant’s proposal, as well as other direct costs.

4. Additional Information:

Firms are to review the sample Professional Services Agreement (Attachment 5) and provide comments and or questions as a part of the firm’s proposal. See Section 6 of this RFP.

SECTION 4

PROPOSAL PROCEDURE
All proposals are due no later than 3pm on September 23, 2021. The Joint Cities reserve the right to extend the deadline. The Joint Cities will respond to request for clarification in written RFP addendum(s) as needed. All inquiries for clarification shall submitted in writing via email to the City of Rolling Hills Senior Management Analyst by 12pm on September 15, 2021. The City will post any addendums to the RPF to the City of Rolling Hills website. Consultants planning to submit a proposal are required to refer to the website to verify that they have received all addendums issued for this RFP. Proposals shall be emailed to the Senior Management Analyst.

Ashford Ball
Senior Management Analyst
City of Rolling Hills
[email protected]
310 377-1521
Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the firm of the conditions contained in this request for proposal unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the agreement between the City of Rolling Hills and the firm selected. The Joint 464
Cities reserve the right without prejudice to reject any or all proposals. No reimbursement will be made by the Joint Cities for costs incurred in the preparation of the response to this Request for Proposal. Submitted materials will not be returned and become the property of the Joint Cities.

SECTION 5

SELECTION CRITERIA
Proposals will be selected based on sound approach to meeting the scope of work, the ability to demonstrate efficiency use of resources, the relevant experience of proposed personnel, and dedication of personnel to complete the project within the specified timeframe. Firms may be asked to participate in an interview with the Joint Cities. If necessary, interviews are tentatively scheduled for the week of October 4, 2021.

SECTION 6

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution on Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform
Attachment B Sample Professional Services Agreement
465
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-31

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE

CITY'S HOUSING AND LOCAL LAND USE LEGISLATIVE

PLATFORM
WHEREAS, the City Council has an interest in weighing in on state, federal, and regional legislative issues that impact the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, the Council annually takes action on numerous legislative proposals brought forward throughout the year; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is committed to maintaining and enhancing a high quality of life and safety for all residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes recognizes the State of California is in a housing crisis due to reduced housing stock as well as lack of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has proposed a number of bills addressing a range of planning and zoning issues that are typically addressed by local jurisdictions' general plan and zoning code to attempt to mitigate the housing crisis; and
WHEREAS, the majority of these planning and zoning bills usurp the authority of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves the local land use practices that best suit their cities and residents, as well as imposing unfunded mandates on jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the City has the tools, knowledge, and policies in place to continue to plan and develop innovative solutions to mitigate the housing crisis that, with the preservation of local land use authority, consider the City's unique geographic, geologic, and infrastructure constraints; and,
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2020, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2020-46, expressing opposition to proposed planning and zoning legislation that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates, and expressing support for actions to further strengthen local democracy, authority and control; and WHEREAS, the City Council continues to take an active advocacy role relating to housing and local land use legislative policies proposed by the State Legislature. 466
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does hereby resolve as follows:

Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2: The City Council hereby adopts and approves the City's Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform attached and incorporated herein by this reference (Attachment A), as the official housing and local land use legislative policy of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. This Platform may be used to build a coalition intended to protect local control.

Section 3: The City Council therefore hereby adopts the following findings:

A. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes proposed planning and zoning legislation that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates.

B. The City supports actions to further strengthen local democracy, authority, and control.

C. The City would support housing policies which include funded mandates or created funded programs such as Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) and Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) to assist local planning efforts.

D. The City would support policies that provide incentives to cities such as additional tax revenue or tax breaks and policies which grant concessions to existing policies for adoption of pro-housing policies.

E. The City would support policies or grants directed toward developers to incentivize the creation of affordable housing.

F. The City would support policies which expand programs such as Project Homekey, which repurpose existing buildings into an affordable housing option.

G. The City would support policies and programs which provide social services and mental health services to help unhoused persons be eligible for, acquire, and maintain affordable housing.

H. The City would support policies or programs that allow city and state collaboration on housing production, alongside sustainable transportation, broadband deployment, and other key infrastructure areas to support our communities.

Resolution No. 2021-31

Page 2 of 3 ends

467
Section 4: The Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform will be used to guide legislative advocacy related to housing and local land use authority.

Section 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and its certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council of the City.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021.

Eric Alegria,Mayor
ATTEST:
~€1¼ c3~
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2021 -31 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 6, 2021. ~ Tere~ oka, City Clerk
Resolution No. 2021 -31

Page 3 of 3 ends

468

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HOUSING AND

LOCAL LAND USE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
DATE ADOPTED: Resolution No. 2021-31 on July 6, 2021.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to the housing crisis and recent legislation proposed by the California Legislature:
• The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes proposed planning and zoning legislation that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates. • The City supports actions to further strengthen local democracy, authority, and control.
• The City would support housing policies which include funded mandates or create funded programs such as Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) and Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) to assist local planning efforts. • The City would support policies that provide incentives to cities such as additional tax revenue or tax breaks and policies which grant concessions to existing policies for adoption of pro-housing policies. • The City would support policies or grants directed toward developers to incentivize the creation of affordable housing.
• The City would support policies which expand programs such as Project Homekey, which repurpose existing buildings into an affordable housing option. • The City would support policies and programs which provide social services and mental health services to help unhoused persons be eligible for, acquire, and maintain affordable housing.
• The City would support policies or programs that allow city and state collaboration on housing production, alongside sustainable transportation, broadband deployment, and other key infrastructure areas to support our communities.

BACKGROUND
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County, California, and incorporated in 1973. The City is primarily comprised of 469
Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform

Page 2 ends

residential zones and open space, is nearly entirely located within a Cal Fire-designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), and is partially located in the statedesignated coastal zone. Moreover, approximately 1,200 acres of the City is within the Portuguese Bend Landslide complex, the largest and fastest moving landslide in North America.

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes recognizes that California is in the middle of a housing crisis. Housing stock cannot meet present demand and lack of affordable housing makes existing stock cost prohibitive. The Legislature has an apparent focus on passing laws which aim to mitigate the housing crisis through rescission of local land use authority and oversight to streamline the process of constructing additional units. These laws create a one-size-fits-all approach that fail to consider local authority and essential local oversight, including constraints faced by local agencies such as infrastructure limitations.

The City is committed to maintaining and enhancing a high quality of life and safety for all residents as reflected in its General Plan, updated as of 2018. Local land use authority is essential to ensuring that all new developments are suitable and safe for our community, and to allow the City and developers to work together to find the most mutually beneficial arrangement for all residents in the City.

Development within the City faces a number of unique challenges. Despite this, the City has a vibrant and well-planned mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

There are 8,274 acres of land within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City has determined that 1,710 acres (or 20%) of land are not suitable for development. These include Natural Environment/Hazard Areas which are lands designated as “Hazard,” “Open Space Hillside” and “Open Space Preserve” by the Land Use Element.

The areas designated “Hazard” possess extreme physical constraints, such as active landslide1, sea cliff erosion hazard, and extreme slopes of 35 percent and greater.

The areas designated “Open Space Hillside” are subject to extreme physical constraints and are maintained as open space, with very light-intensity uses permitted, such as landscaping, agriculture, passive recreational activities, and very minor structures, for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.

The areas designated “Open Space Preserve” encompass the City’s Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, which is approximately 1,400 acres of permanent open space. The City’s Preserve is enrolled in the State’s Natural Communities Conservation Plan and the 1 The Portuguese Bend Landslide is one of the largest and most active landslides in the country and encompasses over two of the City's roughly 14 square miles, moves at a rate between hundredths of an inch per year and tens of feet per year. This movement is especially noticed by motorists, cyclists and pedestrians who travel along Palos Verdes Drive South. The City continuously maintains a safe roadway through the area at a cost of about a half million dollars per year. An above-ground sewer trunk line is in jeopardy of failing with land movement that has the potential to cause a significant environmental catastrophe due to its close proximity to the Pacific Ocean. 470
Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform

Page 3 ends

Federal Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) and is encumbered with restrictions, held in perpetuity, for the preservation and protection of natural resources and habitat.

Residential activities are the major land use in the City, with existing and proposed residential uses encompassing approximately 5,500 acres (66.5% of the total land area).

The predominance of residential use and related density ranges is based on several factors: the ability of residential activity to produce low environmental stress, the geographic location of the community with no major transportation facilities, the geology of the site, lack of market potential for any major commercial development, and need for support facilities to meet the community’s demand.

As such, it is vital that local control be maintained to ensure public health and safety. Onesize-fits-all legislation with ministerial review requirements cannot take into account the unique geographic, geologic, and infrastructure constraints required for a project to be successful and to maintain or enhance public safety.

RECENT LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
On August 4, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-46 expressing opposition to proposed planning and zoning legislation that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates and expressing support for actions to further strengthen local democracy, authority, and control. It furthermore declares that, should the state continue to pass legislation that attacks local municipal authority, control and revenue, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will support actions such as a ballot measure that would limit the state’s ability to control local activities and strengthen local democracy and authority.

The City has registered its strong opposition to the current practice of the Legislature of proposing and passing multitudes of bills that directly impact and interfere with the ability of cities to control their own destiny through use of zoning authority that has been granted to them.

While the City appreciates the work of the Legislature to propose policies intended to mitigate the housing crisis, sweeping and ministerial measures cannot properly assess their impact on individual communities and their general plans. Streamlined ministerial approval may be a preferred housing solution for the Legislature, but such development may have significantly detrimental effects on public health and safety. The City is concerned that increasing density by-right will not allow sufficient oversight of infrastructure to ensure that capacities can meet increased residential populations.

In local land use planning and zoning, many factors must be considered. The City must maintain its local land use authority to ensure that all developments meet all safety standards and that related traffic changes do not have undue influence on egress paths in the event of an evacuation, particularly within the VHFHSZ and the Portuguese Bend Landslide complex, and with considerations for limitations on existing infrastructure. 471
Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform

Page 4 ends

During the 2020-2021 legislative session, as of June 15, 2021, the City has taken positions on nine bills relating to housing and land use (see Attachment A).

In general, the City has supported housing legislation which seeks to increase local oversight and flexibility, such as Assemblymember Muratsuchi’s Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7 which would amend the State Constitution to require certain local land use controls and zoning regulations remain within incorporated communities when in conflict with general laws. The City also supported Senator Allen’s Senate Bill No. 809, which would allow cities and counties to exchange land for regional housing need allocation (RHNA) shares for compensation of the development of that land.

The City has opposed legislation that erodes local land use authority, such as Senator Atkins’ SB 9, which would require ministerial approval of lot splits and duplexes in singlefamily residential zoned areas. The City is deeply concerned that bills such as SB 9, which would potentially quadruple density in single-family zoning by-right would have detrimental effects on the City’s infrastructure capacity, particularly in the event of an emergency. Increasing density without the ability for the City to properly plan for it will negatively impact public safety in a community like Rancho Palos Verdes, and its residents’ quality of life.

One-size-fits all laws inherently fail to consider the needs of individual communities and their general plans. Furthermore, the current practice of mandating streamlined local processes does nothing to address encouraging actual affordable development of those properties. The Legislature should consider bills that incentivize affordable developments and provide local agencies the ability to zone for such developments. The tone of recent bills, such as making it easier to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a property, does not guarantee that it will be sold below market rate, thereby affordable. In fact, it appears ADU’s are being rented above market rates throughout Los Angeles or being used for other uses than housing (i.e. gyms, studios, pool cabanas, etc. because of Statemandated relaxed zoning laws). Upzoning parcels is likely to increase the value of the underlying land, which then makes new construction unnecessarily more expensive and over time, raises the values and rents throughout the neighborhoods, making affordable housing even less likely to be built.

The current legislative preference for by-right approvals in favor of increasing density, fails to consider the nuances in individual communities, potentially risking public safety, and does nothing to inherently promote affordable housing, which is vital to recover from the housing crisis and is the purported aim of this approach.

POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS
The City is supportive of legislation which seeks to preserve local land use authority and flexibility, giving choices and incentives to cities. Ultimately, the City would support legislation which would allow local governments to adopt proposed legislation if the requirements are suitable in their individual jurisdictions. Local planning departments have the knowledge and skills to prepare creative solutions to the housing crisis that best 472
Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform

Page 5 ends

serve their communities. By-right zoning legislation undermines their ability to exercise the city’s local land use authority and problem-solve based on their city’s unique geographic, geologic, and infrastructure constraints, but with state support, they have the capacity to help alleviate the housing crisis.

The City would additionally continue to support legislation that provides financial assistance to implement new directives, or programs similar to Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) and Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) that provide funding to help cities accelerate housing production. The City would also support legislation that provides incentives to cities, such as additional tax revenue or tax breaks. Unfunded mandates are a financial burden to cities which make them difficult to implement successfully.

The Legislature may also consider adopting policies which grant concessions to cities based on adoption of pro-housing policies. For example, if a city were to utilize their local land use authority to upzone a certain amount of land in a commercial corridor, they could be exempt from policies such as requiring ministerial approval of ADUs. This will further local land use flexibility and grants additional incentives to local governments to adopt pro-housing policies. The City is supportive of legislation that increases land use flexibility such as regional trust and/or trade policies, similar to Senator Allen’s SB 809.

The City would also support legislation aimed at developers to encourage sustainable, cost-effective development of affordable housing in safe locations across the state.

Legislation which seeks to expand existing programs such as Project Homekey, or similar programs that repurpose existing buildings or underutilized commercial property (i.e. surface parking lots or single-story shopping centers) into affordable housing are also viable solutions. Additionally, the Legislature should consider policies and programs which provide social services and mental health resources to help unhoused persons be eligible for, acquire, and maintain affordable housing.

Cities have the tools, knowledge, and policies in place to continue to plan and develop innovative solutions to mitigate the housing crisis: solutions that best serve the city and the residents. If, for example, a city observes that there seems to be a surplus of parking spaces in shopping centers, they could re-zone the land to be mixed-use residential. The city may also determine that they could lower their parking requirements in certain areas due to traffic patterns and/or location of transit. When cities are allowed to keep their local land use authority, they will continue to plan and develop new solutions that address their specific constraints, and the state could reward cities for taking such actions with additional tax revenue or tax breaks or policy concenssions.

Regional housing needs and legislation increasing density must be balanced by local capacity assessments including traffic conditions, sewer conditions, school district capacity, ingress/egress capacity, and water supply, among others. Legislation should refocus efforts toward developing programs for cities and state collaboration on housing production, alongside sustainable transportation, broadband deployment, and other key infrastructure areas that can support our communities.
473
Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform

Page 6 ends

CONCLUSION
During recent legislative sessions, the City has opposed planning and zoning legislation that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates. The City was founded to protect local authority and to preserve the character of Rancho Palos Verdes. Local oversight of planning and zoning is essential to ensure that every development is suitable and safe for the community, to protect the health and safety of all residents.

The City is supportive of policies which strengthen local democracy, authority, and control. The City would additionally consider supporting policies which include funded mandates, legislation aimed at developers to encourage creation of affordable housing, the expansion of programs such as Project Homekey, and the creation of programs to improve social and mental health services for unhoused persons.

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes looks forward to working with the Legislature to have an open dialogue about viable solutions to the state’s housing crisis, while maintaining all residents’ high quality of life.
474
Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform
Page A-1
ATTACHMENT A: CITY POSITIONS ON HOUSING BILLS
As of July 6, 2021, for 2021 Legislative Session
AB 215 (Chiu) would require a jurisdiction with low regional housing needs progress to have a mid-cycle consultation with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City opposed this bill because it is an intrusion into local control and self-determination, most specifically with the usage of the pro-housing designation as a mandatory requirement for low RHNA compliance, and by unnecessarily adding assessments of jurisdictions’ compliance with RHNA.

AB 989 (Gabriel) would create a state appeals board that could overturn local government’s denial of certain housing projects. The City opposed this bill because it would establish a new procedural enforcement mechanism that is exempt from public oversight and review. The state appeals board would allow one hearing officer to substitute their judgement about the public health or safety of a community and overturn the City’s denial following procedures that are not subject to public review and comment.

AB 1258 (Nguyen) would subject final RHNA plans to judicial review. The City supported this bill, given the significant impact a housing element has on local governments’ planning and development, it is reasonable to have an opportunity for judicial review of RHNA decisions.

AB 1295 (Muratsuchi) would prohibit cities or counties from entering into residential development agreements in VHFHSZs. The City commented on this bill, as the City supported the goal of the bill to enhance safety standards in VHFHSZs, though more information is needed about the definition of “development” pertaining to reconstruction of existing structures, and for clarification of the effect of the bill on RHNA.

ACA 7 (Muratsuchi) would amend the State Constitution to allow certain land use controls and zoning regulations to supersede general law, preserving local land use authority. The City supported this bill for the recognition of local and use authority and flexibility for municipalities, as ACA 7 would allow cities’ local ordinances to prevail over general law if they are in conflict.

SB 9 (Atkins) would require ministerial approval of lot splits and duplexes in single-family residential zoning. The City opposed this bill on the grounds that it overrides local control of zoning codes and circumvents the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to allow such subdivision ministerially without public input or consideration. Such development may have severe consequences for public safety, especially in a VHFHSZ.

SB 10 (Wiener) would allow cities to upzone by ordinance in transit-rich areas or urban infill sites. The City opposed this bill because it waives CEQA requirements and may allow cities to supersede voter approved initiatives.

SB 12 (McGuire) would impose significant fire hazard planning responsibilities on local governments. The City opposed this bill because of its effect on local land use authority. 475
Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform
Page A-2
SB 55 (Stern) would prohibit the creation or approval of a new commercial or residential development in a VHFHSZ. The City opposed this bill because while the City supports fire safety measures, such a prohibition infringes on local land use authority.

SB 556 (Dodd) would require cities to make streetlight poles, traffic signal poles, utility poles, and support structures available to telecommunications providers. The City opposed this bill because it would circumvent City oversight, and to protect the public’s investment through City infrastructure, oversight and control of the public rights-of-way must remain local. Additionally, the bill does not encourage or incentivize telecommunications companies to service unserved and underserved communities and inherently conflicts with federally-mandated local authority to manage the right-of-way and to comply with existing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decisions.

SB 809 (Allen) would allow cities and counties to enter into multijurisdictional agreements to assist with meeting RHNA shares whereby one jurisdiction exchanges land in return for financial compensation to develop that land. The City supported this bill because it grants cities flexibility in meeting RHNA shares.
476
ATTACHMENT 3

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this _____day of ________ 2019 between the City of Rolling Hills, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY'' and ______________ with principal offices at __________________-, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT."

1. RECITALS:

A. The CITY desires to contract the CONSULTANT for
__________________________
B. CONSULTANT is well qualified by reason of education and experience to perform such services; and
C. CONSULTANT is willing to render such __________ services as hereinafter defined.

Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, CITY hereby engages CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT agrees to perform the services set forth in this AGREEMENT.

2. SCOPE OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall perform all work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to CITY the services set forth in the specifications and the scope of work described in the Proposal for ___________________ Services, attached herein as Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as “SERVICES”).

3. COST
The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for all the work or any part of the work performed under this AGREEMENT at the rates and in the manner established in the attached Scope of Work, attached herein as Exhibit A.

Total contract shall not exceed the sum of _________________ during the term of the AGREEMENT. This fee includes all expenses, consisting of all local travel, attendance at meetings, printing and submission of grants, which are accrued during that period. It also includes any escalation or inflation factors anticipated.

Any increase in contract amount or scope shall be approved by expressed written amendment executed by the CITY and CONSULTANT.
477
ATTACHMENT 3

4. METHOD OF PAYMENT
CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed within 30 (thirty) days of submitting an invoice to City for the SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall submit an invoice for the SERVICES within 10 (ten) days of completing each task or portion thereof identified in Exhibit A to this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT shall submit invoices electronically to the City Manager of the CITY and shall also provide a courtesy copy by U.S. Mail addressed to the City Manager of the CITY.

5. SUBCONTRACTING
CONSULTANT may employ qualified independent subcontractor(s) to assist CONSULTANT in the performance of SERVICES with CITY’s prior written approval.

6. COMMENCEMENT OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall commence work under this AGREEMENT upon execution of this AGREEMENT.

7. PERFORMANCE TO SATISFACTION OF CITY
CONSULTANT agrees to perform all work to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY and within the time hereinafter specified.

8. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
All SERVICES rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of relevant local, State and Federal Law.

9. ACCOUNTING RECORDS
CONSULTANT must maintain accounting records and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred which records and documents shall be kept available at the CONSULTANT’s California office during the contract period and thereafter for five years from the date of final payment.

10. OWNERSHIP OF DATA
All data, maps, photographs, and other material collected or prepared under the contract shall become the property of the CITY.

11. TERM OF CONTRACT
This contract shall be valid for _____________ from execution of this AGREEMENT.
478
ATTACHMENT 3

12. TERMINATION
This contract may be terminated by either party with or without cause upon seven (7) days written notice to the other party. All work satisfactorily performed pursuant to the contract and prior to the date of termination may be claimed for reimbursement.

13. ASSIGNABILITY
CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer interest in this contract without the prior written consent of the CITY.

14. AMENDMENT
It is mutually understood and agreed that no alteration or variation of the terms of this contract, or any subcontract requiring the approval of the CITY, shall be valid unless made in writing, signed by the parties hereto, and approved by all necessary parties.

15. NON-SOLICITATION CLAUSE
The CONSULTANT warrants that he or she has not employed or retained any company or persons, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract.

For breach or violation of this warranty, the CITY shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.

16. INDEMNITY
CONSULTANT shall indemnify and save harmless CITY, its elected and appointed officers and employees from all claims, damages, suits, cost or actions of every name, kind or description, brought for, or on account of, (i) injuries to or death of any person, (ii) damage to property or (iii) arising from performance of this AGREEMENT in any manner that resulted from the fault or negligence of CONSULTANT, it officers, agents, employees and/or servants in connection with this AGREEMENT.

CITY shall indemnify and save harmless CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, employees, and servants from all claims, damages, suits, costs or actions of every name, kind, or description, brought for, or on account of, (i) injuries to or death of any person, (ii) damage to property or (iii) arising from performance of this AGREEMENT in any manner that resulted from the fault or negligence of the CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, employees, and/or servants in connection with this AGREEMENT.

If CONSULTANT should subcontract all or any portion of the SERVICES to be performed under this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT shall require each subcontractor to indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY and each of its officers, officials, employees, 479
ATTACHMENT 3
agents and volunteers in accordance with the term of the preceding paragraph. This section shall survive termination or expiration of this AGREEMENT.

17. INSURANCE
A. Without limiting CONSULTANT’S obligations arising under paragraph 16 - Indemnity, CONSULTANT shall not begin work under this AGREEMENT until it obtains policies of insurance required under this section. The insurance shall cover CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives and employees in connection with the performance of work under this AGREEMENT, and shall be maintained throughout the term of this AGREEMENT. Insurance coverage shall be as follows:
i. Automobile Liability Insurance with minimum coverage of $300,000 for property damage, $300,000 for injury to one person/single occurrence, and $300,000 for injury to more than one person/single occurrence. ii. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance, insuring CITY its elected and appointed officers and employees from claims for damages for personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from CONSULTANT’S actions under this AGREEMENT, whether or not done by CONSULTANT or anyone directly or indirectly employed by CONSULTANT. Such insurance shall have a combined single limit of not less than $500,000. iii. Worker’s Compensation Insurance for all CONSULTANT’S employees to the extent required by the State of California. CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors who are hired by CONSULTANT to perform the SERVICES and who have employees to similarly obtain Worker’s Compensation Insurance for all of the subcontractor’s employees.
iv. Professional Liability Insurance for CONSULTANT that at a minimum covers professional misconduct or lack of the requisite skill required for the performances of SERVICES in an amount of not less than $500,000 per occurrence.

B. Deductibility Limits for policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) (ii) and (iii) shall not exceed $5,000 per occurrence.

C. Additional Insured. City, its elected and appointed officers and employees shall be named as additional insured on policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) and (ii).

D. Primary Insurance. The insurance required in paragraphs A (i) and (ii) shall be primary and not excess coverage.

E. Evidence of Insurance. Consultant shall furnish CITY, prior to the execution of this AGREEMENT, satisfactory evidence of the insurance required, issued by an insurer authorized to do business in California, and an endorsement to each such 480
ATTACHMENT 3
policy of insurance evidencing that each carrier is required to give CITY at least 30 days prior written notice of the cancellation of any policy during the effective period of the AGREEMENT. All required insurance policies are subject to approval of the City Attorney. Failure on the part of CONSULTANT to procure or maintain said insurance in full force and effect shall constitute a material breach of this AGREEMENT or procure or renew such insurance, and pay any premiums therefore at CONSULTANT’S expense.

18. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT
In the event that legal action is commenced to enforce or declare the rights created under this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount to be determined by the court.

19. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No member of the governing body of the CITY and no other officer, employee, or agent of the CITY who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this AGREEMENT; and the CONSULTANT further covenants that in the performance of this AGREEMENT, no person having any such interest shall be employed.

20. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain as to the CITY a wholly independent contractor. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of the CONSULTANT or any of the CONSULTANT’s employees or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. The CONSULTANT shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the CITY.

21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES
This AGREEMENT supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the employment of CONSULTANT by CITY and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect such employment in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this AGREEMENT acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement or amendment hereto shall be effective unless executed in writing and signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT.

22. NOTICES.

All written notices required by, or related to this AGREEMENT shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, postage prepaid and addressed as listed 481
ATTACHMENT 3
below. Neither party to this AGREEMENT shall refuse to accept such mail; the parties to this AGREEMENT shall promptly inform the other party of any change of address. All notices required by this AGREEMENT are effective on the day of receipt, unless otherwise indicated herein. The mailing address of each party to this AGREEMENT is as follows:

CITY: Elaine Jeng, PE, City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
CONSULTANT: ____________________________

23. GOVERNING LAW
This AGREEMENT shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and all applicable federal statutes and regulations as amended.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on the date and year first above written.

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CONSULTANT

CITY MANAGER
______ _____ ________

ELAINE JENG, PE
DATE:___________ DATE:_____________
ATTEST:
______ _____

CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______ _____

MICHAEL JENKINS, CITY ATTORNEY
482
Proposal for State Lobbyist on Legislation Relating to Local Control and Housing Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Renne Public Law Group, LLP [DBA Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG)] Sharon Gonsalves, Director of Government Affairs
1100 11th Street, Suite 231
Sacramento, CA 95814
[email protected]
(916) 849-5536
483
Table of Contents
I. Transmittal Letter
II. Firm Profile
a. Firm Resources
b. RPPG Current Client List and Conflicts Check
III. Approach and Work Plan
a. The RPPG Approach
b. Relationships
c. Scope of Services
d. Sample Project Plan
IV. Proposed Staff and Staff Background
a. RPPG Strategic Advisors
b. Specific Roles and Responsibilities: Advisors and Support c. Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Organizational Chart
V. Firm Qualifications
VI. Fees
VII. Review of Professional Services Agreement
VIII. Sample Work Product
484
Transmittal Letter
September 23, 2021
Ashford Ball
Senior Management Analyst
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Mr. Ball
On behalf of Renne Public Law Group [DBA: Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG)], we are pleased to submit our proposal for state lobbyist services on legislation relating to local control and housing for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills (Joint Cities).

Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG) is a full-service state lobbying and consulting practice that strives to advance the interests of California local public agencies and the companies that align with public entities. We do so effectively and efficiently, without compromising on ethics or integrity. RPPG is a division of Renne Public Law Group (RPLG), founded by Louise Renne, the City of San Francisco’s elected City Attorney for 16 years. RPPG provides our clients with a keen understanding of California’s evolving legislative and political landscape, which is critical when making policy, legal and operational decisions.

RPPG is a fairly young practice of the Renne Public Law Group. Since we launched in 2019, we wanted to take a different approach from how we saw other firms representing their clients. This has enabled us to do things differently—to be proactive, creative, and nimble. To build a culture of likeminded professionals from diverse backgrounds who want to come to work and where clients feel valued.

Our goal is to provide our clients a holistic approach of legislative, political, communications, grant writing, research and operational counsel. We refer to it as the “wraparound service approach”. We have brought in a former legislative staffer and seasoned legislative advocate, Sharon Gonsalves and one of the League of California Cities’ (LCC) top lobbyists, Dane Hutchings and have paired them with a team of Policy and Strategic Advisors made up of senior RPLG lawyers, municipal policy experts, and senior local government officials. Most notably, former LCC, Deputy Executive and Legislative Director, Dan Carrigg.

At RPPG, we understand the reasons that your cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, communities with beautiful open spaces and residents who prize their quality of life, are concerned about threats to local control and land use authority. These concerns are reinforced with the Governor’s recent signature of Senate Bills (SB) 8,9 and 10.

While California has many housing challenges, they are certainly not all the fault of local government.

Local governments have a responsibility to set the planning table, but this has already been addressed by layers of state laws. Yet, legislators and state officials often find it easier to focus on local planning and land use, rather than grappling with the broader realities of private markets; identifying billions needed for subsidized housing; taking on developers, labor, environmental and other powerful interest groups, or addressing the state’s own policy failings. 485
Policymakers should recognize that each California community is different, and overriding local authority deprives every resident and local elected official their opportunity to craft solutions that fit their unique needs.

With this influx of new housing laws, and more to come, it is difficult for any agency to be able to track and assess the impacts that these measures may have on your communities. While associations such as the League of California Cities have and continue to serve a valuable purpose, as a statewide organization, their level of focus on specific issues can vary. This is why we feel it is so important that the Joint Cities partners with a firm that can provide a uniquely tailored wraparound service approach with its strengths rooted in Council relations, public affairs, housing, land use policy.

The halls of the California State Capitol are a constant whirl of activity as legislators, staff, and lobbyists for a multitude of interest groups engage in crafting laws and the state budget. In this fastpaced environment, opportunities and threats to local agencies can quickly emerge. RPPG recognizes that advocating for the interests of public agencies requires policy expertise, active engagement, and multi-pronged actions which includes monitoring pending legislation, developing legislative proposals, negotiating amendments, and, when necessary, a coordinated public affairs campaign.

These tactics form the foundation for an effective legislative advocacy strategy.

As outlined in this proposal, our advocacy approach recognizes California’s evolving political and operational landscape, shifting policies, and volatile fiscal environment to best position our clients for successful outcomes. We propose to work closely with the Joint Cities’ staff to devise a comprehensive strategy that advances your legislative priorities.

It is our sincere hope that we can partner with the Joint Cities and serve as your voice in Sacramento.

Sharon Gonsalves, RPPG’s Director of Government Affairs will act as the Project Manager and primary contact for this proposal. Sharon may be reached at (916) 849-5536 and is located at 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, CA. As the founding partner of our firm, Jon Holtzman has the authority to negotiate on behalf of and bind the firm in an agreement. Jon may be reached at (415) 848-7200 and is located at 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA.

Regards,
Jon Holtzman, Founding Partner
Renne Public Law Group, LLP ©
Sharon Gonsalves
Director of Government Affairs
Renne Public Policy Group, A Division of
Renne Public Law Group, LLP ©
486
Firm Profile
Effective March 1, 2018, the well-established law firm Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP, Public Law Group (of 17 years) divided into two separate firms, one of which is Renne Public Law Group, LLP (RPLG). Specifically, as part of the firm’s separation, RPLG was required to obtain a new federal tax ID number.

Renne Public Law Group’s mission is to advocate for local public agencies and nonprofits. Louise Renne, who served for 16 years as San Francisco’s elected City Attorney, serves as the Chair of our firm. We represent a myriad of public agencies throughout the State of California on legal matters, and legislative matters including large agencies such as the San Diego Regional Airport Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Authority, City and County of San Francisco and the City of Los Angeles, to smaller entities such as the Town of Corte Madera and City of Belmont. For a full list of RPLG legal clients please visit our website at https://rennepubliclawgroup.com/clients/ .

Firm Resources
RPLG and RPPG have a combined team of 38 legal and legislative professionals comprised of attorneys, lobbyists, senior advisors as well as administrative, legislative, and operational support staff. A full list of our team members can be found on the RPPG and RPLG websites. We have two offices, located in San Francisco and Sacramento, respectively.

As detailed throughout this proposal, the RPPG practice area is led by our Managing Director, Dane Hutchings who has over 12 years of direct legislative experience. He is supported by legislative advocate and Director of Government Affairs, Sharon Gonsalves (Proposed Project Manager) as well as by our firm’s Policy and Strategic Advisors. RPPG’s group of Policy and Strategic Advisors support our clients’ overall advocacy strategy by providing unique and experienced perspectives on the realworld impacts of pending legislative, regulatory and administrative proposals—leveraging their experience for the betterment of our clients. Moreover, having Dan Carrigg, the former League Legislative Director and Land Use Lobbyist with decades of experience on housing and land use issues, on our team uniquely positions RPPG to be an asset to the Joint Cities.

RPPG Current Client List and Conflicts Check (as of September 21, 2021) RPPG operates with the highest level of transparency, ethics, and standards. As such, we are providing the Joint Cities with a full list of our current lobby and/or political consulting clients. As a boutique firm and a newly established practice area, our success stories will continue to grow as we continue to grow our business. At present time RPPG currently represents the following clients in either direct legislative advocacy, general consulting and/or grant writing and research:
• City of Redwood City
• City of Belmont
• City of Foster City
• City of Corona
• City of Carlsbad
• City of Eastvale
• City of Menlo Park
• City of Bakersfield
• City of Mountain View
• Town of Hillsborough
• Town of Atherton
• City of Santa Rosa
• California Association of Code Enforcement
Officers
• City Clerks Association of California
• San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
• Interwest Consulting Group
• GovInvest Inc.
• San Bernardino Community College District
• California Public Private Alliance
487
In assessing our current list of clients, we do not foresee any current or potential conflicts. Should a potential conflict arise, RPPG will run a “conflict” check with the Joint Cities prior to accepting the legislative advocacy/political consulting client work in question.

Approach and Work Plan
The RPPG Approach
At RPPG we strive to be a necessity for our clients, not a luxury. This means finding ways to show true return on investment. However, ‘value’ itself is dependent on the individual needs of the client.

Whether it be advancing a beneficial state policy, stopping a piece of determinantal legislation, advocating for increased General Fund or grant dollars—or by providing detailed policy and political information that informs the client. Whatever the need, we pride ourselves on creating a custom approach to each client that we have the honor of representing. We work incredibly hard for our clients because each client that partners with RPPG has placed their trust in us—not just to represent their interests in Sacramento, but to be a trusted messenger of their brand and story.

As detailed by the examples below, we do the work, and we take nothing for granted. While that may sound oversimplistic, in our experience there are a lot of firms that solely rely on their “relationships” to advance their clients’ interests. While relationships are critical, politics is an environment that rewards tenacity and hard work. As we have seen in 2020 and 2021, policy proposals can move rapidly, often with little notice or transparency. The RPPG team’s decades of experience provides a unique understanding of the political process. We stay in close contact with state lawmakers, Capitol consultants and legislative staff, are always watching for new amendments and monitoring the actions of other stakeholders, legislators, and administration officials—so we know what is coming before it surfaces publicly. Staying active, nimble, and persistent allows our team to successfully advocate for our client’s interests during this trying time.

RPPG is a “boots-on-the-ground” lobbying firm. We spend significant time in the halls of the Capitol, consistently meeting with decision-makers, educating legislators about our client’s needs and interests, and monitoring activity so that we know what’s coming before it surfaces. We also have significant experience navigating the Appropriation and Budget process and making direct contact with key Legislators and the appropriate members of their staff.

However, in this era of uncertainty and confusion stemmed by the COVID-19 pandemic, advocates must stay vigilant in representing their clients. In 2020 the “halls” of the Capitol remained empty throughout the last nights of the legislative session. As COVID-19 continues to be a threat, we have seen this trend continue throughout 2021. This is important to highlight as the Joint Cities considers what type of firm, they want looking out for their interests.

By maintaining regular contact with the Joint Cities, staff will have real-time accounts of what is happening in Sacramento. We will ensure the Joint Cities’ interests are represented by forming coalitions with like-minded interest groups such as other local governments and stakeholders as needed. We also will utilize our close working relationships with a variety of business groups, environmental groups, and labor – both public employee and private construction unions – to help the Joint Cities meet its legislative needs and further its interests. 488
Relationships
Relationships are central to every outcome in government affairs, and none more so than direct relationships with Legislators, policy committee consultants, administrative leaders, and the Governor’s office. It is no secret that some of the most aggressive polices being pushed statewide in areas of housing, homelessness, and land use come from a contingent of Bay Area lawmakers. It is important that the Joint Cities partner with a firm that has strong ties not only those who represent your communities, but those Northern California legislators and the Administration that continue to advance these polices. The RPPG team is confident in our deep and personal relationships with an overwhelming majority of legislative offices, policy committee consultants, as well as, with members of the Governor’s Administration. These relationships have been established not only through our firm’s partners, who have deep ties to the Newsom Administration dating back to when the Governor served in local government—but through each of our team member’s direct work with legislators and staff. These relationships have been established over time and built upon a strong reputation of being hard working and honest policy brokers.

With her history working both inside and out of the Capitol, Sharon has built a strong network of reliable legislative, regulatory, and administrative contacts. Between RPPG’s current clients and combined experience working with virtually every legislative office while at the League of California Cities, both Dane and Dan have established and maintained strong working relationships with most legislative offices in the Capitol including key legislative committee staff, consultants, and administration officials. Collectively, our team utilizes our specific networks to advance the interest of our clients.

It will be important to identify those critical legislative members, policy committee consultants and department/agency leads to meet with on a regular basis. Waiting until an issue is present to build a relationship typically means you are too late, which is why the RPPG team will create a list of individuals to meet with early. Additionally, it will also be critical that the City Councils are provided the resources, information, and tools to develop their own relationship with state elected officials.

Additionally, we would inventory individual political relationships of local officials with state legislative and administration officials. Having a clear understanding of the strengths of current relationships allows your advocacy team to better develop bill specific strategy. This is vital to success at the critical moment a vote on a controversial bill takes place.

Scope of Services
Our proposal for consulting services on legislations relating to local control and housing offers a communicative and responsive team approach to representing the Joint Cities before the State Legislature, Administration, and Executive Branch. We propose to provide regular written and verbal communications to the City Councils and staff to ensure that the Joint Cities are up to date on our advocacy efforts, individual tasks, and timelines for meeting milestones. Regular communication is a critical part of helping the Joint Cities stay informed and involved throughout the entire state budget and legislative processes.

RPPG can also offer federal monitoring, review and letter writing as well as state and federal grant writing and research services, but given that the RFP’s Scope of Work focuses primarily on state advocacy, we have not included here.
489
Our team’s wide breadth of experience with local governments, coupled with our extensive network of strong relationships with key legislators, staff, and organizations, positions RPPG well to represent the Joint Cities.

Under this proposal, our services include but are not limited to:
• Legislative Review, Tracking and Advocacy: Track, review and analyze any introduced and amended legislation and regulatory proposals. Advocate on legislation, regulatory proposals of interest to the Joint Cities and any state budget issues impacting the cities. • Annual “Deep Dive” Review: RPPG understands the importance that Agency staff plays in fully understanding the intricacies of operations, funding, and legislative priorities. RPPG will conduct an annual “Deep Dive” meeting (in person or via Zoom in accordance with COVID-19 restrictions) with key Joint Cities staff to gain a deeper legislative, political, and funding priority insight. This approach helps your advocacy team best position the Joint Cities for success.
• Assist in further developing the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform: Should the Joint Cities seek to modify a State Legislative Platform, RPPG would work with each City Council and staff in an inclusive process to develop and execute a legislative platform that adequately reflects the Council’s policy positions. The purpose of a legislative platform is to clearly outline policy positions on various State legislative issues that have a direct impact on the Joint Cities. The priorities throughout the platform are intended to assist the Mayor, Council Members, and staff to proactively and appropriately address legislation, to promote the Joint Cities interests, and preserve local legislative authority if and when necessary. This document would also provide your advocacy team direction on priority issues and matters that impact the Joint Cities ability to operate effectively, while allowing your team to be proactive and nimble throughout the legislative session. Once adopted, a legislative platform serves as a living document that should be amended as policies and priorities change.
• Representation: Represent the Joint Cities at policy-related meetings, conferences, events, regulatory proceedings, legislative hearings, and other appropriate venues to deliver comments, testimony, and provide the Joint Cities with a consistent presence in Sacramento.

RPPG will also present to the Joint Cities’ City Council meetings to provide legislative updates as requested.
• Relationship Building: Continue fostering relationships with legislators and administration officials. Our firm will make meeting recommendations, schedule arrangements, and strategize on messaging in advance. This approach ensures that we have laid the groundwork for to advance your policy goals and any bill proposals throughout the year. • Education Tour: RPPG is prepared to conduct an education tour in the Capitol to drive awareness on the issues that matter to you most. This will ensure that the appropriate 490
communication channels with legislative staff and legislators remain open throughout the 2021-2022 legislative session and beyond.
• Targeted Engagement with Statewide Local Government Association and Local Agency Partners: Our proven working relationship with the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, California Special District’s Association, the California Fire and Police Chiefs’ Associations, and other statewide local government advocacy organizations will ensure that RPPG can communicate the Joint Cities’ policy positions—and when appropriate, work in a blended strategy to achieve success.
• Document Creation and Review: Consult and develop strategic documents, draft policy position, regulatory and budgetary letters, customized priority legislative tracking matrix, budget analysis, and background papers for the Joint Cities to ensure the Joint Cities are up to speed and its voice is consistently heard by policymakers and stakeholders.

Sample Project Plan
Below is a detailed timeline that outlines how and when we would implement our workplan and work with City staff to develop a custom plan to meet the needs of the Joint Cities. Specific dates and deliverables are subject to change should the Legislative calendar be modified.

Action Deliverable/Goal
Upon
Contract
award –
Dec.
2021
Collaborate with Joint Cities’ staff to develop an annual legislative advocacy plan to guide our efforts during the legislative session, using as an initial base the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Legislative Policy Guidelines.

Foster new and established relationships with Legislators and key Administration officials shortly after contract commencement. Our firm will make recommendations for
meetings, schedule arrangements, and strategize on the
messaging in advance.

Develop an advocacy strategy that identifies legislative champions and key stakeholders, including coordination
with other municipalities and organizations with similar legislative objectives.

Advocacy plan
Develop target list of
key policy committee
staff, the executive
branch, and other key
elected officials for
engagement.

Upon
Contract
award –
Dec.
2021
Develop language and supporting materials.

Develop a clear communication plan, including a
regularly scheduled conference call, along with written reports.

Legislative Tracking
Matrix
491
Meet with each City department to establish the Joint
Cities’ legislative priorities.

Devise a matrix for timely reporting of bills relevant to the Joint Cities.

Oct. -Dec.
2021 Develop ideas for sponsored bills and shop for
authors to carry legislation on behalf of the Joint
Cities.

Collaborate with the Joint Cities to modify annual
legislative advocacy plan to reflect changing
priorities. This will guide our efforts during the
legislative season, focusing on key issues of
importance to the Joint Cities.
2022 Advocacy Plan
Sponsored Legislation
(2022)
January –
February
2022
Identify and secure authors for sponsored legislation.

Meet with policy and fiscal committee staff and/or
Administration or Executive Branch staff to build an
understanding and support for sponsored
legislation.

Review Governor’s January Budget Proposal and
identify possible funding opportunities for the Joint
Cities.

Build a coalition for
sponsored bills
Draft fact sheets,
background materials,
talking points, and other
materials as needed
City specific detailed
budget analysis.
492
February –
December
2022
Meet with potential opposition to understand and
mitigate potential concerns about bills relevant to the Joint Cities.

Draft letters of support, opposition, and/or
amendments to address our concerns.

Track and analyze proposed new laws and regulations; and provide general advocacy on legislation important to the Joint Cities. This includes proactive information-gathering that keeps the Joint Cities up to date on relevant state agency/department regulations and administrative policies.

Monitor budget process for potential
positive/negative impacts. Engage when needed.

Testify in policy committees on bills for which the Joint Cities have an active position, or recruit and prepare City personnel to testify where appropriate.

Draft end of session report providing progress on
legislative activities, results on targeted legislation.

Develop recommended
positions on legislation
and state
budget proposals
Usher sponsored bills
successfully through
legislative process
Produce regular
legislative reports
Negotiate with authors
and sponsors to
resolve concerns or
stop bills where
resolution is not
possible
Bill position letters and
televised testimony
Annual Report
Attached to this proposal you will find samples of the work product that we provide our clients. We strive to produce quality analysis on pending legislation and amendments that is timely, thorough, and straightforward. In our experience our analysis has not only been used as a tool for legislators to learn about the operational effects of a bill, it allows the City Council and staff to truly understand the implications of legislation to their city.

Proposed Staff and Staff Background
Project Manager: Sharon Gonsalves, Director of Government Affairs— Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills
RPPG proposes that Sharon Gonsalves, a registered lobbyist with the State of California serve as Project Manager and primary contact for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills. In this capacity, Sharon will direct the Joint Cities’ legislative focus and priorities.

She will represent the Joint Cities in meetings with the State Legislature, state agencies, applicable boards and commissions, and the Governor’s office. Specific activities include but are not limited to, testifying on behalf of the Joint Cities in all applicable legislative policy committees, regulatory 493
boards and commissions and working directly with the Southern California legislative delegations and office of the Governor. Sharon, with assistance from RPPG legislative and advisory staff, will conduct legislative review, analysis, and technical expertise in all policy areas important to the Joint Cities in order to provide full policy and political counsel.

As project lead, Sharon will ensure transparent communications and information sharing with Joint Cities’ staff. Sharon’s approach and established relationships have proven successful in both advancing beneficial legislative efforts as well as stopping legislation detrimental to clients.

APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE: AT A GLANCE
• Over 15 years of Legislative Advocacy and Capitol Staff Experience • Strong Policy Background in Natural Resources, Public Safety, Housing and Transportation • Proven Success in Navigating State Budget Process
• Strong Relationships with Key Legislative, Administrative and Executive Officials More About Sharon:

Sharon has spent her career advocating for legislative and funding priorities of municipalities throughout California—brining over fifteen years of state legislative and local government advocacy experience to the City’s advocacy team. Specializing in the complex legislative process, Sharon has a proven track record of leveraging her strong relationships in the Capitol, Administration, and key government agencies to advance the goals of her clients. Sharon has expertise in the policy sectors of housing, transportation, local governance, and natural resources both as a former legislative staff member and as a local government lobbyist.

Spending nearly a decade working in both houses of the State Legislature, Sharon has a unique understanding and experience in navigating the State’s complex budget process. She has been able to leverage her relationships within the California Legislature to secure California State Budget earmarks—providing local fire districts and police departments much needed funding for those communities.

Sharon served as Legislative Director for State Senator Anthony Cannella (R, Ceres). Senator Cannella served as Vice Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and the Natural Resources Committee. During Senator Cannella’s tenure, Sharon was instrumental in negotiating on major statewide environmental and transportation issues important to the District, including Proposition 1, The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 and SB 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, which increased transportation funding and instituted some muchneeded reforms. SB 1 provided the first significant, stable, and on-going increase in state transportation funding in more than two decades. During her time as a legislative staffer, Sharon developed an intricate understanding of the legislative and budget process and maintained an extensive bi-partisan network of relationships with Members of the California Legislature.

Prior to joining RPPG in September of 2020, Sharon was a Senior Associate at Townsend Public Affairs representing a number of local public agency clients—specializing in those from the Central Valley and Inland Empire. Sharon has helped secure millions of dollars by advocating for the creation of funding opportunities and writing successful grant applications. For two years prior to the passage 494
of SB 5 by Senator DeLeon in 2018, Sharon worked with the author and stakeholders to advocate for funding specifically for the operations and maintenance of existing parks. Ultimately, Proposition 68, the Park, Environment, and Water Bond Act of 2018, included $425 million for public agencies on a per capital basis specifically for park improvements.

After years of discussion and debate, Senate Bill 200 (Monning) was signed in 2019 by Governor Newsom and created the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund. Initially the original version of SB 200 contained a fee on agriculture entities which would create a fund to help these troubled water systems. Sharon’s clients, the cities of Turlock, Reedley and Parlier, had long struggled to update their water wells to address contamination. Though efforts had been made by the State Water Board, over 300 communities still lacked access to safe and affordable drinking water. Most of these communities are served by small water systems that are unable to provide water that meets public health standards for contaminants such as arsenic, nitrates, and uranium. After multi-year negotiations the bill in its current form, SB 200, was amended to remove the fee and create the fund using a yearly appropriation from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF).

In her commitment to advocate for local agency funding opportunities, Sharon has also written several successful grants for fire departments that benefit operations and improve the health and wellness of firefighters. Some examples include:

Client Grant Program Award
Amount
City of Orange Cove FEMA Assistance
to Firefighters
Vehicle Acquisition $541,615
City of Sanger FEMA Assistance
to Firefighters
Implementation of a comprehensive
health and wellness program for
Department Firefighters.
$26,940
North Central Fire
Protection District
FEMA Assistance
to Firefighters
Regional request to purchase new
SCBA equipment
$282,189
East Contra Costa Fire
Protection District
FEMA Fire
Prevention and
Safety
Purchase of Fire Trailer for
Community Education
$13,894
In an effort to further regional partnerships from all areas of government, Sharon participated in several advocacy trips with the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) and the County of Fresno Council of Government (CFCOG). She has also worked with Congressional and federal agency officials to advance the funding and infrastructure priorities of her clients.

Sharon has utilized the relationships she has built over the years in her work advocating for local governments. Under Governor Newsom’s administration she has worked with key members of his leadership team both in his legislative office and various agencies to move the policy and funding priorities of her clients forward.
495
Secondary Contact: Dane Hutchings— Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills
RPPG proposes that Dane Hutchings, a registered lobbyist with the State of California, serve as a legislative advocate and secondary contact for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills.

In this capacity, Dane will work in collaboration with the Project Manager, to represent the Joint Cities in meetings with the State Legislature, state agencies, applicable boards and commissions, and the Governor’s office.

Dane will also, review and track legislation, provide analysis and leverage his close working relationships with legislative members, staff, policy consultants and agency officials to advance the Joint Cities’ legislative priorities.

APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE: AT A GLANCE
• Over a Decade of Legislative Advocacy and Public Affairs Expertise • Former Federal Policy Liaison and Lobbyist, League of California Cities • Strong Council Relations Background
• Proven Background in Coalition Building
• Strong Relationships with Key Legislative, Administrative and Executive Officials More About Dane:

For over a decade, Dane Hutchings has been advocating for the best interests of both public and private entities. He is a seasoned legislative advocate and political strategist with a keen understanding of the California political process and landscape. Dane brings a unique understanding of California local government operations, service delivery methods and revenue sources.

Prior to leading the Renne Public Policy Group, Dane worked for the League of California Cities as a Legislative Representative and Federal Policy Liaison. He acted as the key strategist, advisor and advocate on issues including areas labor relations policies, privacy and technology, governmental transparency, workers compensation and other issues related to local government operations. As an expert and thought leader in California public sector retirement, Dane has been asked to work directly with local agencies to help them understand the implications of rising pensions and OPEB liabilities.

In 2019, Dane presented to the Modesto City Council during a Council budget workshop, providing a statewide overview of the California Public Retirement System (CalPERS). Moreover, Dane was asked to work with City staff and employee bargaining units on CalPERS related issues.

As the Federal Policy Liaison, Dane worked across multiple policy areas of importance to local government, including housing, tax, infrastructure, transportation, public safety and environmental policy. Working in conjunction with the National League of Cities, Dane fought to protect federal programs critical to local governments, such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships, Choice Neighborhoods and Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP). Upon his departure from the League of California Cities, Dane received a career achievement award for his “…leadership, dedication and tenacity in advancing the quality of life for all California cities”.
496
While at the California Grocers Association, Dane represented over 300 members in the retail food and supplier industry. He specialized in labor and employment, healthcare, retail food and general business issues. Dane worked directly with local governmental bodies, staff and their organizations on local and statewide polices that ensured continuity for his clients while preserving local government authority.

Dane’s direct experience in public affairs provides a distinctive approach on how an effective issuebased “inside-outside” communications/advocacy strategy can support legislative priorities by providing political cover for legislators as well as the governor’s office. Dane ‘cut his teeth’ working as an Account Executive and Government Relations Advocate at Ogilvy—a premier and influential multi-national public affairs and advocacy firm. Dane engaged in multiple issue-based campaigns specifically designed to support legislative strategies for both public and private sector clients.

RPPG Strategic Advisors
With 2,000 or more pieces of legislation introduced by the California Legislature each year, it is critical that our clients have a complete understanding of the potential impacts that these measures may have on their agencies. Our Policy Advisors are a dedicated team of municipal policy experts, seasoned legislative advocates and former high-ranking local agency staff that will provide a holistic policy and political perspective to best position the Joint Cites with the information needed for success.

Under the direction of the Project Manager, RPPG proposes the following Policy and Strategic Advisor for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills state legislative advocacy and advisory team:
• Dan Carrigg, former League of California Cities Deputy Executive and Legislative Director More details regarding specific roles, responsibilities, and qualifications for each RPPG Advisor are outlined below. Collectively, the RPPG team and Advisors have represented and/or advised local agencies in policy issues including but not limited to:
• Land use, housing, planning, zoning, water, and sewer utility matters • Transportation and infrastructure legislation and funding • Privacy, technology, and consumer protection issues
• Environmental policy including, clean air and CEQA policy • California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) consulting and advisory services • Public sector contracting policy
• Various labor relations policies including anti-contracting, employer paid release time, unionagent evidentiary privilege • The Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, sunshine legislation, and other laws governing local government decision-making and operations 497
Specific Roles and Responsibilities: Advisors and Support Dan Carrigg—Senior Advisor: Policy and Legislative Strategy RPPG proposes that former League of California Cities, Deputy Executive and Legislative Director Dan Carrigg, act as the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills’ Policy and Legislative Advisor. Under the direction of the Project Manager, Dan will analyze, and draft legislation as well advise the Joint Cities on strategies for engagement. Dan’s distinguished career and relationships with Administrative agencies, policy committee chairs and consultants will be leveraged to complement the Joint Cities’ advocacy strategy.

APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE: AT A GLANCE
• 30 years of Legislative Advocacy Experience
• 25 years Specifically Advocating for Local Government • Strong Relationships with Agency Officials and Policy Committee Members • Seasoned Legislative Advocate and Expert in California’s Legislative, Political, and Budget Process
More About Dan:

Dan Carrigg is a political consultant and thought leader in California public policy directly impacting local government. With extensive experience in legislative analysis, strategy, and advocacy, and an excellent reputation for hard work and tenacity, Dan spent nearly 25 years with the League of California Cities—beginning as the League’s housing and land use lobbyist, then holding increasingly responsible advocacy roles including both Legislative Director and Deputy Executive Director of this prominent statewide local government organization. Until retiring from the League in October of 2019, Dan supervised the League’s legislative and public affairs program, developed policy, managed the League’s legislative and public affairs teams, drafted and reviewed legislation, reviewed and analyzed ballot measures and testified before the Legislature.

Dan offers RPPG clients a deep policy background and strong political acumen on state housing policy, including understanding the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process, issues affecting transit-oriented development, tax increment financing, SB 375, Cap and Trade and other policies. Dan is also familiar with CEQA and the political challenges associated with past streamlining efforts and has a practical understanding of public contracting and construction projects. Prior to taking on the role as the League’s housing and land use lobbyist, Dan worked as a senior consultant for the California State Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee from 1991-1996.

Throughout his career, Dan has worked on many high-profile issues, including representing the League as part of the transportation coalition to pass SB 1. In the past, Dan led the League’s successful negotiations on the Lowenthal/Mullin RHNA reform measures of 2004, that resulted in reduced controversy over this process for over a decade. He was directly engaged in the effort to protect local property tax, sales tax and (Vehicle Licensing Fee) VLF funding via the VLF-property tax swap with the passage of Proposition 1A of 2004. Later, he advocated to secure revenue for local governments in Prop 1B, the 2006 transportation bond, and defeat a legislative effort to take nearly $1 billion in city and county road maintenance funds. He also worked to preserve local authority during the legislative 498
wrangling leading to the enactment and implementation of SB 375 of 2008, which coordinates transportation and land use planning.

More recently, in 2019, Dan worked closely with the Newsom Administration to draft critical elements, including the Local Government Planning Support Grants Program, that offers funding assistance for regions to assist with local housing planning and was incorporated into AB 101, a 2019 housing budget trailer bill.

Prior to his work with the League, Dan drew on his background in construction to represent the Department of General Services and the Division of the State Architect on state real estate, construction and public contracting from 1996-1998, including working to enact design-build contracting authority for state office projects. His career began with a fellowship on the Assembly Desk during the term of former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.

Itzel Becerra— Legislative and Grants Assistant
RPPG proposes that Itzel Becerra, serve as Legislative and Grant Assistant for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills.

Under direction from the Project Manager, Itzel will attend all necessary public hearings and meetings in and around the Capitol as necessary to advance the interests of the Joint Cities. She will track relevant legislation and amendments for the Joint Cities and monitor all relevant legislative hearings. Additionally, Itzel will organize calls and meetings with the Joint Cities, Legislators and legislative staff, the Governor’s Administration, and other stakeholders. She will also draft and provide position letters, briefs, and updates in a timely manner. Itzel will also work with the Joint Cities’ staff to ensure all Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) quarterly filings are processed.

APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE: AT A GLANCE
• Local Government Association Experience
• State Legislative Process Experience
More About Itzel:

Prior to joining RPPG, Itzel most recently worked for the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) as a Professional Development Assistant. There she worked directly with CSDA member agencies to connect them with educational resources and trainings. In addition, she oversaw registration for all association events and manage the promotion of upcoming events. Prior, she served as a Public Affairs Intern with CSDA, where she assisted the Advocacy and Public Affairs team tracking legislation, conducting research, and drafting articles for the association’s weekly electronic newsletter. Itzel also contributed to CSDA’s public outreach campaign “Districts Make the Difference.” Itzel gained knowledge and experience of the California legislative process while participating in the Sacramento Semester Program. Offered through CSU’s Department of Political Science, the program allows students to immerse themselves in California politics. As Legislative intern for Assembly Member Kevin McCarty (D, Sacramento), Itzel staffed measures and executed various legislative duties during her tenure.
499
Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Organizational Chart Sharon Gonsalves
Director of Government
Affairs
Dane Hutchings
Managing Director
Dan Carrigg
Senior Advisor, Policy and
Legislative Strategy
Itzel Becerra
Legislative and Grants
Assistant
500
Firm Qualifications
Below are narrative examples directly attributed to RPPG advancing the interests of local government along with details of related work performed. These examples illustrate our team’s approach, tenacity, and political acumen.

Examples include but are not limited to:

Client: City of Redwood City
(Demonstrated Skills: Legislative and Executive Branch Advocacy, Coalition Building, Client Communications, Advancing Priority Legislation)
AB 2553 (Ting) Shelter Crisis (2019/2020 Legislative Session) AB 2553 is a statewide expansion of a limited pilot program (AB 932, Chapter 786, Statutes of 2017) set to expire that would allow all local agencies upon the declaration of a shelter crisis build temporary shelters for their homelessness population. At introduction, the measure was very limited—simply expanding the current program statewide and did not address concerns specific to Redwood City’s community needs. In response, RPPG was successful in working with the Author’s office to expand the measure to include language that permits 24 hour “safe parking” programs for cars and recreational vehicles on land owned or leased by the City without the risk of creating a tenant/landlord relationship. RPPG also worked directly with the Assembly and Senate Housing committee staff as well as the Republican Caucus and the Newsom Administration to garner bipartisan support to include an urgency clause. This increased the vote threshold from a simple majority vote to a two-thirds vote. However, this allowed the legislation to take effect immediately upon the Governor signing the bill.

Given the issue was so critical to Redwood City and the surrounding community, RPPG worked with City staff to engage the community—drafting template “request for signature” letters for different constituencies who were supportive of the bill. These included sample letters customized for specific for local businesses, homeless rights advocates, and community activists. On September 25, AB 2553 was signed by Governor Newsom.

Years Performed: 2019-Ongoing work
Client: City of Belmont
(Demonstrated Skills: Developing sponsored legislation, legislative and Executive Advocacy, Coalition Building)
SB 640 (Becker) Transportation Financing: Joint Projects (2021/22 Legislative Session) Since the enactment of Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1) cities have a new dedicated source of revenue to address their local streets and roads projects. However, under current law, two or more jurisdictions are unable to issue a single bid to address a project of mutual interest (e.g., a throughway that stretches between multiple cities/counties). On behalf of the City of Belmont, both Dane and Sharon worked with Senator Becker’s office to carry a piece of legislation that would enable more local flexibility of “SB 1” monies by allowing for a joint project submittal as well as a streamlined reporting requirement to ensure accountability and transparency remained intact. 501
RPPG strategic Advisor, Dan Carrigg drafted the proposed legislation—working with the client directly to ensure the language addressed their needs. Sharon worked with the California Transportation Commission (CTC), developed the talking points, fact sheet and other support materials and Dane worked to build a coalition of support consisting of the League of California Cities, the American Public Works Association, California Asphalt Pavement Association, and dozens of municipalities across the state to support the measure. Together our team was successful in garnering bi-partisan support for the bill as it moved swiftly through the process. On July 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed SB 640 into law.

Years Performed: 2020 – Ongoing work
Client: Town of Hillsborough and Town of Atherton
(Demonstrated Skills: Non-Lobbying Consulting, Client Communication, Document Creation, Council Engagement).

Given RPPG’s reputation for expert policy analysis and council engagement, our firm was approached by the Towns of Hillsborough and Atherton to help provide legislative consulting services (nondirectly lobbying work) on the issues of housing, land use and wildfire as it pertains to development.

The distinction between lobbying and non-lobbying is specific to RPPG’s ability to legally interact with any State legislative, regulatory, or administrative official on any piece of state policy with the intent to influence. Non-lobbying work is centered specifically around educating the client directly and providing direction for them to engage on their own should they choose to do so. Over the past 6 months, RPPG has met with key staff from each agency to develop customized messaging documents used to communicate effectively with constituents, walked them through the State Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process and how current legislation will have an impact on process.

Moreover, we provided policy-based educational study sessions, bill tracking documents and specific legislative analysis for each Client to ensure they were up to date on the flurry of land use legislative proposals advancing through the legislature. Staff from both Town’s saw value in helping educate their respective councils and constituents on the “Sacramento” rapidly shifting (political) realities in these incredibly important policy areas. As of July 1, the Town of Atherton renewed their consulting agreement for an additional 12 months, while the Town of Hillsborough moved to increase their scope of service and are now a full lobbying client with RPPG—enabling RPPG to being formal engagement with the Town’s legislative delegation and other stakeholders.

Years Performed: 2021 – Ongoing work
502
Fee Proposal for State Lobbyist on Legislation Relating to Local Control and Housing Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills 503
Due to the fluctuating demands of the legislative calendar as well as strategy and planning for the following legislative cycle, RPPG does not bill clients on an hourly basis for direct legislative consulting and support work. Based on the anticipated scope of work, RPPG proposes a flat retainer fee for all services outlined in the RFP. This proposed pricing includes all items outlined in the work plan (detailed above), work performed by RPPG primary staff, advisors, and operational/administrative support – including all costs associated with all quarterly (required) FPPC filings.

ITEM
NO.

DESCRIPTION FEES
1 Legislative advocacy as outlined in scope of work. $9,750.00/monthly flat fee retainer
agreement ($3,250
per month per
agency - $117,000
total annually)
2 As needed travel budget not to exceed $5,000.00. Costs associated with travel include, milage at federal per mile rate and overnight expenses if requested to attend in-person council meeting. Note: No expense shall be incurred without direct authorization from client
$5,000.00 annual
504
Professional Services Agreement
RPPG has reviewed the Professional Services Agreement provided with the Request for Proposal and do not have any questions or concerns. RPPG does not take exception or request any changes to the requirements and conditions outlined in the RFP.
505

SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES
RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com March 9, 2021
To: Ann Ritzma
Town Manager, Town of Hillsborough
From: Dane Hutchings
Managing Director, Renne Public Policy Group
Re: Governor’s Wildfire Preparedness and Response Efforts Dr. Ms. Ritzma:

Yesterday, March 8, Governor Newsom held a press conference at Shaver Lake in Fresno County to discuss the State’s Wildfire Preparedness and Response Efforts. Joined by Tom Porter, Director of CalFire and Wade Crowfoot, Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, he outlined financial investments that will be made as California prepares for another dry year and potentially devastating fire season.

When elected Newsom charged Chief Porter with doing a 45-day report which identified 35 priority projects to protect California, five of which were completed prior to the Creek Fire and all were key to the improved response. The State is looking to mirror what Shaver Lake and Fresno County are doing throughout the entire state in terms of at regional collaborative approach to meet the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan.

Secretary Wade Crowfoot of California Natural Resources Agency emphasized in the past 2 1/2 years, Governor Newsom has directed over $700 million in additional funding to build CalFire’s response capacity. Although California has the most sophisticated Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) fighters in the country, warming temperatures are creating more challenging and dangerous wildfire conditions.

Last year, five of the six biggest fires happened at the same time. As a result, Newsom developed a taskforce, creating the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action plan, released in January, which contains a suite of things the State needs to do in three major categories:
• Increase resources for infrastructure hardening within communities. • Investment and protection around communities
• More forest management and reintroduce controlled fires.

Governor Newsom reminded everyone that he proposed in January to reinvest a record amount, $1B, in the initiatives outlined in the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action plan. He then took the opportunity to formally announce a deal with legislative leadership to draw down $536M to get the ball rolling now, and he is confident this will be signed by Tuesday, April 13, 2021. A chart outlining the breakdown is attached.
506

SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES
RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com Two weeks ago, the State pushed almost $81M to support CalFire to hire 1400 firefighters to start preparing for wildfire season. Although the State can’t make up for 50 years of lacking wildfire preparedness, they have a plan to connect tribes, private, state and regional plans with the US government. The State doesn’t want to spar with US forest service, even though they cut budgets while the state increased theirs. The state of California only owns 3% of forested land, but they are still willing to partner and collaborate as evidenced by:
• Signed MOU with US Forest Service committing to double forest management, 1M acres minimum.
• Will do more C130s, have more Blackhawk helicopter crews. • Promises more suppression, prevention-, regional-, short- and long-term strategies.

Reporter Q & A
1400 jobs, who is getting them? Are there local recruitment efforts? Newsom: To be exact 1399 positions. Budget that includes additional $143M is in front of the legislature for 30 more fire crews, have added new engines in the last year, there will be local, state, etc. components.

Chief Porter: Those jobs are going to be local throughout the state. Will be adding the jobs throughout California as part of strategy that they had already been moving on. There will be permanent, seasonal, and corps members jobs throughout the state.

Newsom: We want Helitack teams (team of firefighters who are transported by helicopter to wildfires) to be operational by May 1 because fire season has already started.

Why are you making this announcement in Fresno County specifically? When you said the Central Valley is disproportionately impacted, bipartisan lawmakers from the Central Valley sent a letter asked you to declare a state of emergency, are you prepared to do that? Newsom: We are prepared to do all sorts of things, not necessarily declare the state of emergency, but every commensurate part of that letter. Coming back here in particular, I attach a lot of emotions to these fires and I’ve been to too many.

Especially with the Creek Fire, we ran into federal, state, private and county jurisdiction issues? Are efforts being made to make preventative efforts uniform throughout the state? Newsom: Because of the patchwork of jurisdictions, the funding we’re putting out supports regionalism in order to do just that, to knit these pieces together, but you just heard the Chief say that the efforts to do that have been underway for some time. ###
507

SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES
SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27/21
Statewide Rezoning of Single-Family Neighborhoods & Urban Parcel Splits Prepared by RPPG Senior Policy Advisor, Dan Carrigg**
Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) as amended (04/27) proposes to rezone by state statute, virtually all parcels within single-family residential zonesi in California allowing for the creation of (when combined with state Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law) at least four units, and under several scenarios up to sixii units (see endnote below). Further, the measure authorizes urban lot splits, without any local discretionary public hearing or reviewiii—including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)iv, as follows:
• Single-Family Residential Zones: Permits the division, partial or full tear down of an existing single-family home to create two separate residential units, eligible to be sold separatelyv
. Since the measure also operates in conjunction with ADU law, it will allow at least two more units to be built on the parcel without public review. All local ordinancesvi that would physically preclude construction of the two units cannot be enforced. ADU law has separate authority enabling the construction of additional units. Parking is limited to one space per unitvii, and must be eliminated entirely if within one-half mile of transit or if there is a car share vehicle within one block.
• Urban Parcel Splits: Permits urban lot splits in residential zones to create two newviii parcels no smaller than 1,200 square feet, provided that one parcel shall not be less than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivisionix. Prohibits the application of local requirements that would physically preclude the construction of two units to be built on each split lotx
. Authorizes a local government to impose a one-year
owner occupancy requirement to utilize the lot-split provision. However, as drafted there is a sunset date which eliminates the owner-occupancy provision in five yearsxi. Note:

This is the only sunset provision in the measure.
• Area Limitations: Parcels must be located in a US Census designated urban area or urban clusterxii. Parcels within the Coastal Zone are also includedxiii. Limitations apply for hazardous waste sites, land designated for conservation, or within a historic district, as those various terms are defined. If a parcel is located in an earthquake fault zone, floodplain or regulatory floodway, the development shall be constructed in compliance with applicable state and local requirements.
• High Fire Hazard Zones: Units can be built under SB 9 within a fire hazard zone if they comply with state fire hazard mitigation measures and applicable building standardsxiv. • Parcel Occupancy Limitations: The development cannot affect units occupied by a tenant within the prior three yearsxv, units subject to local rent control, units that have been withdrawn (Ellis Act) from rental housing within the prior 15 years, or units restricted by covenant for low- and moderate-income households.
• Single-Family Home Demolishing: A single family home may be demolished entirely if a tenant has not lived in the home during the prior three years, otherwise only 25 percent may be demolished, unless a greater percentage is allowed by local ordinance. 508

SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES
SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com • Setbacks: Provides that local building setbacks cannot be greater than what is applied to an existing structure and requires those same setbacks to be applied to a structure constructed in the same location and the same dimension as the existing structurexvi.

Related conditions include:
o Stipulates that a proposal shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures that meeting building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow a separate conveyancexvii.
o Permits local governments to require four-foot setbacks from the rear and side lot lines in other circumstancesxviii.
o Requires units that are proposed to be connected to an on-site waste treatment system to have a percolation test completed within the prior five years, or if percolation has been recertified, within 10 years.
• Parking: Authorizes a local agency to require parking of one space per unit, but prohibits a parking requirement if:
o The project is within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor, or a major transit stop, as definedxix.
o There is a car-share vehiclexx located within one block of the parcel. • Zoning: Authorizes the proposed development to comply with local “objective” zoning, subdivision and design standards, but states that such standards cannot have the effect of precludingxxi the development of two units. Defines these terms to mean standards that are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion and involve no personal and subjective judgement by a public official. Stipulates that local agency shall require that any units constructed under this provision that are to be rented shall be for a term longer than 30 days. (Avoids vacation rentals)xxii o Prohibits a local agency from being required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels where an applicant constructs units in compliance with this section and also subdivides the lot into two separate parcels.xxiii o Authorizes a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement these provisions but stipulates that the adoption of the ordinance shall not be considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).xxiv Comments:
1) Voters Deserve a Voice on Proposed Elimination of Single-Family Zoning: It is difficult to conceive of a more aggressive law the Legislature could attempt to pass affecting the nearly seven million California homeowners who have scrimped and saved to acquire and maintain their piece of the California Dream, a single-family home. The Legislature should not leap to the enactment of a sweeping statewide law without the proper reflection, due diligence and true public transparency on what such a proposal really means for millions of Californians and the state’s future economy. SB 9 deserves much more public sunshine than is permitted in the COVID-impacted Legislature where public transparency and access has become even more limited. Enacting such a law without broader transparency and consultation with the voters would be reckless. The origin of this bill supposedly is based on recent experiments in Minneapolis and Oregon.

A primary narrative being used in support of this measure is centered around the characterization that all single-family home development is derived from racially motivated biases that tie back to the abhorrent practice of “redlining” tactics. Polarizing and divisive messaging such as this often overshadows the rationale policy-based arguments being expressed by local agencies. If such a proposal has merit, then all affected Californian’s 509

SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES
SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com deserve an opportunity to fully understand it and weigh in via an advisory ballot measure put to the voters in November 2022.
2) Inequitable Impacts: A March 2021 nationwide study found that the share of singlefamily rentals owned by institutional investors rose to 24.5% in 2015 from 17.3% in 2001.

Combined across all housing types, institutional investors now own a majority (52%) of the country’s 47.5 million rental units and their share has been growingxxv. It is likely that the disruption caused by SB 9 will have inequitable impacts depending on wealth. Flipping homes to duplexes and splitting parcels down to 1,200 square feet are likely to affect middle/low-income neighborhoods and homeowners more than wealthier individuals— creating more market rate rental units and less new home ownership opportunities. 3) Lack of Due Process and Transparency: Much is made in the Legislature of the value of public engagement and transparency when local governments make decisions. Local officials must comply with rigorous transparency requirements under the Brown Act. The benefits of CEQA are also strongly defended, to ensure that both the public and decision makers are fully informed and have the opportunity to mitigate environmental impacts.

Yet, SB 9 discards public transparency and environmental principles. Without any due process for those affected, including an opportunity for local hearings, community input, or even compliance with CEQA, the Legislature will allow most single-family neighborhoods to become the target of “buy, flip and split” speculators who are free to demolish homes and replace them with units jammed up against four-foot setbacks, with little to no parking, while avoiding compliance with local laws and ordinances that apply to others. It is inequitable to upend single family zoning and destabilize existing neighborhoods without adequate due process to those locally affected. 4) What about New Subdivisions, and State Policy to Preserve Homeowner Equity? The premise behind SB 9 is to eliminate single family zoning. But then why does SB 9 not specifically address new subdivisions? It is inconsistent to upend existing single-family neighborhoods, while allowing new subdivisions to be created under the one home per parcel model. Developers and home sellers should also be required to disclose whether the provisions of SB 9 apply to a neighborhood. State housing policies that mention singlefamily homes in a positive way, would also need to be revised or repealed, such as Section 50007 (HSC) : The Legislature finds and declares that the large equities that the majority of California residents in most economic strata have now accumulated in single-family homes must be protected and conserved.”
5) Upends State Housing Element Planning: The state already has numerous housing laws in place that ensure that the California’s housing needs are incorporated into local plans, via local zoning. Recent changes in laws governing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) have drastically increased housing allocations in the 6th Cycle to most communities. Local housing plans (elements), in turn, must be approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Over 98 percent of cities and counties have obtained such approvals, and the state recently significantly strengthened enforcement provisions to ensure full accountability. The expanded zoning of singlefamily parcels in SB 9 is completely disconnected from the local housing element planning process. Uncoordinated development will create strains on local infrastructure, impact response times, and create distrust among the public in the validity of local housing plans. 6) Destabilizing Economic Impacts: The purchase of a home is typically an individual’s largest investment. Establishing a state policy that permits 4-6 multi-unit development on 510

SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES
SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com adjacent single-family parcels with no public process will destabilize single-family neighborhoods. Developers focused on market opportunities will out-bid average families and drive-up prices in desired areas. Those families concerned about protecting the value of their investment, and/or seeking to obtain/preserve the traditional benefits of singlefamily neighborhoods (less noise, traffic, etc.) will opt to move to more rural settings exempt from SB 9—contributing to additional sprawl--or add to economic and social divisions by increasing demand for living in homeowner’s associations where such activities would be prohibited via CC&R’s. Business location and retention decisions may be affected as well, since local quality-of-life for those making the decision is a major factor.
7) Governor’s Position on SB 9 Will Likely Determine Outcome: Governor Newsom holds the power on this measure. Last year, SB 1120, a virtually identical bill, made it all the way through the Legislature. It passed both the Senate and the Assembly, and only stalled from being taken up on the last night of session because of a midnight procedural deadline had passed. SB 9 is authored by the Senate Pro Tem Atkins; it already made it through the Legislature once, as SB 1120, and is anticipated to do so again. That means the fate of this measure will likely come down to a decision by Governor Newsom. While the Governor clearly supports additional housing production, he has opted–so far--to do so in a measured way, by increasing accountability for cities and counties to adopt state approved housing element plans and allocating billions in state funding to address homelessness and support affordable housing development. In his most recent budget proposal, he also proposed a special unit at the Department of Housing and Community Development to monitor local housing activities. Furthermore, the Governor has already addressed this policy issue area by signing (AB 725 (Wicks), Ch. 193 of 2020) which requires metropolitan jurisdictions to zone for at least 25 percent of allocated units for moderate and above moderate-income housing on parcels allowing at least four units in the next (7th) RHNA Cycle, which allows for such requirement to be incorporated into local planning. Moreover, the Governor’s own life choices support the referral of the SB 9 proposal for an advisory vote by California voters. When Governor Newsom was inaugurated, he opted to purchase a single-family home on several acres in the suburbs, reported to be the most expensive home ever sold within the region, rather than living in the Governor’s mansion in downtown Sacramento. California voters deserve a similar opportunity to decide whether they want to continue to have the opportunity to achieve and maintain benefits of single-family home and associated quality of life for their own families.

Citations and Additional Comments
i US Census data indicates there are nearly 6.9 million detached homes in California. State and local historic zones are proposed to be exempted, but most other limitations are of relatively minor impact to the massive and sweeping scope of this bill. This ** Dan Carrigg is a Senior Policy Advisor with the Renne Public Policy Group. As the retired Deputy Executive and Legislative Director with the League of California Cities, Carrigg brings a wealth of experience to the firm in legislative analysis, policy development, strategy, and advocacy on a wide range of issues affecting local government. His expertise in California housing and land use policy is truly unmatched—having spent nearly 30 years as a land use legislative advocate and former Assembly Housing and Community Development Policy Committee Consultant.
511

SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES
SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com measure is silent on how/if it applies to homes within common interest developments, or homeowner’s associations, where development is tightly regulated by codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&R’s) that are agreed to by contract and administered by local association boards under the Davis-Stirling Act. California homeowners can take little comfort in the reliability of any potential exceptions in this bill. The Legislature’s objective of eliminating single-family zoning statewide is clear, so this law can be expected to be amended in the future to further its intent. The passage of multiple bills in recent years to expand ADU laws are an example of how the Legislature can be expected to quickly widen this law once it is established. ii While the bill continues to be represented as allowing a total of four units, the language fails to clearly impose such a cap, and does not recognize scenarios when more than one unit may already be on a parcel prior to using SB 9. All of these issues could be addressed with language added to SB 9 that clarified a hard cap of four units. Here are several scenarios where more than four units could be created on a parcel:
1) Getting to 5 units: A developer buys a SF home, adds an ADU and a JADU to the property (using existing ADU/JADU laws), then seeks a lot split to build two more units under SB 9 Sec. 66411.7. Nothing in Sec. 66411.7 appears to prohibit a developer from building two more units as part of a lot split. The language in Sec. 65852.21 does not apply because in this case the developer did not apply to split the SF home into a duplex. 2) Getting to 6 units: A developer buys a SF home, adds an ADU and JADU to the property (using existing ADU/JADU laws), then uses SB 9 to split the SF home into a duplex. So far, so good. This would be a total of 4 units on the parcel.

As this bill is represented, that would be it, and the lot-split section should not be used. But where in the bill is that clear? A close reading of the language does not appear to prohibit the developer from also applying for a lot spilt and building two more units. A weakness in the language referencing ADU’s in Sec. 65852.21 (e) is that it only appears to contemplate a developer proposing ADUs in concert with an application under SB 9. The language states that a local agency “shall not be required to permit…” ADUs if both sections in SB 9 are used. But what if the ADUs were previously approved several years earlier and are already on the parcel? This is a problem created by not having a hard cap of four units in the bill. Since all such interpretations are ministerial, disputes over vague language will have to be settled in court.
3) Duplex and ADU/JADU Wildcard: Because there is not a hard cap of four units in SB 9, another scenario presents itself involving interpretations of ADU/JADU Law and duplexes. A developer buys a SF home and applies to convert it into a duplex under SB 9. Each duplex unit under SB 9 is eligible to be separately sold. So…how will ADU and JADU law be interpreted to apply to each individual duplex unit? This is not clear either in the law or in SB 9. If ADU and JADU law interpreted to allow for two units for each unit in a duplex, then that would be another way to get to six units. Under this scenario, however, SB 9 (Sec. 65852.2 (e)) does appear to prohibit adding both ADUs and using the lot split section.

All this confusion could be addressed with amendments imposing a hard 4-unit cap. iii SB 9 prohibits local agencies from requiring the dedication of a right of way to a newly created parcel created in a backyard.

Easements for public services and facilities, or access to a public right of way may be required. Presumably, for a parcel with no access to the street, the residents would park on the street and cross the front parcel on a path along the property line. Section 66411.7 (a) (3) (A) in SB 9, limits lot splits to parcels within single-family zones. iv It is hard to imagine a bigger CEQA exemption than proposed by SB 9. If a city or county proposed such zoning changes locally CEQA analysis would apply. SB 9 is designed to work around environmental analysis by dictating specific zoning criteria in state statute and requiring locals to approve applications “ministerially” without public review. Thus, the state Legislature is avoiding environmental reviews in a proposal that rezones virtually all of the single-family lots in the state v It is not legally necessary to formally divide the parcel to create two units. Condominiums or townhouses could be created that can be sold separately. It is unclear how ADU/JADU law will be applied in this circumstance. vi Many local ordinances that can be ignored by developers under this law can result in significant environmental and community impacts. Applying such an edict statewide with no understanding of the myriad of conditions that may apply to an individual existing parcel makes no sense. For example, some communities have ordinances seeking to preserve heritage trees, maintain views, or allow space for a community bike path. SB 9 preempts the application of such any such ordinances that physically preclude the development of units.
viii SB 9 has been represented and understood as allowing for an existing single-family parcel to be split to allow one new parcel where two units can be built. The problem is, however, that the language does not quite say that. Sec. 66411.7 (a) (1) says: “ The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create “two new parcels” …provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision.” In the following paragraph (2) it refers to “both newly created parcels.” This language leaves room for a future dispute over whether a developer could maintain that a total of three parcels can be created: the existing/original parcel, plus two new parcels. This language should be tightened up. ix Major social equity issues are raised with this provision. 1,200 square foot parcels are shockingly small, and will be further limited by four-foot setbacks for ingress and fire access. This will result in units crammed together with no green space, areas for children to play and certainly no parking. This small square footage will likely have the most impact in poorer 512

SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES
SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com neighborhoods with small lots that are already densely developed. Executive homes on larger parcels, however, will be less impacted. For instance, a half-acre parcel that is split would have more room for greenspace and parking. x SB 9 prohibits a lot that has been split pursuant to its provisions from being split again. It also prohibits an owner of a parcel, or, and any person acting in concert with the owner, to split adjacent lots. These provisions are of no comfort to those concerned about retaining neighborhood integrity. Unlike a local city or county, the Legislature is removed from any direct implications from what this bill actually means to a neighborhood or a homeowner. If SB 9 is allowing parcels as small as 1,200 square feet, why wouldn’t legislators entertain changes next year to this provision on behalf of developers who have their eyes on larger lots? Also, for those who think that 1,200 square feet is a minimum, consider that SB 9 requires locals to allow two 800 sq. ft. units on that lot. Also, the limitation on a developer splitting adjacent lots enables multiple work arounds for savvy investors and attorneys who can maintain separate ownership of adjacent parcels, and nothing stops an investor or development corporation from freely targeting every other parcel on a block for this activity. The prohibition in the bill on converting properties that are/have been occupied by tenants within three years, will focus investor attention on acquiring owner-occupied properties to convert into rentals, thus accelerating the conversion of a neighborhood from ownership to rental housing.
xi The homeownership provision is touted as an improvement on the bill from last year’s version, but such a provision is of little value since it sunsets on January 1, 2027, while the law itself has no such sunset date. Savvy investors can simply buy a desired property, build a duplex and wait-out this short timeline before applying for a lot split. xii This exception will increase demand for living on rural parcels outside of these urban census tracts and contribute to further sprawl. Those that have more resources will likely pay a premium to live on parcels not subject to the uncertainties of SB 9.

Realtors will likely have to disclose whether a property is within an SB 9 zone. xiii It is surprising that the Coastal Act is included in this bill. How this measure interacts with the application of the Coastal Act, approved by the voters, deserves additional examination. xiv At a time of increasing wildfire dangers, this provision makes little policy sense. Fire hazard areas often have narrow roads with limited ingress and egress. Allowing between four to six units on parcels in these areas with limited parking may impede equipment access and increase public safety hazards. Here is the cross-referenced language: “Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.” xv This limitation is of minor relevance. The economic potential offered by SB 9, far exceeds the impacts of purchasing a desired property and living in for several years, while plans to develop it are prepared. Still given the delay, developers will likely avoid a rental occupied home in a neighborhood and focus on owner-occupied homes, which will accelerate the conversion of a neighborhood to rental properties.
xvi This allows for the full teardown, including the garage. xvii “Conveyance” in real estate terminology means “sale.” xviii This allows the entire back half of the property to be used without any open space, other than walking paths. This also will create privacy issues when windows look onto adjoining properties, or other disputes when building remove heritage trees and block views.
xix Corridor with bus service at 15 minute intervals during peak commute hours, and includes existing rail or bus transit stations, ferry terminals served by bus or rail transit, or major transit stops included in regional transportation plan. These distances bear no real correlation with reality. Most residents living in units subject to SB 9 will have cars. Most Californian’s need cars to get to work, take children to school, shop, visit doctor’s offices etc. In most areas of California, outside of urban core areas, transit is insufficient for the variety of most needs. Many also consider transit to be unsafe, and (more recently with COVID) unhealthy.
xx This reference in the bill only mentions a “car share vehicle” within one block but does not mention a car share parking space.

A clever developer could park a car share vehicle permanently on the property, or on the street in front of it, and argue that no other parking is required.
xxi There is no way of fulling knowing what this exemption from applicable local ordinances really means. Such an exemption means that the laws of a community will apply unequally. For instance, a family that wants to add more room to an existing house cannot do so because of a view ordinance, but a developer who buys the property next door is free to use SB 9 to split the lot and put multiple units on the property blocking the views of others in violation of the ordinance. How is this equitable? xxii Likely difficult to enforce with numerous tenants inhabiting properties. xxiii Footnotes 2 describes ways this can be worked around. xxivLocals are provided little real authority in this measure. No doubt, they will be heavily blamed by residents for the widespread impacts of SB 9 and the absence of any due process for those affected. 513

SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES
SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com xxv Myklebust et al. Cashing in on Our Homes: Billionaire Landlords Profit as Millions Face Eviction (Mar. 2021) Bargaining for the Common Good; Institute for Policy Studies; Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund https://ips-dc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/Cashing-in-on-Our-Homes-FINAL-revised.pdf (as of Aug. 5, 2021) at p. 7 514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
Agenda Item No.: 11.A
Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: REPORT BY THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE ON THE DECEMBER 15, 2021 COMMITTEE MEETING; APPROVE COMMITTEE'S

RECOMMENDATION TO HOLD A SECOND COMMUNAL BIN EVENT
PROPOSED FOR JANUARY 24, 2022 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2022;

AND APPROVE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO HIRE
WILDLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

DATE: January 10, 2022
BACKGROUND:

At the Fire Fuel Committee meeting on December 15, 2021, the Committee reviewed the locations and dates for the second communal bin event. The Committee also reviewed proposals from interested parties to review the draft vegetation management in the canyon ordinance and to provide educational workshops in the community to showcase appropriate vegetation management measures in the canyons. The Committee recommended to the City Council to engage the services of Wildland Resource Management.

The Committee spent most of the meeting deliberating on the two hour public comments received at the November 17, 2021 Fire Fuel Committee meeting. The comments were related to the draft vegetation management in canyon ordinance. To systematically process the community input, the Committee decided to divide the comments into five categories: (1) applicability, (2) environmental, (3) appropriate standards for mitigation, (4) cost, and (5) mandatory versus voluntary. The Committee will continue deliberation at the next meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 6:30pm.

DISCUSSION:

The following summarizes the Committee's focus on the draft vegetation management in the canyon ordinance from the December 15, 2021 meeting:

Vegetation near a structure on an adjacent property, clarifying which resident has responsibility to a canyon.

Applicability of canyon management on a property, determining how far into the canyon 548
residents need to reduce fuel and what the slope should be.

Environmental concerns and regulations, which is determining CEQA regulations, types of vegetation species, wildlife habitat, etc.

Costs to residents for performing canyon management
City Council consideration of using technology use for wildfire detection Defining appropriate measurement for mitigation: Considering whether to use tons per acre, distance/space between mitigation and the development of other standards FISCAL IMPACT:

Costs for Wildland Resource Management
Assistance with Ordinance Development- $7,500
Canyon Management Education and home inspections $13,690 GRAND TOTAL $21,930.00
There is available budget in Emergency Preparedness account if the City Council decided to engage Wildland Resource Management for services. The communal bin event will be provided by Republic Services via the franchise agreement, at no extra charge to the city.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive report, consider Committee's recommendations and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

Agenda FF Committee Meeting 12.15.21.pdf
Proposal from Wildland Res Mgt-City of RH.pdf
Communal Bin 1st Event & 2nd Event Placement.pdf
549

1. PARTICIPANTS

2. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

2.A. RECEIVE AND FILE A VERBAL REPORT ON THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE'S

PREVIOUS EVALUATION OF STORMHILL PARK WITH RESPECT TO FIRE FUEL REMOVAL.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file verbal report.

2.B. REVIEW AND APPROVE LOCATIONS FOR THE NEXT COMMUNAL BINS EVENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 24, 2021 TO JANUARY 31, 2021.

RECOMMENDATION: Review and approve communal bin locations.

2.C. CONSIDER ENGAGING THE SERVICES OF WILDLAND RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT TO ASSIST WITH REVIEW OF DRAFT VEGETATION

MANAGEMENT IN THE CANYON ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE EDUCATION

CAMPAIGN ON THE PROPER WAYS TO MANAGE VEGETATION IN THE CANYONS.

RECOMMENDATION: Engage Wildland Resource Management for services.

2.D. DISCUSS PUBLIC INPUT RECEIVED AT THE NOVEMBER 17, 2021 FIRE FUEL

COMMITTEE MEETING ON THE DRAFT VEGETATION ORDINANCE FOR 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
AGENDA
Special Fire Fuel Management
Committee Meeting

FIRE FUEL MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE
Wednesday, December 15, 2021

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
6:30 PM
Executive Order
All Committee members will participate in-person wearing masks per Los Angeles County Health Department's Health Officer Order effective Saturday, July 17, 2021. The meeting agenda and live audio will be available on the City’s website:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php Members of the public may come in to City Hall wearing masks, per the new Health Officer's Order.

Zoom teleconference will not be available for this meeting, but members of the public can submit written comments in real-time by emailing the City Clerk’s office at [email protected]. Your comments will become part of the official meeting record. You must provide your full name, but please do not provide any other personal information that you do not want to be published.

Communal Bin 1st Event & 2nd Event Placement.pdf
Proposal from Wildland Res Mgt-City of RH.pdf
5501
CANYON MANAGEMENT AND FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT.

RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide direction to staff

2.E. CONSIDER AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT FIRE FUEL MEETING AND SET THE NEXT MEETING DATE.

RECOMMENDATION: Consider agenda items and set next meeting date.

3. COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN BY EMAIL IN REAL TIME - PUBLIC COMMENT

WELCOME
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding items not listed on this agenda.

Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda.

4. ADJOURNMENT
2021-11-17-FFCommitteeStaffReport.pdf
FF_Meeting_11.17.21-_Fire_Fuel_Management_Draft_Ordinance.pdf Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agendas are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting.
5512
Agenda Item No.: 2.A
Mtg. Date: 12/15/2021
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

RECEIVE AND FILE A VERBAL REPORT ON THE FIRE FUEL

COMMITTEE'S PREVIOUS EVALUATION OF STORMHILL PARK
WITH RESPECT TO FIRE FUEL REMOVAL.

DATE: December 15, 2021
BACKGROUND:

None.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file verbal report.

ATTACHMENTS:
5523
Agenda Item No.: 2.B
Mtg. Date: 12/15/2021
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

REVIEW AND APPROVE LOCATIONS FOR THE NEXT COMMUNAL
BINS EVENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 24, 2021 TO JANUARY 31, 2021.

DATE: December 15, 2021
BACKGROUND:

During the last fire fuel committee meeting on November 17, 2021, Staff was still in discussion with Republic services for dates of the communal bin event designed to support and motivate residents for vegetation trimming and reduction in the community. During the previous event between August 20, 2021 and August 28, 2021 Republic Services collected a total of 15.64 tons which is equivalent to 31,280 pounds of green waste.

The first Phase of these bins were placed at the following locations:

1. Quail Ridge North just north of Crest Road West.

2. On the Corner of Crest Road West and Quail Ridge North adjacent to 1 Crest Road West.

3. On Spur Lane just West of Cinchring Road on Cal Water’s- Water Tank Property

4. On Portuguese Bend Road across the street from 52 Portuguese Bend on the West-side of the street.

5. On Portuguese Bend Road just North of Ranchero on the East-side of the street.

DISCUSSION:

The City's next scheduled communal bin event will take place Monday January 24, 2022 to Monday January 31, 2022. The bins will be dropped off in the morning and in place by noon on January 24th and picked up Monday the 31st sometime between 8:00am-5:00pm. The plan for placement of the communal bins going forward will be a consistent rotation for the East section, West Section, and Northern sections of the city. The previous phase was conducted in the western section of the city. Staff has already coordinated with RHCA & Republic Services regarding locations for placement of these bins.
5534
This second phase will be placed in the eastern section of the city at the following locations:

1. On Crest Road E. Right before 30 Crest Road on the Eastside of the street

2. On Caballeros Road at the intersection of Crest Road E. on the Eastside of the street

3. On Eastfield at the corner of Open Brand Road (after the mail box of 79/81) after the Stop sign

4. On Eastfield Drive right after the intersection of Chuckwagon Road across the street from 28 Eastfield on the Westside of the street.

5. On Chuckwagon Road next to Upper Willow Spring Trail FISCAL IMPACT:

These communal bins were negotiated with Republic Services as a part of the City's franchise agreement with the vendor at no additional cost to the community.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review and approve communal bin locations.

ATTACHMENTS:

Communal Bin 1st Event & 2nd Event Placement.pdf
5545
COMMUNAL BIN EVENTS 8/20/2021 - 8/28/2021 & 1/24/2022- 1/31/2022 Red Pin 2021: Quail Ridge North just north of Crest Road West Blue Pin 2021: On the Corner of Crest Road West and Quail Ridge North adjacent to 1 Crest Road West.

Green Pin 2021: On Spur Lane just West of Cinchring Road on Cal Water’s- Water Tank Property Yellow Pin 2021: On Portuguese Bend Road across the street from 52 Portuguese Bend on the West-side of the street.

Purple Pin 2021: On Portuguese Bend Road just North of Ranchero on the East-side of the street Red Diamond 2022: On Caballeros Road at the intersection of Crest Road E. on the Eastside of the street Blue Diamond 2022: On Crest Road E. Right before 30 Crest Road on the Eastside of the street Green Diamond 2022: On Eastfield at the corner of Open Brand Road (after the mail box of 79/81) after the Stop sign
Yellow Diamond 2022: On Eastfield Drive right after the intersection of Chuckwagon Road across the street from 28 Eastfield on the Westside of the street.

Purple Diamond 2022: On Chuckwagon Road next to Upper Willow Spring Trail 2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
2022
2022 2022
2022
2022
5556
Agenda Item No.: 2.C
Mtg. Date: 12/15/2021
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

CONSIDER ENGAGING THE SERVICES OF WILDLAND RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT TO ASSIST WITH REVIEW OF DRAFT VEGETATION

MANAGEMENT IN THE CANYON ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE

EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON THE PROPER WAYS TO MANAGE
VEGETATION IN THE CANYONS.

DATE: December 15, 2021
BACKGROUND:

In May and June 2021 the Fire Fuel Committee considered the 11 prioritized canyons based on directional winds. These Canyons were considered at risk from wind driven from the southwest and northeast conducted by the Los Angeles Fire Department. Based upon this assessment the community has brought up several issues of concern regarding which canyons to focus on first and the lack of education, proper procedures, safety, and expert opinion. The Fire Fuel Committee requested staff to research potential consultants & fire experts that could assist in supporting the community for education, training, and assessment similar to the hardening the home visits Deputy Forrester Trevor Moore conducts on a monthly basis but specifically for the canyons.

DISCUSSION:

On August 30, 2021 at the 7th Fire Fuel Committee meeting the Fire Fuel Committee tasked staff with conducting research to find fire experts who could assist in the development of the new vegetation ordinance, potential training, and conducting site visits and education for residents on canyon management. Staff received information from 3 different consultants: Wildfire Planning International, Wildland Resource Management, and Firewise 2000.

Fire Wise 2000
Fire Wise 2000 was founded by Retired Forresters and is comprised of a team of certified CEQA landuse consultants and Registered Professional Forresters (RPF). They specialize in the development of Wildland Fire Protection Plans for residential and commercial properties in the wildland-urban interface (WUI).
5567
Wildfire Planning International
Wildfire Planning International helps communities find creative ways to address their wildfire risk in the WUI (Wildland Urban Interface) through land use planning tools and strategies. They conduct master plans to perform community hazard and risk assessments providing insight into questions about evacuations, species of risk, topography, and providing tips and resources to help implement risk reduction activities.

Wildland Resource Management (Carol Rice) & Retired Forester Jay Lopez Wildland Resource Management & Retired Forester Jay Lopez plan to provide services by assistance with expertise knowledge of what constitutes a nuisance based upon fire science standards, CEQA procedures, and local regulations. For Canyon Management they plan to conduct research on canyons to develop BMPs (Best Management Practices) that will generate a curriculum to perform site visits/home inspections and train staff if needed for enforcement. Lastly, they will provide spot check inspections for any changes to the scope of work or environment that require updates for new evaluation and evaluation materials.

Firewise 2000 was not able to construct a specific cost estimate based on scope of work for this project and did not have the capacity to take on the scope of work presented and requires a site visit to provide a cost estimate. They will be available to conduct a site visit and have better availability starting January 2022.

Wildfire Planning International also did not have the capacity based on current project commitments to provide all necessary scope of work the committee has requested but they were willing to provide services for site visits/education for residents and staff training. For projects they have performed previously, similar to what the city is requesting they have estimates of between $10,000-30,000. This estimate is dependent upon whether a site visit is required to look at existing conditions, how much initial content is required for drafting, and if a final in-person presentation is requested during the final presentation/adoption phase.

Wildland Resource Management is willing to provide services on all scope of work required and is still forming a more specific cost estimate that reflects site visits for residents on an as needed basis.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Assistance with Ordinance Development- $7,500
Canyon Management Education and home inspections $13,690 GRAND TOTAL $21,930.00
Wildland Resource Management is removing the $740 charge and adding cost on a per visit basis for resident property inspection for canyons. (Please see the attachment with the cost estimates for reviewal of the $740 charge)
RECOMMENDATION:

Engage Wildland Resource Management for services.

ATTACHMENTS:

Proposal from Wildland Res Mgt-City of RH.pdf
5578
1 Wildland Res Mgt (510) 502-4737
316 California Ave. #68, Reno NV 89509 [email protected] November 5, 2021
Ashford Ball
Senior Management Analyst
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Sent via email to [email protected]
Dear Mr. Ball:

Thank you for this opportunity to submit a proposal for services that advance the wildland fire safety of the City of Rolling Hills. I appreciate the background provided from our virtual meetings and telephone conversations that builds a foundation of this proposal.

The services will focus on two different types of activities. The first is to guide code and ordinance development, primarily to assist the determination of what constitutes a nuisance. Tasks would include the description of a nuisance in terms of fuel volume, or arrangement of type (include possibly plant species). For this activity we propose an arrangement based on responding to the questions of the city and offering clarification and guidance. The need for clarification regarding CEQA can also be anticipated. Because of the uncertainty involved in this activity, an arrangement based on time and materials (with a set not-to-exceed ceiling of $7,500) makes the most sense.

The second activity would be to offer consultations regarding canyon management.

The overall goals would be to (1) provide guidance to the community about best practices and CEQA, (2) conduct canyon evaluations, and (3) train staff regarding how to evaluate the compliance and fuel management of canyons. Based on the tasks associated with site visits, meetings, and consultation, we estimate a cost of $14,430, We would be pleased to expand the description of services and deliverables in following discussions.

These services would be provided by Carol Rice, with Wildland Res Mgt and J. Lopez, Los Angeles County Fire Department (retired). Both have been working in the wildland urban interface for decades, and are familiar with the environs and community of the City of Rolling Hills. Both J. and Carol are both natural resource managers and wildland fire managers. Our combined experience enables our ability to offer recommendations that minimize wildland fire hazards and environmental impacts.

The initial work can begin in as soon as agreements are reached.

On the following pages please find a description of services and costs estimated for each task.

Please let me know if adjustments should be made so that we can better support the City of Rolling Hills.

Sincerely,
Carol L. Rice
5589
2 Task Cost
Guide code development Time and Materials, NTE $7,500
Work aimed at determining what constitutes a nuisance
E.g., fuel volume, fuel arrangement, species
Discussion of CEQA procedure and local regulations
Canyon Management
Identify/select good example of canyon mgt
Site visit to identify/select canyon where lessons can be learned $4,440 Design event and demonstration $740
Assumes City videos and produces youtube product
Develop BMPs for canyon management, considering local
regulations $1,480
Assumes work done by other entities, per BMP
Develop a checklist for evaluations $2,220
Site visits to inspect 2 canyons, while training others $3,700 Spot check other inspections next year $1,110
Subtotal (Canyon Management only) $14,430
55910
Agenda Item No.: 2.D
Mtg. Date: 12/15/2021
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

DISCUSS PUBLIC INPUT RECEIVED AT THE NOVEMBER 17, 2021

FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE MEETING ON THE DRAFT VEGETATION

ORDINANCE FOR CANYON MANAGEMENT AND FIRE FUEL
ABATEMENT.

DATE: December 15, 2021
BACKGROUND:

The Fire Fuel Committee received nearly two hours of comments on the draft vegetation ordinance for canyon management and fire fuel abatement at the November 17, 2021 meeting.

DISCUSSION:

The community provided feedback on potential considerations, amendments and the need for a fire expert to review the ordinance. The community spoke on concerns of additional property regulations and expressed that a distance of 500 feet from structures may not stretch into the canyon on all properties.

At the November 17, 2021 meeting, the Committee decided to review the public comments and discuss the feedback at the December 15, 2021 Fire Fuel Committee meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The preparation of the draft ordinance by the City Attorney's office is included in the operating budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss the public input received and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:
2021-11-17-FFCommitteeStaffReport.pdf
FF_Meeting_11.17.21-_Fire_Fuel_Management_Draft_Ordinance.pdf 56011
Agenda Item No.: 2.A
Mtg. Date: 11/17/2021
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE DRAFT VEGETATION ORDINANCE

FOR CANYON MANAGEMENT AND FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT
DATE: November 17, 2021
BACKGROUND:

On June 30, 2021 the Fire Fuel Committee discussed ideas regarding mitigating fuel in the canyons after discussing an annual project for long term goals to resolve fire fuel in the canyons. From the discussion the idea of developing a new vegetation ordinance was prompted. At the next Fire Fuel Committee meeting on July 21, 2021 Councilmember Mirsch presented a draft recommendation intended for the City Council about fire fuel reduction in the canyons to discuss with her fellow committee member Mayor Pro Tem Black.

The recommendation consisted of the following:

Property owners with hazardous levels of vegetation would be given the option of:

A) Performing the abatement work themselves, to be completed by the xx/xx/xx date B) Joining a city-lead effort where the city would:
- obtain scope of work specifications
- obtain bids for entire job (by property) and select the vendor(s) to perform the work - provide the cost of the work to each property owner
- determine start date
- ensure quality of work meets contractual specifications C) Do nothing
If a property owner with hazardous levels of vegetation decides to do nothing, fails to authorize the city to work on their property, fails to remit payment due for remediation work, or does not perform their own abatement work by the specified date, then the property would be declared a nuisance, and the city would begin nuisance abatement process (Chapter 8.24). This process would be one time only, in each of the canyons specified as High Risk by the Fire Dept. Going 56112
forward, all required maintenance will be the total responsibility of the property owner. If unsafe conditions re-occur on the property and a nuisance is declared, the city will begin the nuisance abatement process
From this recommendation Staff was then given direction to assist with the development of the ordinance before presentation to City Council.

At the August 30, 2021 Fire Fuel meeting the Committee discussed defining a nuisance and amendments to the current dead vegetation ordinance. City staff and Councilmember Mirsch met with legal counsel on September 2, 2021. City staff, legal counsel, and Councilmember Mirsch discussed development of the ordinance and the details involved to construct it. On September 13, 2021 at the City Council meeting the Fire Fuel Committee presented a report from the August 30, 2021 Fire Fuel Committee meeting regarding the recent work the fire fuel committee had performed thus far and the Council provided feedback. The feedback from the City Council was discussed during the September 29, 2021 Fire Fuel meeting.

The feedback and details from this meeting lead to more research which resulted in a meeting with the Fire Department and Sheriff's department on November 4, 2021 to talk about more specifics for the draft ordinance.

DISCUSSION:

The City Attorney’s office drafted the ordinance and the ordinance was provided to Los Angeles Fire Department Acting Assistant Chief for review and comment on Friday, October 29, 2021. The Assistant Chief circulated the draft ordinance to the Forestry Division and the Forestry Division provided feedback.

The feedback is summarized as follows:
• Defensible space is an area where firefighters may safely operate and may extend to 200 feet from structures.
• Areas beyond 200 feet from structures should not be characterized as defensive space. • Defensible space is focused primarily on structure survival and does not identify distances for personnel safety.
• Defensible space of 200 feet is the standard for LA County and this is clear is the Fire Code. • Fuel treatment beyond 200 feet should not be called defensible space; it could be called habitat enhancement, invasive species removal or visual quality improvement. Defensible space should always be related to structures, fire access and firefighter safety.

During the November 10, 2021 Fire Fuel meeting Staff reported to the committee that the ordinance was being reviewed by the Fire Department and that staff may have a draft ready by next week to present to the Fire Fuel Committee. The Committed received and filed the report. The Fire Department also noted that they will not be enforcing defensible space beyond 200 feet from structures. The City Attorney’s office provided an updated version of the draft ordinance on Friday, November 12, 2021.

Updates were made to areas that the City Attorney’s office was still researching from the initial draft.

Today the committee will discuss the the purpose and details of the draft ordinance to decide whether they will make a recommendation to City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.
56213
RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss and Consider the draft vegetation ordinance to make recommendation to City Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

FF Meeting 11.17.21- Fire Fuel Management Draft Ordinance.DOCX 56314
- 1 -

EXHIBIT A
Chapter 8.30 Abatement and Management of Certain Vegetation and Waste Matter Section 8.30.010 Purpose and Intent
Section 8.30.020 Definitions
Section 8.30.030 Minimum General Requirements for Parcel Maintenance Section 8.30.040 Creating Additional Defensible Space
Section 8.30.050 Increased and Decreased Defensible Space Section 8.30.060 Defensible Space Near Adjacent Property Improvements Section 8.30.070 Fire Extinguishers
Section 8.30.080 Grading
Section 8.30.090 Exemptions
Section 8.30.100 Violation
Section 8.30.010 Purpose and Intent
A. Uncontrolled wildfires pose a serious threat to the health, welfare, and safety of the City of Rolling Hills residents and their animals and property.

B. The City is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is almost an entirely residential community of large one+ acre parcels. It is characterized by California ranch style homes and an abundance of equestrian facilities. Early landscaping on these large parcels matured, rendering the City a heavily wooded setting.

C. The City values the wooded setting and recognizes the benefits that vegetation offers to the community, such as maintaining soil stability, fostering wildlife, and providing shade and privacy. The City also recognizes the inherent danger in allowing such vegetation to grow unchecked without maintenance recommended by fire officials and experts based on the unique characteristics of the City and environmental changes, which have resulted in hotter and dryer weather.

D. The topography of the City also increases the risk of fire transmission. The City contains canyons and steep slopes, which influence how fires behave. Canyons provide narrow openings that accelerate winds, making fires spread more quickly and easily. Further, when a fire ignites at the bottom of a steep slope, it spreads more quickly upwards because it can preheat the upcoming fuels with rising hot air.

E. The City Council has taken action to address this threat of uncontrolled wildfires through the adoption of the Fire Fuel Abatement Ordinance in Chapter 8.30 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, which prohibits the maintenance of dead and alive tumbleweeds and dead trees, shrubs, palm fronds, and other plants.

F. Despite these efforts, the accumulation of other flammable vegetation within the City continues to endanger the lives of the residents, animals, and property.

G. The California Legislature has found and declared that site and structure defensibility is essential to reduce the risk of structure ignition and for effective fire suppression 56415
- 2 -
by firefighters. (California Government (“Gov.”) Code Section 51189.) California law currently requires property owners and others in control of property in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to maintain defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of a structure. (Gov. Code Section 51182.) California law also authorizes local agencies to require a greater distance than 100 feet of defensible space. (Gov. Code Section 51182.) California allows local agencies to declare a violation as a public nuisance, cause correction of violations to be made when a property owner fails to correct the condition causing the violation, and record a lien against the property to cover the expenses incurred in correcting the violation itself. (Gov. Code Sections 51187 and 51186.)
H. The County of Los Angeles Fire Code, which the City of Rolling Hills adopts by reference, requires property owners and others in control of property in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone to maintain such defensible space. (See Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 4907.1; Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 15.20.010.) It further authorizes a fire code official to notify all property owners of extra hazardous conditions which require removal of flammable vegetation up to 200 feet from any structure or building. (Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 325.2.2.) Due to the extra hazardous conditions within the City, the Los Angeles County Fire Department currently enforces a defensible space of up to 200 feet from any structure or building within the City.

I. Due to the conditions described above and the City’s large lots, additional defensible space is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of flame or heat transmission sufficient to ignite structures and buildings within the City. Requiring an expanded defensible space around improvements within the City from 200 feet to 500 feet of any improvement will ultimately protect the City’s valued wooded setting, increase community safety, and give fire suppression personnel sufficient area to conduct operations in the event of a wildfire.

J. This Chapter will allow for public nuisance abatement when property owners allow flammable vegetation to accumulate in violation of this Chapter.

Section 8.30.020 Definitions
The following words and phrases, for the purposes of this chapter, are defined as follows:
“Flammable Vegetation” shall mean material that in its natural state will readily ignite (i.e., burn and transmit fire from native or landscape plants to any Improvement or other vegetation).

Flammable Vegetation includes the following plants or vegetation:

1. Dead and dry grass, brush, Weeds, and leaf litter, dead and dying trees, and other flammable vegetation that endanger public safety by creating a Fire Hazard in any portion of the City.

2. Sagebrush, chaparral, and any other brush or vegetation, which attain such large growth so as to become, when dry, a fire menace upon premises or to adjacent property.

3. Plants and vegetation otherwise considered a Noxious Weed or dangerous, including, but not limited to, oleander, castor bean, and poison oak and poison ivy.
56516
- 3 -

4. Trees, if determined to increase the Fire Hazard due to mortality, insect infestation, disease, or lack of maintenance.

5. Dead and dying groves and forests.

6. Palm trees and all palm fronds with older leaves that persist on the tree, forming a “skirt” of brown thatch.

7. Any other vegetation that in its natural state will readily ignite as determined by the Fire Chief or his or her designee.
“Combustible Mulch” shall mean any layer of material applied to the surface of soil that will, in its natural state, ignite, burn, or be capable of transmitting fire to landscape or to any Improvement. Combustible Mulch shall include, but not be limited to, the following as defined:

1. “Composted Mulch” is defined as screened or refined composted wood chips and other organic materials.

2. “Chipped or Shredded Vegetation Waste, Wood Products, Bark, and Nugget Mulch” shall mean coarsely chipped or shredded organic materials that have been recently produced and have not undergone the composting process.

Examples include chipped or shredded vegetation waste and wood products, logging waste, bark or wood nuggets, and needles.

3. “Rubber Mulch” shall mean chipped or shredded mulch coming from 100 percent recycled rubber.
“Dying or Diseased Trees” shall mean pest or pathogen infested trees, abandoned or neglected groves, and other trees which are in a dying condition. “Defensible Space” shall mean an area, either natural or man-made, where material capable of allowing a fire to spread unchecked has been abated, treated, removed, or modified to slow the rate and intensity of an advancing wildfire.
“Fire Hazard” shall mean any condition or conduct which, in the opinion of the Fire Chief or his or her designee, (a) increases or may increase the threat of fire to a greater degree than customarily recognized as an acceptable condition or conduct by individuals in the public service regularly engaged in preventing, suppressing or extinguishing fire; or (b) may obstruct, delay, hinder, or interfere with the operations of the fire department or the egress of occupants in the event of fire.
“Green Waste” includes organic material including but not limited to yard trimmings, plant waste, untreated wood wastes, paper products, natural fiber products, mulch, and compost. “Improvement” shall mean any building or structure, permanent or temporary, erected for the support, shelter, or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels, or property of any kind located in the City. For purposes of this term, "Improvement" shall not include fences or any similar barriers enclosing or separating areas of land.
“Noxious Weed” shall mean any species of plant that is, or is liable to be, troublesome, aggressive, intrusive, detrimental, or destructive to agriculture, silviculture, or important native 56617
- 4 -
species, and difficult to control or eradicate, as defined in Section 5004 of the California Food and Agricultural Code.
“Parcel” shall mean any contiguous quantity of land in the possession of, owned by, or recorded as the property of, the same person or entity, and which is located in the jurisdiction of the City.
“Responsible Party” includes, but is not limited to, any person, firm, or entity owning, renting, leasing, or otherwise controlling any Parcel located in the City. The responsible parties for a property that is leased or rented by a person or entity other than the owner of the property includes the person or entity who is on record with the County Assessor as the owner of that property.
“Weeds” shall mean any vegetation growing upon streets or private property in the City, and may include any of the following, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 14875:

1. Vegetation that bears seeds of a downy or wingy nature;

2. Vegetation that is not pruned or is otherwise neglected so as to attain such large growth as to become, when dry, a fire menace to adjacent improved property;

3. Vegetation that is otherwise noxious or dangerous;

4. Poison oak and poison ivy when the conditions of growth are such as to constitute a menace to the public health; and

5. Dry grass, stubble, brush, or other flammable material which endangers the public safety by creating a Fire Hazard.

Section 8.30.030 Minimum General Requirements for Parcel Maintenance A. Dead and alive tumbleweeds and dead trees, shrubs, palm fronds, grasses, or other plants located on any Parcel in the City are prohibited.

B. Exception: Slope area approximated to be steeper than two units horizontal to one unit vertical (fifty percept slope).

Section 8.30.040 Creating Additional Defensible Space
A. In addition to the requirements of Section 8.30.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and the requirements of Section 4907.1 of the Los Angeles County Fire Code, which the City adopts by reference, Responsible Party for Improvements or controlling land adjacent to Improvements, shall at all times maintain an effective additional Defensible Space from two hundred (200) feet to five hundred (500) feet from any Improvement.

B. The Defensible Space zone from two hundred (200) feet to five hundred (500) feet from an Improvement shall be subject to the following requirements:

1. Flammable Vegetation must be removed by methods such as uprooting, mowing, disking, thinning and trimming. Mowing is preferred when it is desirable to leave the plant root structure intact to stabilize the soil. 56718
- 5 -

2. Invasive Species. Any noxious or invasive weed or plant designated by a Federal, State, County, or City government as injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or property shall be removed. Due to their flammable characteristics, potential to increase fuel density, and their ability to degrade natural and planted landscapes, invasive plants are prohibited.

3. Any Weeds or grasses shall be cut to a height not less than four (4) inches and no more than six (6) inches. This section does not apply to single specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery, or similar plants which are used as ground cover, if they do not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from the native growth to any Improvement.

4. All trees and shrubs shall be properly maintained free of deadwood, litter, and dying palm fronds.

5. Accumulated leaf litter and any Combustible Mulch may not exceed three (3) inches in depth.

6. Create horizontal and vertical spacing among shrubs and trees using the “Fuel Separation” method, the “Continuous Tree Canopy” method, or a combination of both to achieve Defensible Space requirements. Selection of the appropriate method should be done by reference to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s “General Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space” (Feb. 8, 2006), incorporated herein by reference.
a. The Fuel Separation method is focused on horizontal spacing and accounts for slope as well as type and size of shrubs or trees. For slopes up to 20%, shrubs are to be horizontally separated by a distance equal to two times the height of the shrub and trees should be 10 feet apart measured at the widest part of their canopy. For slopes measuring 20%-40%, shrubs are to be horizontally separated by four times the height of the shrub and trees should be 20 feet apart measured at the widest part of their canopy. For slopes greater than 40%, shrubs are to be horizontally separated by six times the height of the shrub and trees should be 30 feet apart measured at the widest part of their canopy.
b. The Continuous Canopy Method eliminates ladder fuels by requiring a minimum vertical clearance of tree branches to 6 feet or 1/3 of the tree height, whichever is less. If shrubs are beneath the tree, the tree branches are to be removed providing clearance of at least three times the height of the shrub.

7. Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) storage tanks shall have the following minimum clearance: ten feet (10 ft.) of clearance to bare mineral soil and no Flammable Vegetation for an additional ten feet (10 ft.) around their exterior.

C. Exception: Slope area approximated to be steeper than two units horizontal to one unit vertical (fifty percept slope).

Section 8.30.050 Increased and Decreased Defensible Space A. The City Manager or his or her designee may require an increase of Defensible Space due to topographical or geographical concerns. If a Parcel is required to maintain a 56819
- 6 -
Defensible Space clearance greater than the required five hundred (500) feet from all Improvements, a notice to abate hazard shall be issued in accordance with Chapter 8.24.

B. The City Manager or his or her designee may allow a decrease of Defensible Space to less than the amount required by this Chapter due to topographical or geographical constraints on the Parcel upon a written finding.

Section 8.30.060 Defensible Space Near Adjacent Property Improvements No Responsible Party shall permit any accumulation of Flammable Vegetation, Dying or Diseased Trees, Green Waste, or other combustible materials within five hundred (500) feet of Improvements on an adjacent property.

Section 8.30.070 Fire Extinguishers
Any person conducting brush abatement or mitigation with a mechanical device must have a fire extinguisher directly located on hand when working with dead or dry vegetation.

Section 8.30.080 Grading
The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to authorize grading which does not comply with the rules of the City.

Section 8.30.090 Exemptions
This Chapter shall not apply to land or water area acquired or managed for purpose or use of the following:

A. Habitat for endangered or threatened species, or any species that is a candidate for listing as an endangered or threatened species by the state or federal government.

B. Riparian (stream side) zones or vernal pool depressions as recognized by the state or federal government.

Section 8.30.100 Violation
Any violation of this Chapter is deemed a public nuisance and shall be abated in compliance with Chapter 8.24.
56920
Agenda Item No.: 2.E
Mtg. Date: 12/15/2021
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

CONSIDER AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT FIRE FUEL MEETING
AND SET THE NEXT MEETING DATE.

DATE: December 15, 2021
BACKGROUND:

None.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider agenda items and set next meeting date.

ATTACHMENTS:
57021
1 Wildland Res Mgt (510) 502-4737
316 California Ave. #68, Reno NV 89509 [email protected] November 5, 2021
Ashford Ball
Senior Management Analyst
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Sent via email to [email protected]
Dear Mr. Ball:

Thank you for this opportunity to submit a proposal for services that advance the wildland fire safety of the City of Rolling Hills. I appreciate the background provided from our virtual meetings and telephone conversations that builds a foundation of this proposal.

The services will focus on two different types of activities. The first is to guide code and ordinance development, primarily to assist the determination of what constitutes a nuisance. Tasks would include the description of a nuisance in terms of fuel volume, or arrangement of type (include possibly plant species). For this activity we propose an arrangement based on responding to the questions of the city and offering clarification and guidance. The need for clarification regarding CEQA can also be anticipated. Because of the uncertainty involved in this activity, an arrangement based on time and materials (with a set not-to-exceed ceiling of $7,500) makes the most sense.

The second activity would be to offer consultations regarding canyon management.

The overall goals would be to (1) provide guidance to the community about best practices and CEQA, (2) conduct canyon evaluations, and (3) train staff regarding how to evaluate the compliance and fuel management of canyons. Based on the tasks associated with site visits, meetings, and consultation, we estimate a cost of $14,430, We would be pleased to expand the description of services and deliverables in following discussions.

These services would be provided by Carol Rice, with Wildland Res Mgt and J. Lopez, Los Angeles County Fire Department (retired). Both have been working in the wildland urban interface for decades, and are familiar with the environs and community of the City of Rolling Hills. Both J. and Carol are both natural resource managers and wildland fire managers. Our combined experience enables our ability to offer recommendations that minimize wildland fire hazards and environmental impacts.

The initial work can begin in as soon as agreements are reached.

On the following pages please find a description of services and costs estimated for each task.

Please let me know if adjustments should be made so that we can better support the City of Rolling Hills.

Sincerely,
Carol L. Rice
571
2 Task Cost
Guide code development Time and Materials, NTE $7,500
Work aimed at determining what constitutes a nuisance
E.g., fuel volume, fuel arrangement, species
Discussion of CEQA procedure and local regulations
Canyon Management
Identify/select good example of canyon mgt
Site visit to identify/select canyon where lessons can be learned $4,440 Design event and demonstration $740
Assumes City videos and produces youtube product
Develop BMPs for canyon management, considering local
regulations $1,480
Assumes work done by other entities, per BMP
Develop a checklist for evaluations $2,220
Site visits to inspect 2 canyons, while training others $3,700 Spot check other inspections next year $1,110
Subtotal (Canyon Management only) $14,430
572
COMMUNAL BIN EVENTS 8/20/2021 - 8/28/2021 & 1/24/2022- 1/31/2022 Red Pin 2021: Quail Ridge North just north of Crest Road West Blue Pin 2021: On the Corner of Crest Road West and Quail Ridge North adjacent to 1 Crest Road West.

Green Pin 2021: On Spur Lane just West of Cinchring Road on Cal Water’s- Water Tank Property Yellow Pin 2021: On Portuguese Bend Road across the street from 52 Portuguese Bend on the West-side of the street.

Purple Pin 2021: On Portuguese Bend Road just North of Ranchero on the East-side of the street Red Diamond 2022: On Caballeros Road at the intersection of Crest Road E. on the Eastside of the street Blue Diamond 2022: On Crest Road E. Right before 30 Crest Road on the Eastside of the street Green Diamond 2022: On Eastfield at the corner of Open Brand Road (after the mail box of 79/81) after the Stop sign
Yellow Diamond 2022: On Eastfield Drive right after the intersection of Chuckwagon Road across the street from 28 Eastfield on the Westside of the street.

Purple Diamond 2022: On Chuckwagon Road next to Upper Willow Spring Trail 2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
2022
2022 2022
2022
2022
573
Agenda Item No.: 11.B
Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: REVIEW THE ADOPTED COVID-19 PREVENTION PROGRAM AND

CONSIDER ADJUSTMENTS PER LATEST CHANGES TO THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY HEALTH ORDERS (MAYOR PRO TEM BLACK).

DATE: January 10, 2022
BACKGROUND:

On June 17, 2021, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) took effect through an executive order signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. The ETS required employers to develop and maintain a written COVID-19 Prevention Program that would address the revised standards codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 3205(c).

At the direction of the City Manager, the City Attorney drafted a City operations COVID-19 Prevention Program and the City Council adopted the program on July 12, 2021. The adopted program was and continues to be distributed to employees and contractors who work at City Hall.

On December 16, the OSHA Board readopted the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention ETS for the second time. These
emergency standards include important revisions to make the workplace rules consistent with the latest requirements and recommendations from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The emergency standards take effect on January 14, 2022, and apply to most workers in California not covered by the Aerosol Transmissible Diseases standard.

Some important requirements that remain unchanged in the COVID-19 ETS:

Employers must establish, implement, and maintain an effective written COVID-19 Prevention Program that includes:
o Identifying and evaluating employee exposures to COVID-19 health hazards. o Implementing effective policies and procedures to correct unsafe and unhealthy conditions. o Allowing adequate time for handwashing and cleaning frequently touched surfaces and objects.

Employers must provide effective training and instruction to employees on how COVID-19 is spread, infection prevention techniques, and information regarding COVID-19-related benefits 574
that affected employees may be entitled to under applicable federal, state, or local laws.

Important revisions to the COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards include:

Investigating and responding to COVID-19 cases in the workplace Employers must continue to properly notify employees, employee representatives and any other workers at a worksite of possible COVID-19 exposures within one business day. This section was updated to give employers more clear instructions on how to notify workers who were at the same worksite as the COVID-19 case during the high-risk exposure period.

Face Coverings
Employees who are exempted from wearing a face covering due to a medical or mental health condition, or disability and cannot wear a non-restrictive alternative must physically distance at least six feet from others and either be fully vaccinated or tested at least weekly for COVID-19. Note: The testing must be during paid time and at no cost to the employee.

Testing and Exclusion
Employers are now required to make COVID-19 testing available at no cost and during paid time to employees who were fully vaccinated before the “close contact” with a COVID-19 case occurred, even if they are asymptomatic.

During outbreaks and major outbreaks, employers must now make weekly testing (outbreaks) or twice-weekly testing (major outbreaks) available to asymptomatic fully vaccinated employees in the exposed group
Employees who have recently recovered from COVID-19 and those who are fully vaccinated are not required to be excluded from the workplace after “close contact” but must wear a face covering and maintain six feet of physical distancing for 14 calendar days following the last date of contact.

Return to Work Criteria
The period of time before an employee can return to work after “close contact” or COVID-19 illness has been revised to be consistent with current CDPH guidelines. These time frames will automatically update if CDPH updates their guidelines pursuant to the Governor’s executive order.

Definitions
“Worksite” now specifically excludes the employee’s personal residence, locations where an employee works alone, and remote work locations chosen by the employee.

Definitions revised to be more consistent with federal OSHA, including:
o “COVID-19 test” now includes specific instructions for workers using a test at home with selfread results. The employer or a tele-health professional must observe the test results. o “Face coverings” was updated to include more specific detail on the different types of acceptable face coverings.
o “Fully vaccinated,” now mentions the minimal amount of time workers need to wait between the first and second shot of a two-dose vaccine.

On December 27, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued new guidance, shortening the time for isolation and quarantine.

On December 29th and 31st, 2021 the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) issued updated best practices for office-based businesses, vaccination recommendations, as well as health orders regarding isolation and quarantine requirements. (See attachments A, B, C & D) 575
On January 5, 2022, the County Health Officer released a new order requiring employers, effective January 17, 2022, to provide and require employees to wear a well-fitted medical grade mask, surgical mask, or higher-level respirator, such as an N95 filtering facepiece respirator, or KN95 at all times while indoors at the worksite. Also updated to add recent changes to the Cal/OSHA ETS requirements, effective January 14, 2022. (See attachments E, F & G)
DISCUSSION:

Mayor Pro Tem Jim Black suggested to have the City Council review the latest CDC guidelines and direct the City Attorney to revise the program language and follow Los Angeles County DPH current guidelines and as modified in the future.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to review the current prevent program or adjusting the provisions of the program to be aligned with current Los Angeles County DPH Health Orders.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachA_BestPracticesOffices.pdf
CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachB_HOO_SaferReturnWorkCommunity.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachC_HOO_Coronavirus_Blanket_Isolation.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachD_HOO_Coronavirus_Blanket_Quarantine.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachE_PressRelease_AddMaskin Requirements.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachF_01-05-22_HOO_SaferReturnWorkCommunity.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachG_Continuing_Safety_Measures .pdf 576
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov
12/29/21 Best Practices: Offices (English)
- 1 -
Best Practices to Prevent COVID-19
Guidance for Office-Based Businesses
For the latest version of this guidance, please check
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/acd/ncorona2019/BestPractices/Offices/.

Given the ongoing increase in community transmission of COVID-19 and the presence of new and emerging variants, a layered approach to prevention that includes masking indoors, full vaccination with a booster dose if eligible, and good ventilation, is essential to slowing the spread of COVID-19 in the community.

Per published reports, factors that increase the risk of infection, including transmission to people more than 6 feet away, include:
• Enclosed spaces with inadequate ventilation or air handling that allow for build-up of exhaled respiratory fluids, especially very fine droplets and aerosol particles, in the air space. • Increased exhalation of respiratory fluids that can occur when an infectious person is engaged in physical exertion or raises their voice (e.g., exercising, shouting, singing). • Prolonged exposure to these conditions.

Below is a summary of requirements and best practices for businesses that operate out of offices to enhance safety for their workers, customers, and communities, and lower the risk of COVID-19 transmission within their office-based businesses. In addition to this information, please remember:
• Employers must follow the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) and the County Health Officer Order. Please note that the directives in the LA County Health Officer Order must be followed when they are more stringent than the Cal/OSHA temporary standards.

Follow mask rules for employees and visitors
✓ Visitors: Require all visitors, regardless of vaccination status to bring and wear masks when they are indoors. Make masks available for those who arrive without them. ✓ Employees*: Require all employees, regardless of vaccination status, to wear masks when working indoors and in shared vehicles. Masks need not be worn indoors if the employee is alone in a room or actively eating or drinking at a seated or stationary location. If employees must eat indoors, they should be distanced at least 6 feet from other persons. ✓ Upon request, employers are required to provide employees who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 with the correct-size N95 respirator along with basic instructions on how to use the N95 respirator. Respirators must be replaced if they get damaged, deformed, dirty, or difficult to breathe through. For more information about free and low-cost PPE for businesses and organizations see: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/docs/FreeAndLowCostPPE.pdf.

Please be sure to read and follow the general guidance for businesses and employers.

The specific best practices below are intended to supplement the general guidance.

Updates
12/29/21: Updated to reflect the current state of the pandemic and recommendations related to masking.
577
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov
12/29/21 Best Practices: Offices (English)
- 2 -
Best Practices: Guidance for Office-Based Businesses
✓ Employees who work in a setting where they are in close contact with people who may not be fully vaccinated should be encouraged to wear a higher level of protection, such as “doublemasking” (wearing a cloth mask OVER a surgical mask) or an N95 respirator. This is particularly important if the employee is not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and is working in an indoor setting, in a crowded outdoor setting, or in a shared vehicle. ✓ Consider also offering staff eye protection (e.g., a face shield) in addition to a respirator if they are not fully vaccinated and have significant close contact with others who may be unvaccinated.
✓ See the Los Angeles County Health Officer Order and the Cal/OSHA Emergency Temporary Standards page for more information about mask requirements. Please note that the directives in the LA County Health Officer Order must be followed when they are more stringent than the Cal/OSHA ETS.
* Some independent contractors are considered as employees under the State Labor Code. For more details, check the California Department of Industrial Relations’ Independent contractor versus employee webpage.

Screen customers, vendors, and delivery people
✓ Post signage to remind everyone who enters your establishment that they should NOT enter if they have symptoms of COVID-19 or if they are under isolation or quarantine orders.

Reduce crowding, especially indoors
✓ Continue, where feasible, to offer telework options for employees. Given increased community transmission of COVID-19, wherever possible, continue those teleworking arrangements that do not interfere with business operations, particularly for those employees with medical risks. Telework significantly reduces the risk of exposure for employees. ✓ If possible, maintain an outdoor break area for employees so they can take their breaks and eat or drink outdoors. Encourage employees to eat outdoors, alone in a closed office space or distanced by at least 6 feet from others if eating in a shared indoor area. ✓ Remind employees who must eat indoors that when they are actively eating or drinking, they need to be seated at a table, counter, or other stationary location. ✓ Control access to self-service areas, such as beverage service stations, by keeping them closed or limiting access to them as self-service areas encourage employees to congregate and require use of common utensils and dispensers.
✓ Consider use of partitions between cubicles to protect staff who are not fully vaccinated and have frequent close contact with other employees or visitors.

Ventilate
✓ Make sure your building’s HVAC system is in good, working order. ✓ Increase ventilation as much as possible. Consider installing portable high-efficiency air cleaners, upgrading the building’s air filters to the highest efficiency possible, and making other modifications to increase the quantity of outside air and ventilation in all working areas. 578
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov
12/29/21 Best Practices: Offices (English)
- 3 -
Best Practices: Guidance for Office-Based Businesses
✓ When weather and working conditions allow, increase fresh outdoor air by opening windows and doors. Consider using fans to increase the effectiveness of open windows - position window fans to blow air outward, not inward.
✓ Decrease occupancy in areas where outdoor ventilation cannot be increased. ✓ See State Interim guidance for Ventilation, Filtration, and Air Quality in Indoor Environments.

Support handwashing
✓ Place handwashing stations or hand sanitizer at entry and outside communal bathrooms with signage promoting use.
✓ Encourage frequent handwashing.
✓ Posters in multiple languages that remind people to wash or sanitize their hands and show how to wash their hands are available in the signage section of the Best Practices for Businesses and Employers webpage.

Communicate
✓ Post signage so that visitors who are entering your office building are aware of your policies, including the requirement for all visitors and employees to wear a face mask while indoors. ✓ Use your online platforms to communicate your COVID-19 safety policies to the public. 579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
Media Contact: [email protected] - (213) 240-8144
For Immediate Release:

January 5, 2022
Public Health Modifies Health Officer Order to Add Additional Masking Requirements for Indoor Employees
26,754 New Positive Cases and 27 New Deaths Due to COVID-19 in Los Angeles County As cases continue to surge as a result of the increased circulation of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, Public Health has modified its Health Officer Order to include additional safety measures to reduce transmission risks knowing that vaccinations alone are not sufficient to prevent spread of Omicron. As soon as possible, but no later than January 17th, employers are required to provide their employees who work indoors in close contact with others with well-fitting medical grade masks, surgical masks, or higher-level respirators, such as N95 or KN95 masks. These upgraded masks are better at blocking virus particles from going through the mask.

The new modifications include an alignment with the State Public Health Officer Order changing attendance thresholds at mega events; for outdoor mega events, the new attendance threshold has been lowered to 5,000 attendees, and for indoor mega events, the new threshold is 500 attendees. Operators of mega events, performance venues, movie theaters, and entertainment venues are responsible for the messaging, signage, and compliance of masking requirements unless spectators or customers are actively eating or drinking. Additionally, Public Health recommends that food and drink be consumed in designated dining areas.

Lastly, food and drinks are prohibited at card room gaming tables and masks must always be worn while indoors at card rooms, except for when actively eating or drinking in designated dining areas.

These modifications recognize the importance of wearing well-fitting, high-quality masks that do the best job filtering out virus when in close contact with others.
“I send my heartfelt condolences to everyone mourning the loss of a loved one due to COVID-19,” said Dr. Barbara Ferrer, PhD, MPH, MEd, Director of Public Health. “Given the explosive spread of the virus, activities that put us in close contact with many other people now have an increased risk. As such, everyone needs to be sensible about how to protect themselves and those they love by layering on protections whenever around non-household members. At work, this means upgrading your mask if you work indoors and you are in contact with other workers or members of the public. At entertainment venues, this means limiting the time you spend without wearing your upgraded mask. And for other activities, this may mean postponing your participation until community transmission is much reduced.” Today, Public Health confirmed 27 additional deaths and 26,754 new cases of COVID-19. Of the 27 new deaths reported today, one person was between the ages of 18 and 29, three were between the ages of 30 and 49, six were between the ages of 50-64, seven were between the ages of 65-79, and six were over the age of 80 years old. Of the 27 newly reported deaths, 18 had underlying conditions. To date, the total number of deaths in L.A. County is 27,698. Information on the three deaths reported by the City of Long Beach and the one death reported by the City of Pasadena are available at: www.Longbeach.gov and www.Cityofpasadena.net
Public Health has identified a total 1,806,828 positive cases of COVID-19 across all areas of L.A. County. Today’s positivity rate is 22.4%.

There are 2,240 people with COVID-19 currently hospitalized. Testing results are available for more than 10,159,295 individuals, with 16% of people testing positive.

Public Health is reminding residents to avoid visiting the emergency room unless they need emergency medical care.

Residents should not be visiting the emergency department solely to get a COVID test or for minor complaints that could be resolved through their primary care physician. Emergency room visits should be reserved for those patients who are 608
feeling severely ill – for example, those who are short of breath – or who have serious concerns about their health and who require immediate emergency care.

To keep workplaces and schools open, residents and workers are asked to:
• Get tested to help reduce the spread, especially if you traveled for the holidays, have had a possible exposure, or have symptoms, or are gathering with people not in your household • Adhere to masking requirements when indoors or at crowded outdoor spaces, regardless of vaccination status Residents are legally required to be isolated if they have a positive COVID test result and that vaccinated close contacts with symptoms and unvaccinated close contacts need to be quarantined.

For updated isolation and quarantine guidance, please visit www.publichealth.lacounty.gov COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and are recommended for everyone 5 years old and older to help protect against COVID-19. Vaccinations are always free and open to eligible residents and workers regardless of immigration status. Appointments are not needed at all Public Health vaccination sites and many community sites where first, second, and third doses are available.

To find a vaccination site near you, or to make an appointment, please visit:
www.VaccinateLACounty.com (English) or www.VacunateLosAngeles.com (Spanish).

If you need assistance, you can also call 1-833-540-0473 for help:

Finding an appointment
Connect to free transportation to and from a vaccination site, or Schedule a home visit if you are homebound.

For more information regarding COVID-19 in LA County you can also visit the Public Health website at www.publichealth.lacounty.gov here you will find information on:

COVID-19 sector protocols & best practices,
COVID-19 Vaccine Dashboards, and
COVID-19 Surveillance Interactive and, Recovery Dashboards Please see additional information below:

Cases through 6:00pm 01/04/2022
Total CasesNEW
Laboratory Confirmed Cases 1806828 26754
-- Los Angeles County (excl. LB and Pas)* 1713051 25391 -- Long Beach 76,543 1088
-- Pasadena 17,234 275
Deaths 27698 27
-- Los Angeles County (excl. LB and Pas) 26247 23
-- Long Beach 1078 3
609
-- Pasadena 373 1
Age Group (Los Angeles County Cases Only-excl LB and Pas) - 0 to 4 45968
- 5 to 11 100311
- 12 to 17 110217
- 18 to 29 415716
- 30 to 49 577235
- 50 to 64 303758
- 65 to 79 118139
- over 80 40664
- Under Investigation 1043
Gender (Los Angeles County Cases Only-excl LB and Pas)
- Female 866963
- Male 804137
- Other 821
- Under Investigation 41130
Race/Ethnicity (Los Angeles County Cases Only-excl LB and Pas) - American Indian/Alaska Native 2951
- Asian 90286
- Black 89766
- Hispanic/Latino 825331
- Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 7234
- White 229689
- Other 157988
- Under Investigation 309806
Hospitalization (Los Angeles County Cases Only-excl LB and Pas) 610
- Hospitalized (Ever) 111719 **DATA Under reported
Deaths Race/Ethnicity (Los Angeles County Cases Only-excl LB and Pas) - American Indian/Alaska Native 62
- Asian 3384
- Black 2348
- Hispanic/Latino 13865
- Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 97
- White 6253
- Other 203
- Under Investigation 35
CITY / COMMUNITY** Cases Case Rate
City of Agoura Hills 2066 9893
City of Alhambra 10552 12167
City of Arcadia 4617 7994
City of Artesia 2788 16600
City of Avalon 39 1008
City of Azusa 9014 18014
City of Baldwin Park 16642 21678
City of Bell 8501 23398
City of Bell Gardens 9895 22974
City of Bellflower 15339 19732
City of Beverly Hills 5430 15730
City of Bradbury 46 4303
City of Burbank 14584 13607
City of Calabasas 2533 10414
City of Carson 15055 16042
611
City of Cerritos 5099 10184
City of Claremont 3780 10361
City of Commerce* 3071 23498
City of Compton 22312 22333
City of Covina 9700 19783
City of Cudahy 6068 24923
City of Culver City 4378 10982
City of Diamond Bar 5335 9276
City of Downey 24200 21179
City of Duarte 3394 15416
City of El Monte 21800 18590
City of El Segundo 1763 10503
City of Gardena 9716 15847
City of Glendale 31073 15048
City of Glendora 7675 14546
City of Hawaiian Gardens 2925 19930
City of Hawthorne 15333 17269
City of Hermosa Beach 2231 11342
City of Hidden Hills 195 10317
City of Huntington Park 13810 23216
City of Industry 227 51945
City of Inglewood 20336 17904
City of Irwindale 375 25703
City of La Canada Flintridge 1726 8341
City of La Habra Heights 136 2493
City of La Mirada 6731 13571
612
City of La Puente 8617 21174
City of La Verne 4717 14173
City of Lakewood 11818 14706
City of Lancaster* 34029 21061
City of Lawndale 5287 15729
City of Lomita 2518 12147
City of Lynwood* 16871 23417
City of Malibu 1203 9282
City of Manhattan Beach 3228 8967
City of Maywood 6364 22689
City of Monrovia 5099 13142
City of Montebello 13553 21053
City of Monterey Park 7005 11251
City of Norwalk 21781 20238
City of Palmdale 34915 21964
City of Palos Verdes Estates 978 7233
City of Paramount 12947 23110
City of Pico Rivera 14604 22718
City of Pomona 34378 22047
City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3027 7081
City of Redondo Beach 6148 8949
City of Rolling Hills 126 6495
City of Rolling Hills Estates 630 7765
City of Rosemead 6675 12060
City of San Dimas* 5136 14880
City of San Fernando 6986 28385
613
City of San Gabriel 4640 11330
City of San Marino 829 6244
City of Santa Clarita 35552 16129
City of Santa Fe Springs 4104 22348
City of Santa Monica 10647 11517
City of Sierra Madre 917 8345
City of Signal Hill 1856 15733
City of South El Monte 4383 20986
City of South Gate 24014 24465
City of South Pasadena 2470 9481
City of Temple City 3632 9963
City of Torrance 13351 8944
City of Vernon 165 78947
City of Walnut 2851 9338
City of West Covina 18887 17450
City of West Hollywood 5519 14936
City of Westlake Village 191 2285
City of Whittier 15736 17998
Los Angeles 735837 18193
Los Angeles - Adams-Normandie 1583 19300
Los Angeles - Alsace 2223 17863
Los Angeles - Angeles National Forest 5 12500
Los Angeles - Angelino Heights 423 16906
Los Angeles - Arleta 8989 26154
Los Angeles - Atwater Village 2242 15287
Los Angeles - Baldwin Hills 4521 14525
614
Los Angeles - Bel Air 925 10974
Los Angeles - Beverly Crest 1489 11888
Los Angeles - Beverlywood 1909 14492
Los Angeles - Boyle Heights* 21473 24715
Los Angeles - Brentwood 3529 11400
Los Angeles - Brookside 68 11704
Los Angeles - Cadillac-Corning 1093 15349
Los Angeles - Canoga Park 12743 19518
Los Angeles - Carthay 1936 13479
Los Angeles - Central 9197 23587
Los Angeles - Century City 1318 10303
Los Angeles - Century Palms/Cove 8313 24619
Los Angeles - Chatsworth 5828 15725
Los Angeles - Cheviot Hills 1000 10904
Los Angeles - Chinatown 1235 15397
Los Angeles - Cloverdale/Cochran 2438 16753
Los Angeles - Country Club Park 2254 14875
Los Angeles - Crenshaw District 2358 17051
Los Angeles - Crestview 1858 16344
Los Angeles - Del Rey 3740 12493
Los Angeles - Downtown* 7313 26586
Los Angeles - Eagle Rock 5649 14269
Los Angeles - East Hollywood 4558 15563
Los Angeles - Echo Park 2174 15250
Los Angeles - El Sereno 8564 20484
Los Angeles - Elysian Park 869 15214
615
Los Angeles - Elysian Valley 1770 17402
Los Angeles - Encino 6436 14248
Los Angeles - Exposition 543 16326
Los Angeles - Exposition Park 8564 19066
Los Angeles - Faircrest Heights 532 14778
Los Angeles - Figueroa Park Square 1901 21798
Los Angeles - Florence-Firestone 11800 24871
Los Angeles - Glassell Park 5044 15960
Los Angeles - Gramercy Place 2135 19835
Los Angeles - Granada Hills 10113 17379
Los Angeles - Green Meadows 5122 23818
Los Angeles - Hancock Park 2094 12289
Los Angeles - Harbor City 3972 13664
Los Angeles - Harbor Gateway 7143 16383
Los Angeles - Harbor Pines 276 11457
Los Angeles - Harvard Heights 3258 18065
Los Angeles - Harvard Park 9442 24890
Los Angeles - Highland Park 8313 17179
Los Angeles - Historic Filipinotown 2744 19784
Los Angeles - Hollywood 10561 15473
Los Angeles - Hollywood Hills 3479 11820
Los Angeles - Hyde Park 5645 19779
Los Angeles - Jefferson Park 1574 19497
Los Angeles - Koreatown 7560 14625
Los Angeles - Lafayette Square 757 16605
Los Angeles - Lake Balboa 7824 18538
616
Los Angeles - Lakeview Terrace 3123 23780
Los Angeles - Leimert Park 2608 17118
Los Angeles - Lincoln Heights 6673 20471
Los Angeles - Little Armenia 1544 19240
Los Angeles - Little Bangladesh 3903 13771
Los Angeles - Little Tokyo 631 20140
Los Angeles - Longwood 832 19331
Los Angeles - Los Feliz 2331 10788
Los Angeles - Manchester Square 1532 17948
Los Angeles - Mandeville Canyon 315 10083
Los Angeles - Mar Vista 4402 10365
Los Angeles - Marina Peninsula 408 9358
Los Angeles - Melrose 13029 16769
Los Angeles - Mid-city 2065 13739
Los Angeles - Miracle Mile 2182 12132
Los Angeles - Mission Hills 6063 25133
Los Angeles - Mt. Washington 4097 16968
Los Angeles - North Hills 12503 20305
Los Angeles - North Hollywood 30236 19968
Los Angeles - Northridge 11584 16597
Los Angeles - Pacific Palisades 1906 8952
Los Angeles - Pacoima 21582 28036
Los Angeles - Palisades Highlands 337 8762
Los Angeles - Palms 4927 11229
Los Angeles - Panorama City 17206 22865
Los Angeles - Park La Brea 1309 9639
617
Los Angeles
- Pico-Union 8766 20950
Los Angeles - Playa Del Rey 280 8761
Los Angeles - Playa Vista 1386 12661
Los Angeles - Porter Ranch 4343 12204
Los Angeles - Rancho Park 847 12912
Los Angeles - Regent Square 425 15288
Los Angeles - Reseda 15990 20870
Los Angeles - Reseda Ranch 934 20147
Los Angeles - Reynier Village 480 11353
Los Angeles - San Pedro* 11850 15185
Los Angeles - Shadow Hills 660 14858
Los Angeles - Sherman Oaks 11776 13496
Los Angeles - Silverlake 5882 13343
Los Angeles - South Carthay 1488 14044
Los Angeles - South Park 9179 24180
Los Angeles - St Elmo Village 899 19612
Los Angeles - Studio City 2854 12718
Los Angeles - Sun Valley 12568 23947
Los Angeles - Sunland 3405 16685
Los Angeles - Sycamore Square 75 11592
Los Angeles - Sylmar* 21962 26654
Los Angeles - Tarzana 5173 16754
Los Angeles - Temple-Beaudry 6944 17588
Los Angeles - Thai Town 1426 14538
Los Angeles - Toluca Lake 1071 12305
Los Angeles - Toluca Terrace 240 18377
618
Los Angeles - Toluca Woods 207 11141
Los Angeles - Tujunga 4416 15879
Los Angeles - University Hills 446 13007
Los Angeles - University Park 5054 18408
Los Angeles - Valley Glen 5667 18880
Los Angeles - Valley Village 3881 15700
Los Angeles - Van Nuys* 19436 20855
Los Angeles - Venice 4284 12643
Los Angeles - Vermont Knolls 3896 22651
Los Angeles - Vermont Square 1999 26107
Los Angeles - Vermont Vista 9797 23787
Los Angeles - Vernon Central 13430 25828
Los Angeles - Victoria Park 1385 16490
Los Angeles - View Heights 439 11884
Los Angeles - Watts 9761 22873
Los Angeles - Wellington Square 834 16968
Los Angeles - West Adams 5381 19475
Los Angeles - West Hills 5290 13047
Los Angeles - West Los Angeles 4824 12818
Los Angeles - West Vernon 13065 24355
Los Angeles - Westchester 5434 10530
Los Angeles - Westlake 10026 16892
Los Angeles - Westwood 5484 10135
Los Angeles - Wholesale District* 10375 28717
Los Angeles - Wilmington 11345 20084
Los Angeles - Wilshire Center 7769 15485
619
Los Angeles - Winnetka 9500 18345
Los Angeles - Woodland Hills 9143 13435
Unincorporated - Acton 981 12307
Unincorporated - Agua Dulce 505 12145
Unincorporated - Altadena 5321 12199
Unincorporated - Anaverde 206 13660
Unincorporated - Angeles National Forest 50 4016
Unincorporated - Arcadia 933 11690
Unincorporated - Athens-Westmont 8955 21099
Unincorporated - Athens Village 1380 28181
Unincorporated - Avocado Heights 1489 21978
Unincorporated - Azusa 3293 20681
Unincorporated - Bassett 3327 22454
Unincorporated - Bouquet Canyon 99 9226
Unincorporated - Bradbury 54 50000
Unincorporated - Canyon Country 1590 20575
Unincorporated - Castaic* 5273 19392
Unincorporated - Cerritos 96 16354
Unincorporated - Charter Oak 1 5000
Unincorporated - Claremont 63 8974
Unincorporated - Covina 3337 19841
Unincorporated - Covina (Charter Oak) 2291 17430
Unincorporated - Del Aire 584 13294
Unincorporated - Del Rey 56 17610
Unincorporated - Del Sur 324 13416
Unincorporated - Desert View Highlands 508 20377
620
Unincorporated - Duarte 1067 24097
Unincorporated - East Covina 55 16717
Unincorporated - East La Mirada 785 14834
Unincorporated - East Lancaster 20 17544
Unincorporated - East Los Angeles 31162 24876
Unincorporated - East Pasadena 255 3983
Unincorporated - East Rancho Dominguez 3485 22766
Unincorporated - East Whittier 713 13438
Unincorporated - El Camino Village 1218 13855
Unincorporated - El Monte 30 20690
Unincorporated - Elizabeth Lake 142 8549
Unincorporated - Florence-Firestone 16507 25511
Unincorporated - Franklin Canyon 1 8333
Unincorporated - Glendora 109 16515
Unincorporated - Hacienda Heights 7459 13337
Unincorporated - Harbor Gateway 0 0
Unincorporated - Hawthorne 409 16269
Unincorporated - Hi Vista 84 7650
Unincorporated - Kagel/Lopez Canyons 347 24575
Unincorporated - La Crescenta-Montrose 1917 9681
Unincorporated - La Habra Heights 17 2515
Unincorporated - La Rambla 397 19133
Unincorporated - La Verne* 279 13676
Unincorporated - Ladera Heights 820 11597
Unincorporated - Lake Hughes 87 13024
Unincorporated - Lake Los Angeles 2206 16977
621
Unincorporated - Lake Manor 213 12964
Unincorporated - Lakewood 0 0
Unincorporated - Lennox 4519 20047
Unincorporated - Leona Valley 198 11308
Unincorporated - Littlerock 759 18876
Unincorporated - Littlerock/Juniper Hills 192 14803
Unincorporated - Littlerock/Pearblossom 694 19445
Unincorporated - Llano 67 7640
Unincorporated - Marina del Rey 1130 12007
Unincorporated - Miracle Mile 0 0
Unincorporated - Monrovia 543 13991
Unincorporated - Newhall 72 32727
Unincorporated - North Lancaster 228 19032
Unincorporated - North Whittier 1579 18888
Unincorporated - Northeast San Gabriel 2468 10268
Unincorporated - Padua Hills 17 7907
Unincorporated - Palmdale 144 17102
Unincorporated - Palos Verdes Peninsula 40 6441
Unincorporated - Pearblossom/Llano 217 11094
Unincorporated - Pellissier Village 214 34572
Unincorporated - Placerita Canyon 7 1522
Unincorporated - Pomona 97 5005
Unincorporated - Quartz Hill 2093 16217
Unincorporated - Rancho Dominguez 583 21909
Unincorporated - Roosevelt 130 13963
Unincorporated - Rosewood 256 19907
622
Unincorporated - Rosewood/East Gardena 247 20704
Unincorporated - Rosewood/West Rancho Dominguez 696 20708 Unincorporated - Rowland Heights 5163 10119
Unincorporated - San Clemente Island 0 0
Unincorporated - San Francisquito Canyon/Bouquet Canyon 27 3147 Unincorporated - San Jose Hills 4357 21547
Unincorporated - San Pasqual 48 2359
Unincorporated - Sand Canyon 28 9091
Unincorporated - Santa Catalina Island 350 131086
Unincorporated - Santa Monica Mountains* 1555 8351
Unincorporated - Saugus 213 137419
Unincorporated - Saugus/Canyon Country 61 17135
Unincorporated - South Antelope Valley 63 13846
Unincorporated - South El Monte 456 25404
Unincorporated - South San Gabriel 1280 14467
Unincorporated - South Whittier 11301 19082
Unincorporated - Southeast Antelope Valley 131 16773
Unincorporated - Stevenson Ranch 2501 11929
Unincorporated - Sun Village 1217 20162
Unincorporated - Sunrise Village 259 19985
Unincorporated - Twin Lakes/Oat Mountain 183 11037
Unincorporated - Val Verde 537 16228
Unincorporated - Valencia 420 13672
Unincorporated - Valinda 5052 21617
Unincorporated - View Park/Windsor Hills 1468 12617
Unincorporated - Walnut Park 3834 23750
623
Unincorporated - West Antelope Valley 88 5824
Unincorporated - West Carson 3378 15295
Unincorporated - West Chatsworth 4 33333
Unincorporated - West LA 269 28256
Unincorporated - West Puente Valley 2293 23315
Unincorporated - West Rancho Dominguez 274 20162
Unincorporated - West Whittier/Los Nietos 5648 20977
Unincorporated - Westfield/Academy Hills 92 7077
Unincorporated - Westhills 84 10012
Unincorporated - White Fence Farms 487 13223
Unincorporated - Whittier 468 12368
Unincorporated - Whittier Narrows 57 475000
Unincorporated - Willowbrook 9074 25990
Unincorporated - Wiseburn 884 14667
- Under Investigation 29665
These numbers are subject to change based on further investigation. * Means that case numbers include cases associated with correctional facility outbreaks located in the city/community.
**Rate is crude and is per 100,000. This represents the number of cases per 100,000 people and allows for the proportional comparison of cities of different sizes. 624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
Ongoing Requirements for Employers
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
www.publichealth.lacounty.gov
Requirements for Employers 1/5/22 (English)
- 1 -
COVID-19
This document summarizes ongoing requirements that employers must continue to follow in accordance with state, County, and local rules. Please see the links below for more detailed information about the requirements, including FAQs.

REQUIREMENTS:

Employers with locations in Los Angeles County are required to adhere to:

The County Health Officer Order (HOO) at ph.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/reopening-la.htm#orders and the Business Toolkit for Ensuring Safety and Compliance with Health Officer Orders at ph.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/business-verification.htm.

Cal/OSHA Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) at dir.ca.gov/covid.

Employers with locations in the City of Los Angeles may also be required to adhere to:

Los Angeles City Vaccination Ordinance at ewddlacity.com/index.php/recovery/safepassla.

FAQs are available at ewddlacity.com/index.php/safepassla-faqs.

Please note that where the requirements differ, the more stringent directives apply.

COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER ORDER REQUIREMENTS:

Reporting of COVID-19 Cases at the Worksite:
• When any business knows of three (3) or more cases of COVID-19 among their employees (or onsite independent contractors or temporary workers) within 14 days, the employer (owner/manager/operator of the business) must report this outbreak to the Department of Public Health at (888) 397-3993 or (213) 240-7821, or online at http://www.redcap.link/covidreport.

Face Masks:
• Face masks are required for all individuals (including employees) in indoor public settings and businesses and 1/5/22: Updated to reflect that the County Health Officer Order now requires employers, effective January 17, 2022, to provide and require employees to wear a well-fitted medical grade mask, surgical mask, or higher-level respirator, such as an N95 filtering facepiece respirator, or KN95 at all times while indoors at the worksite. Also updated to add recent changes to the Cal/OSHA ETS requirements, effective January 14, 2022.

THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC CONTINUES TO PUT WORKERS AND THE COMMUNITY AT RISK.

Employers must be vigilant and continue to protect their workforce and the community by following infection control measures and reporting COVID-19 cases to Public Health.

When one or more employees, assigned or contracted workers, or volunteers of the business has tested positive for, or has symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (case), the employer must have a protocol to require the isolation of case(s) at home and require the immediate self-quarantine of all employees who are close contacts of the case(s) unless exempt. 643
Ongoing Requirements for Employers
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
www.publichealth.lacounty.gov
Requirements for Employers 1/5/22 (English)
- 2 -
at outdoor Mega Events (events with more than 5,000 attendees). Examples of settings where masks must be worn includes (but is not limited to) retail, restaurants, theaters, outdoor concerts, family entertainment centers, meetings, and state and local government offices serving the public. Please note that these requirements are more stringent than Cal/OSHA requirements and State Guidance and must be followed. • As soon as practicable, but no later than January 17, 2022, employers must provide and require employees to wear a well-fitting medical grade mask, surgical mask, or higher-level respirator such as an N95 filtering facepiece respirator or KN95, at all times while indoors at the worksite.

Vaccination for locations with low-risk food permits:
• Employees at nightclubs, lounges, and bars, breweries, distilleries and wineries that have a low-risk food permit must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Customers utilizing the indoor portions of these businesses must also present proof of full vaccination against COVID-19 prior to entry.

Vaccination/Testing for Mega Events:
• Customers at indoor Mega Events (indoor events with more than 500 attendees) and outdoor Mega Events (outdoor events with more than 5,000 attendees) must show that they are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or show a negative viral test result taken within 2 days prior to entry (PCR) or 1 day prior to entry (antigen).

CAL/OSHA COVID-19 EMERGENCY TEMPORARY STANDARDS:

Employers must have a written COVID-19 Prevention Program, which includes:
• Employee training and instruction on COVID-19 hazards; • Employee symptom screening process;
• Employee access to COVID-19 testing;
• Plan to respond to COVID-19 cases in the workplace;
• Employee face mask protocol;
• Plan for excluding COVID-19 cases from the workplace until the return-to-work criteria requirements are met.

Face Masks:
• Employers must provide unvaccinated employees with face masks with at least two layers. PLEASE NOTE that per the County Health Officer Order, all employees, regardless of vaccination status, must wear a face mask when working indoors, in a shared vehicle, or at an Outdoor Mega Event. • Employers must not retaliate against or discourage any employees from wearing a face mask.

Personal Protective Equipment:
• Use of N95 respirators is voluntary but employers must provide them to any employee who is not fully vaccinated upon request. N95 respirators must fit the employee, and the employee must receive basic instruction on how to get a good “seal,” or fit.
• N95 respirators must be replaced if they get damaged, deformed, dirty, or difficult to breathe through. • The CDC recommends that N95 respirators be replaced after 5 uses.

Hand Hygiene:
• Encourage and allow time for employee handwashing. Provide approved hand sanitizers for employees to use.

Ventilation:
• Employers must evaluate ventilation systems to maximize outdoor air and increase filtration efficiency, and evaluate the use of additional air cleaning systems.

COVID-19 Testing Protocol and Notification of Workplace Exposures:
• Offer testing free of charge and during work hours to any workers who might have been exposed to COVID19 at work, including fully vaccinated workers. • Notify employees, employee representatives, and any other workers at the worksite of possible COVID-19 exposures within one business day.
644
Ongoing Requirements for Employers
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
www.publichealth.lacounty.gov
Requirements for Employers 1/5/22 (English)
- 3 -
Pay and Leave Rights of Workers:
• Maintain and continue the wages, earnings, and the rights and benefits of employees while they are required to be away from the worksite because they are either a COVID-19 case or were exposed to COVID-19 in the workplace.

COVID-19 Outbreak Reporting and Mitigation Requirements:
• Report information about COVID-19 cases and outbreaks at the workplace to the local health department and provide any COVID-19 related outbreak information requested by the local health department. o When there are 3 or more employee COVID-19 cases at the worksite, evaluate the need to implement physical distancing and partitions between and among employees and the public. o When there are 20 or more employee COVID-19 cases, which constitutes a major outbreak, employers must immediately:
▪ Make testing available to all employees in the exposed group, regardless of vaccination status, twice a week or more frequently if recommended by the local health department. ▪ Use physical distancing and barriers for all employees, regardless of vaccination status. ▪ Offer respirators for voluntary use to all employees, regardless of vaccination status, and without waiting for a request from the employee.

THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES VACCINATION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS:

Vaccination verification:
• Certain businesses (see below) with locations in the City of Los Angeles are required to verify that customers entering the indoor portions of their business are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The vaccination requirement does not apply to employees.

Signage:
• Businesses that are subject to the Vaccination Ordinance must post signage to make customers aware of the vaccination requirement.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Cal/OSHA: For information about COVID-19, heat illness prevention and wildfire smoke protections in the workplace or to speak with a bilingual Cal/OSHA representative during normal business hours, please call 833-579-0927.

LA County Department of Public Health: For any questions, please contact our Industry Engagement program at (626) 430–5320.

City of Los Angeles: For questions, concerns or assistance, email EWDD's Business Response Unit at mailto:[email protected]. Please review the list of Frequently Asked Questions for common concerns and inquiries.

Businesses subject to the LA City Ordinance
The Vaccination Ordinance applies to the following types of businesses located in the City of Los Angeles:
• Food and beverage establishments including restaurants, bars, fast food establishments, coffee shops, cafeterias, food courts, banquet halls, and hotel ballrooms • Gyms and fitness venues
• Entertainment and recreation venues including shopping centers, movie theaters, bowling alleys, arcades, card rooms, family entertainment centers, play areas, live performance venues, commercial event and party venues, sports arenas, convention centers and exhibition halls and museums • Personal care establishments
• Indoor City facilities including City Hall, senior centers, recreation centers and service centers 645
Agenda Item No.: 11.C
Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: DISCUSS PROPOSED CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC) DECISION REVISING NET ENERGY METERING TARIFF AND SUBTARIFFS (MAYOR DIERINGER).

DATE: January 10, 2022
BACKGROUND:

On December 13, 2021, Administrative Law Judge Kelly A. Hymes issued a proposed decision on the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) Rulemaking 20-08-020 revising Net Energy Metering Tariff (NEM 2.0) and Subtariffs "to balance the multiple requirements of the code and the needs of the grid, the environment, participating ratepayers, as well as all other ratepayers." This item may be heard, at the earliest, at the Commission’s January 27, 2022 Business Meeting. Parties of record may file comments on the proposed decision as provided in Rule 14.3 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Recent news articles and opponents have stated that the proposed decision and other components of the CPUC’s proposal, are a near-carbon copy of what PG&E and the other investor-owned utilities (IOU's) have lobbied for. If accepted and finalized on January 27th, they will go into effect this spring.

Some concerns expressed are as follows:

1. $57 per month solar penalty fee for putting solar panels on the roof. The more solar panels, the larger the fee. This includes apartment buildings, new homes built with solar per the state mandate, and solar-powered batteries. The fee would be the largest in the U.S.A.

2. 80% cut to the credit solar users get for sharing surplus solar energy with the grid. The credit would drop from an average of twenty-five cents per kilowatt hour to about five cents. This cut happens immediately and could have serious impacts on the solar market.

3. Rollback of protections for existing solar users. Existing solar users are currently protected from changes to net metering rules for 20 years from the date their system turned on. The CPUC is now proposing to reduce that protection to 15 years, and eliminate the protection altogether if you accept their battery rebate.

Staff has also provided Attachments A, B, & C for further background information. 646
DISCUSSION:

This matter is on the January 6, 2022 South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) Legislative Committee agenda. Mayor Bea Dieringer is the City's representative to the SBCCOG. Mayor Dieringer expressed that the CPUC's consideration of revising the Net Energy Metering program could impact the City Hall Campus Emergency Power Project.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact in reviewing the CPUC's consideration of revisions to the Net Energy Metering program.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a presentation from Mayor Dieringer and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_220110_CC_NetMetering_SRA__AttachA.pdf
CL_AGN_220110_CC_NetMetering_LAT2_AttachB.pdf
CL_AGN_220110_CC_NetMetering_LAT1_AttachC.pdf
647
Fact Sheet
8WLOLWLHVOLNH3* (ZDQWWRVWRS&DOLIRUQLD¶VVRODUSURJUHVV 'RQ¶WJLYHXS\RXUVRODUSRZHU
California is a solar state where the sun belongs to everyone. Popular policies like net metering are helping millions of middle and working class Californians save money and clean up our air.

Big utilities like PG&E, are standing in the way of future progress. They are lobbying the CA Public Utilities Commission to add a monthly solar penalty fee to ratepayer bills and drastically reduce the credit solar consumers receive for selling excess power back to the grid. -JXLI]KIXXLIMV[E]'EPMJSVRMERWƅEGGIWs to solar power will be blocked.

On December 8th, the CPUC released a proposed decision that gives the utilities almost everything they asked for. If the CPUC approves their proposal at their scheduled January XLQIIXMRK'EPMJSVRMERWƅEGGIWWXSWSPEVTower will be blocked.

Take action! Visit www.solarrights.org/SaveCaliforniaSolar to sign the petition to Governor Newsom.

The Sun Belongs To Everyone
x Over 2,000 schools, 1,000 farms, 300 apartment buildings and over a million homes are powered directly by the sun. [1]
x Every day, 400 new consumers plug into the sun to save money and do their part to reduce air pollution and stop climate change. [2]
Keep the Lights On With Sun-Charged Batteries
x Increasingly, consumers are adding a battery to their solar system to provide reliable energy for their home or business.
x California has more than 30,000 sun-charged batteries that can instantaneously provide pollution-free electricity when California needs it most ± late summer afternoons and early evenings when our electric grid is most stressed. [3] x Rolling blackouts like those that occurred on August 14 and 15, 2020 are avoidable if California builds more sun-charged batteries where people live, work, pray and play.

Attachment C
648
Rooftop Solar Reduces Utility Bills For Everyone
x Maximizing rooftop solar could save ratepayers $120 billion over the next thirty years. [4]
x In 2018 alone, rooftop solar and energy efficiency prompted the state to scale back more than 20 power line projects, saving $2.6 billion. This trend has continued since. [5]
The Big Utility Profit Grab Hurts Working Families the Most 8LI'49'ƅWTVSTSWEPMWERIEVGEVFSR-copy of the one PG&E, So Cal Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric lobbied for. It would effectively put solar out of reach for nearly everyone. [6]
x $57 per month solar penalty fee for putting solar panels on the roof. The more solar panels, the larger the fee. This includes apartment buildings, new homes built with solar per the state mandate, and solar-powered batteries. The fee would be the largest in the U.S.A.
x 80% cut to the credit solar users get for sharing surplus solar energy with the grid. The credit would drop from an average of twenty-five cents per kilowatt hour to about five cents. This cut happens immediately; we predict it will end the solar market overnight.
x Rolls back protections for existing solar users. Existing solar users are currently protected from changes to net metering rules for 20 years from the date their system turned on. The CPUC is now proposing to reduce that protection to 15 years, and eliminate the protection altogether if you accept their battery rebate. x A step backward for equity. The CPUC falsely claims they are helping more low-income households by exempting them from the solar penalty fee, and with a ³0DUNHW7UDQVLWLRQ&UHGLW´RISHUPRQWKIRUHOLJLEOH3* (FXVWRPHUVDQG per month for eligible Southern California Edison customers. In reality, the &38&¶VGHDOZRXOGPDNHVRODUPRUHH[pensive for low-income. For example, lowincome households going solar with PG&E would pay $24 to $50 per month more WKDQXQGHUWKHVWDWXVTXR7KDW¶VEHFDXVHVODVKLQJWKHQHWPHWHULQJFUHGLWE\ 80% destroys the bill savings that make solar pencil. [7] x This will make solar unaffordable for most people, right when just under half of all new solar is going into working and middle class neighborhoods, serving both homeowners and renters. [8] Over 150,000 solar roofs serve customers in the CARE discount program. [9] This year, an additional 30,000 rental units serving more than 100,000 people at multifamily affordable housing projects are under development due to net metering, and another 200,000 families in affordable multi-family homes are projected to get solar by 2030. [10] x This will also ruin thousands of small, locally-owned solar businesses and threaten over 60,000 jobs. [11]
649
The Utility Profit Grab Impedes Getting To 100% Clean
Energy
x The California Energy Commission estimates California will need three times as much solar ± both large-scale and rooftop ± to meet its goals and help fight climate change. [12]
x By building solar panels on roofs, instead of converting open space to utility-scale solar farms, California can also help protect open space. For every gigawatt of rooftop solar built on rooftops, almost 5,200 acres of land can be protected. [13] x 7RGD\¶VRQHPLOOLRQVRODUV\VWHPVSURGXFHQHDUO\ELOOLRQNLORZDWWKRXUV N:K

of clean energy each year, avoiding 5 million metric tons of CO2 annually ± the equivalent of two coal-fired power plants. [14]
Utilities Care About Profits, Not Equity
x Long-GLVWDQFHSRZHUOLQHVDQG³ZLOGILUHPLWLJDWLRQ´DUHZKDW¶VDFWXDOO\GULYLQJXS our electricity bills. Consumers pay an estimated $9 billion a year related to longdistance power lines.[15] x Utilities get a guaranteed profit of 8-10% from every dollar they spend building and maintaining those power lines. [16]
x Utilities have lobbied against every major proposal to help more working communities adopt solar and battery storage. [17]
We should keep solar growing, and make it more equitable We are pushing to keep rooftop solar and battery storage growing, and to make it more equitable so that millions of working class households and communities including renters have access to solar in the next few years. [18] Endnotes
[1] California Solar & Storage Association: Shovel Ready for Recovery [2] California DG Stats. https://www.californiadgstats.ca.gov. [3] See note 1
[4] Vibrant Clean Energy: Role of Distributed Generation in Decarbonizing California by 2045
[5] See Utility Dive summary of this CA Independent Systems Operator (CAISO) 2018 report, with link to the actuEPVITSVX'%-73ƅW most recent 2020-2021 report continued to GVIHMXVSSJXSTWSPEVERHIJJMGMIRG]JSVVIHYGMRKXVERWQMWWMSRPMRIWTIRHMRKƈLoad 650
forecast growth continues to remain relatively flat, resulting in part from continued statewide emphasis on energy efficiency and behind-the-QIXIVKIRIVEXMSRƏ'SRWMWXIRX with past studies, this transmission planning cycle did not reveal the need for major transmission expansion XSEGLMIZIXLITIVGIRX647KSEPWIXSYXMR7&JSVƉ (p.1)
[6] CPUC Proposal for NEM3 released December 13, 2021. Solar Penalty Fee: PG&E: $8 per kW of installed solar capacity. This is $48 per month for a customer with a typical solar system size of 6 kW; SCE: $8 per kW of installed solar capacity plus $12 per month. This is $60 per month for a typical customer; SDG&E: $8 per kW of installed solar capacity plus $16 per month. This is $64 per month for a typical customer. [7] California Solar & Storage Association, Under NEM-3 Proposal, Solar & Storage Become More Expensive, Even for Low-Income.
[8] Neighborhood level adoption data: The Berkeley Lab: Solar Demographics Tool and Income Trends among U.S. Residential Rooftop Solar Adopters [9] CARE data
[10] See note 2.
[11] The Solar Foundation: National Solar Jobs Census
[12] California Energy Commission: SB 100 Joint Agency Report Summary, p. 10 [13] Environment California Research & Policy Center: The Environmental Case for Rooftop Solar
[14] See note 1
[15] CA Public Utilities Commission: Utility Costs and Affordability of the Grid of the Future $4B in transmission costs in 2021 on p. 3; $5B in wildfire mitigation costs in 2019 on p. 60; $4.336 in 2021 transmission spending and rate of increase p. 36 ?A'49'ƅWƈ9XMPMX]'SWXWERH%JJSVHEFMPMX]SJXLI+VMHSJXLI*YXYVI 8LI%ZIVGL-
.SLRWSRIJJIGXHIWGVMFIHSRTEKI8LIWXEXIƅWMRZIWXSV-owned utilities charged ratepayers nearly $20 billion in transmission line projects between 2010 and 2019 (pp. 39, Table 11); Utilities collected more than $20 billion in profits over a similar time period (utility 10-K filings, itemized here).
651
[17] Partial list of initiatives utilities lobbied to kill or defang: Affordable housing solar incentives (AB 693 Ɓ Eggman, 2015); Low-income feed in tariff (AB 1990 Ɓ Fong); Community solar (SB 843 Ɓ Wolk, 2013; SB 43 Ɓ Wolk, 2013; CPUC implementation); Microgrids (SB 1339, CPUC implementation)
[18] Coalition for Environmental Equity & Economics, Equity Statement and Path for more solar equity
652
LATIMES.COM MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2021 A9

BUSINESS
It’s been two years since California reached 1 million solar roofs, a landmark in the fight against climate change. Now the story of solar power in the Golden State may be approaching another turning
point.

The California Public Utilities
Commission is poised to overhaul
the state’s main solar incentive
program, known as net metering.

The agency’s proposal would, in effect, make rooftop solar more expensive and could be approved as soon as Jan. 27.

Officials say the changes are
needed to keep the lights on, prevent electricity rates from rising and encourage people to install
batteries, while still growing the solar market. Solar executives say they would backfire and crater a
thriving industry.

Here’s what the utilities commission’s proposed decision would do:
8 Reduce payments to solar
customers who send electricity to
the power grid when their systems
generate more than they need. Instead of being compensated at the retail rate — the same rate they pay
for electricity from the grid —
newly enrolled net metering customers would be paid at the much lower “avoided cost” rate. That
would amount to about 5 cents per
kilowatt-hour of electricity, down
from 20 to 30 cents today, according to the California Solar & Storage Assn. 8 Add a monthly “grid participation charge” of $8 per kilowatt for homes (but not businesses) that
install solar. A home with a six-kilowatt system would be charged $48 per month, or $576 per year. Lowincome and tribal homes would be exempt.
8 Add a temporary “market
transition credit” to lessen some of
those higher costs for households
that want to go solar. The credit
would be available for four years,
with homes that install solar panels locking in the savings for a decade. In Southern California Edison territory, the credit would start at
$5.25 per kilowatt of solar for lowincome customers and $3.59 per kilowatt for everyone else, before
decreasing each of the next three
years. For Pacific Gas & Electric
customers, the credits would start
at $4.36 per kilowatt and $1.62 per
kilowatt, respectively. San Diego
Gas & Electric customers wouldn’t
receive any credits, because the
commission believes that solar is
already cost-effective enough for
them due to the utility’s especially
high electricity rates.
8 Require homes that already
have solar panels to switch from
the existing net metering program
to the new program described
above — known as “net billing” —
no later than 15 years after their
systems were installed. Low-income homes could keep operating under the more favorable terms of
the old program for 20 years after
installation.
8 Create a “storage evolution
fund” to encourage homes and
businesses that already have solar
to add batteries. Utility customers
currently enrolled in net metering
would receive rebates of $200 per
kilowatt-hour for installing an energy storage system — but only if they switch to the newly revised solar incentive program within four years. The rebate would drop the
longer they wait. For a typical residential battery system of 13 kilowatt-hours, the rebate would start at $2,600.
8 Create an “equity fund” that
would spend as much as $600 million over four years, bringing clean energy to low-income and polluted
neighborhoods. The details would
be worked out later.
8 Allow homes and businesses
to install solar systems big enough
to meet 150% of their energy demand, to help power electric cars or electric heating systems they
might add later. That’s much bigger than is currently allowed.

Another key change: Homes
and businesses that already have
solar (or go solar under the new
rules) would pay higher rates for
electricity from the grid during
some times of day and lower rates
at other times.

All monopoly utility customers
are shifting to these “time of use”
rates to encourage energy consumption when supplies are abundant and discourage it when supplies are tight. But solar homes would see an especially high difference between “peak” and “off peak” rates. In Edison territory, they’d
pay 48 cents per kilowatt-hour on
summer weekday evenings and 19
cents on winter mornings.

Only customers of Edison,
PG&E and Sempra Energy subsidiary SDG&E would be affected by the new rules. Solar homes served
by publicly owned utilities such as
the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power wouldn’t see
changes.

If you’re served by a government-run “community choice” agency — such as the Clean Power
Alliance in Los Angeles and Ventura counties, which uses Edison’s poles and wires to bring you electricity — you’d have to pay the new monthly “grid participation fees.”
But the compensation rate for your
solar power would drop only if local
elected officials decide it should.

Here’s what many of the groups
and people involved in the rooftop
solar debate have to say:

Environment advocates
The Sierra Club isn’t happy
with the proposed decision. Neither are the Climate Center, Coalition for Community Solar Access, Environment California, Environmental Working Group and Vote Solar.

The Save California Solar coalition— whose members include hundreds of groups focused on climate action, public health, conservation and equitable housing — called the state agency’s proposal
“a giveaway to investor-owned utilities.”
Especially interesting is the Sierra Club’s position, which doesn’t align neatly with those of either the
solar or utility industries. The club
had proposed gradually lowering
compensation payments to new
solar customers. It had also joined
with advocacy group Vote Solar
and nonprofit installer Grid Alternatives to propose higher compensation rates for low-income homes.

The utilities commission’s plan
wouldn’t do either of those things.

Instead, it fully endorses the “cost
shift” argument made by utility
companies and others — that net
metering leads to higher electricity
rates for Californians who can’t afford solar.
“The ‘cost shift’ narrative has
been wildly overblown,” Sierra
Club attorney Katherine Ramsey
said. “We recognize that this program needs to be updated in order to reduce nonparticipant impacts.

But at the end of the day, we need
more rooftop solar.”
One group’s stance
At least one major environmental group supports the decision.

That would be the Natural Resources Defense Council, which largely agrees with the utility industry that net metering is a massive giveaway from the poor to the rich.

NRDC senior scientist Mohit
Chhabra said he’s especially
pleased with the $600-million equity fund, which he expects will help pay for solar panels for low-income
homes. He sees that as a better
model than the Sierra Club’s proposal, because it would make it easier for low-income families to
buy solar systems rather than
lease them, and thus reap more of
the long-term savings.

Chhabra said the primary goal
of net metering shouldn’t be to add
as much rooftop solar as possible
— it should be to meet California’s
overall climate goals, which will require a lot of rooftop solar but also many other forms of clean energy.

That includes large solar and wind
farms that generate power at a
lower cost than rooftop systems
due to economies of scale.
“Cheap, clean, pollution-free
electricity for everybody is the first
step. And then do your best to
make sure solar is distributed
equally,” Chhabra said. “Don’t flip
those two things.”
Utility industry
In a statement, Edison called
the proposal “a meaningful step”
that will “reduce the financial burden on non-solar customers who have subsidized net energy metering by significantly overpaying rooftop solar customers.” PG&E
offered similar praise, saying the
current system has “resulted in
deep inequities between customers with rooftop solar and those without.”
SDG&E was more circumspect, saying it would “reserve
comment until our experts have an
opportunity to review the 204-page
proposed decision and evaluate its
impact to our customers.”
Then there’s the Affordable
Clean Energy for All campaign,
which lists more than 100 diverse
supporters but whose sole funders
are the utility companies. Campaign spokesperson Kathy Fairbanks said the proposed decision “recognizes we can grow rooftop
solar in California while taking
steps to reduce inflated subsidies
that have put an unfair cost burden
on renters, seniors, disadvantaged
communities and other working
Californians who don’t have the
ability or means to install rooftop
solar systems.”
Solar industry
Brad Heavner, policy director
for the California Solar & Storage
Assn., said one of the utilities commission’s biggest mistakes is assuming that rooftop solar costs $2.34 per watt, based on data from
the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. He pointed to a different data set from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory showing that installed system costs hit
$3.87 per watt in California last
year.

He also said new solar homes
would be hit with higher fees than
the commission is letting on, paying an additional $12 per month in Edison territory and $16 per month
in SDG&E territory, because of
their time-of-use electric rates
(with PG&E customers getting off
scot-free, at least initially). That
would bring new monthly fees for
non-low-income homes to $38 for
typical Edison and PG&E customers and $64 for typical SDG&E customers, after accounting for the new “market transition credit.”
Then there’s the reduced payment rate for electricity exported to the grid. Heavner estimated
that a typical new solar customer
would see this compensation drop
by $675 per year in Edison territory,
$985 in PG&E territory and $1,290
in SDG&E territory.

Heavner estimated that those
changes would lengthen the typical payback period — how long it takes solar customers to make
back their upfront investments
through lower bills — to 19 years for
Edison customers and 16 years for
PG&E customers — far short of
the 10 years the commission said it
is targeting (except for an estimated nine-year payback in SDG&E territory). For low-income
homes, paybacks would be 11 or 12
years regardless of the utility.

For comparison, payback periods currently hover around five years.

Consumer watchdogs
The Utility Reform Network, a
ratepayer advocacy group, spends
much of its time fighting the utilities on rate increases — but it largely agrees with them on net
metering.

TURN attorney Matthew
Freedman thinks a 10-year payback is a good target, and he’s open to increasing the “market transition credit” if the commission used flawed data, to make sure 10 years
is what consumers get.
“I think 10 years is fair for people
to get their money back,” Freedman said. “Customers don’t need that subsidy forever to invest in solar.”
Mike Campbell, a program
manager at the commission’s Public Advocates Office, also likes the proposed decision. He called it “a
positive step in addressing the inequities in the current net energy metering program,” saying in an
email that it would compensate solar customers fairly while advancing the state’s climate goals — in part by encouraging battery installation.

Severin Borenstein, a UC
Berkeley energy economist and
net metering critic, said the commission’s plan does “a good job addressing the cost shift inequity.” But he also emphasized that electricity rates are far higher than they should be for monopoly utility
customers, and fixing net metering
is like a Band-Aid for this bigger issue.

Right now, Borenstein said via
email, Californians pay electric
rates that cover all sorts of utility
expenses that have nothing to do
with generating power, including
clean energy subsidies and projects that reduce the risk of wildfires. He thinks those “fixed” costs should be paid for differently, allowing for lower electricity rates overall. That might mean less motivation to install solar, but it would also make people more likely to invest in electric vehicles and electric heating — key parts of California’s
climate strategy.
“If state leaders still want to prioritize rooftop solar, they could avoid shifting costs onto low and
middle income households ... by
subsidizing rooftop systems directly, and transparently, with a program covered by the state
budget,” Borenstein wrote in June.

Home building industry
In 2018, California became the
first state to requiresolar panels on
most new homes. But that requirement was predicated on solar-powered homes being “cost effective” — and the California Building Industry Assn., a trade group for home builders, says the proposed
changes to net metering might
jeopardize the legality of the mandate by making solar no longer cost effective.

The group warned the Public
Utilities Commission last month
that fixed monthly charges for solar customers — as the agency has now proposed — would “severely
impact the financial viability” of
rooftop solar on new homes. The
group recommended “a steady
glide path with small increments
on any additional fees to customers.”
Dan Dunmoyer, the group’s
chief executive, agrees that some
changes to net metering are warranted. But he also wants the solar mandate to succeed. Although his
group is still analyzing the proposal, his first impression is that it could be a recipe for failure.
“If you’re paying $500 or $600
that you weren’t paying before this
change [to net metering], what
does that do to families that are
trying to balance their family
budgets?” Dunmoyer asked.

The California Energy Commission, which crafted the solar mandate, is “evaluating the impacts of the [net metering] proposal on the
cost effectiveness of the energy
code,” spokesperson Lindsay
Buckley said in an email.

Wall Street
Within 12 hours of the utilities
commission releasing its proposal,
Morgan Stanley put out an
analysis.

The investment bank wrote
that the net metering plan “would
in our view be heavily damaging to
near-term rooftop solar growth
and margins.” Morgan Stanley
analysts called the proposed
monthly fees “surprisingly high,”
saying they would “largely to completely eliminate the economic benefits of rooftop solar in California, absent the inclusion of storage.” At the same time, “storage can
provide a longer-term offset,” they
wrote. For Sunrun in particular —
the nation’s largest rooftop solar
installer, based in San Francisco —
Morgan Stanley projected that by
2024, “the company will have sufficient storage volumes to offer all prospective California customers
the ability to include storage with
solar,” which would save customers money.

This article was originally
published in Boiling Point, a
weekly email newsletter about
climate change and the
environment. Go to
latimes.com/boilingpoint to
sign up.

California’s plan to slash solar incentives
OFFICIALS SAY changes are needed to keep the lights on, keep electricity rates from rising and encourage people to install batteries. Above, Juan Alcantara, left, Sal Miranda and Lee Kwok of Grid Alternatives, a nonprofit, install panels on a Watts home in June.

Gary Coronado Los Angeles Times
Want to install or already have rooftop panels? How the proposed changes would affect you. ‘We recognize that this program
needs to be updated in order to
reduce nonparticipant impacts.

But at the end of the day, we need
more rooftop solar.’ — KATHERINE RAMSEY,
attorney for the Sierra Club
By Sammy Roth
Attachment E
653
A8 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2021 LATIMES.COM

BUSINESS
Treasury investors are
losing more money than
they have in four decades,
once inflation is taken into
account. And if markets are
right, they’re unlikely to
come out ahead for years.

The federal government’s
debt has already lost about
2% over the last year as the
Federal Reserve started removing pandemic-era stimulus from the economy and inched closer toward raising
interest rates. But on top of
that, the consumer price index has surged 6.8%, putting investors even deeper in the
hole.

Taken together, that’s resulting in the worst real returns — or those adjusted for inflation — since the
early 1980s, when then Fed
Chair Paul Volcker was in
the midst of fighting a wageprice spiral.

What’s more, the dynamic isn’t expected to change:

The bond market is projecting that 10-year Treasury
yields will hold below the inflation rate for the next decade, meaning any investment income will be more than wiped out by the rising
cost of living.

The persistently low level
of long-term yields in the
face of the steepest inflation
in decades has been a major
puzzle on Wall Street, since
it defies the textbook expectation that investors would demand higher payouts in
return. In 1982, the last time
year-on-year inflation rose
as much as it did in November, the 10-year yield climbed as high as nearly 15%. It’s below 1.5% now.

Some say that reflects
the deluge of stimulus and
rising household savings
since the onset of the pandemic, which has left a surfeit of cash flooding into the Treasury market. For others, it reflects a pessimistic view of the economy, signaling that investors see the nation’s growth potential continuing to slip.

Either way, nearly two
years of sub-zero real yields
have penalized average savers and bond investors to the U.S. government’s benefit.
“People have accepted
negative real returns for a
long period of time,” said
Greg Whiteley, portfolio
manager at DoubleLine
Group, which oversees
$137 billion in assets. “Despite the fact it may seem peculiar, maybe this is something we have to adjust to as the new normal.”
Ten-year yields on inflation-linked bonds fell to an
all-time low of minus 1.25%
last month before rebounding to about minus 1%. Taken at face value, that shows investors expect 10-year
yields — trading at 1.44% on
Monday — to trail inflation
by about 1% annually over
the next decade.
“You may not want to
own bonds because they are
[a] negative-yielding security,” said Francis Scotland, director for global macro research at Brandywine Global, which manages $67 billion in assets. “But that phenomenon may exist for a long
time because of this fundamental disequilibrium between saving and investment, or spending and saving.” Even so, there are some
temporary factors at work.

While the Fed has started
paring its bond purchases,
it’s still buying $60 billion
worth of Treasurys a month.

The supply-demand imbalances may change next
year as central banks worldwide retreat from their
quantitative easing, which
would lead to higher bond
yields.

Bond traders are staring at worst real returns in decades bloomberg
California officials want
to slash payments for
rooftop solar power, saying
the changes would help the
state achieve 100% clean energy while keeping the lights on, preventing electricity
rates from rising and encouraging people to install
batteries.

But solar executives are
furious with the changes,
saying they would backfire
and crater a thriving industry.

The proposal from
Martha Guzman Aceves,
one of five members of the
California Public Utilities
Commission, would revamp
an incentive program called
net energy metering that
has helped the state become
a national solar power
leader, with more than

1.3 million rooftop and other
small-scale systems installed. The solar industry
and climate change advocacy groups are lobbying
Gov. Gavin Newsom and his
appointees on the utilities
commission to keep the program’s basic tenets unchanged.

In an interview, Guzman
Aceves said net metering
needs to evolve to reflect
California’s changing energy
needs. The Golden State’s
power grid is increasingly
flooded by solar energy during the afternoon but
strained on hot summer
evenings, when millions of
people throttle up their air
conditioners.

Reducing demand for
planet-warming fossil fuels
such as diesel and natural
gas during that “net peak”
period in the evening, Guzman Aceves said, is her overriding goal.

She and her staff crafted
a plan to phase out net metering that will encourage
new and existing solar customers to add battery storage systems that can bank clean energy for after dark,
she said. Among other provisions, a new “storage evolution fund” would offer payments for homes that already have solar panels to add storage.
“There’s a huge opportunity here for us to get more
out of these customers to
contribute to the net peak,”
Guzman Aceves said.

Other elements of the
commissioner’s proposal
would prompt Californians
to switch from gasoline to
electric vehicles, and from
natural gas furnaces and
stoves to electric appliances
fueled by solar and wind energy, Guzman Aceves said —
key pieces of California’s war
on climate change. For instance, homes and businesses that add solar panels would be allowed to build
much bigger systems than is
currently allowed under net
metering, to support lifestyles that are increasingly
powered by electricity.
“I think the proposal is
strong,” Guzman Aceves
said. “It’s focused on what
we collectively need, to get
off of fossil fuels.”
Solar executives and climate activists, though, said
the proposal would only impede California’s aggressive climate goals.

Walker Wright, vice president of public policy at San
Francisco-based Sunrun,
the nation’s largest rooftop
solar installer, was similarly
displeased, saying in a written statement that Guzman
Aceves’ proposal would “impose the highest discriminatory charges on solar and energy storage customers in
the U.S., putting rooftop solar and batteries out of reach for countless families.”
Wright also said the proposed changes are “contrary
to the state’s objectives of
addressing climate change
and eliminating frequent
blackouts” — a reference to
the utility industry’s practice of shutting down the
electric grid in certain
places during dry, windy
conditions to prevent wildfire ignitions. Solar supporters see those “public safety power shutoffs” as a powerful argument for encouraging rooftop systems paired with batteries that can serve
as a backup power source
when the grid goes down.
“Only the wealthiest Californians will be able to afford rooftop solar, shutting out
schools, small businesses,
and the average family from
our clean energy future,” Abigail Ross Hopper, president of the Solar Energy Industries Assn., said in a statement. “The only winners today are the utilities, which will make more profits at the
expense of their ratepayers.”
Guzman Aceves’ proposed decision, which was
released Monday, endorses
the argument made by the
state’s largest investorowned utility companies —
Southern California Edison,
Pacific Gas & Electric and
Sempra Energy — that net
metering subsidizes richer
households that can afford
rooftop solar at the expense
of lower-income households
that can’t.

The utilities estimate
that “cost shift” at $3.4 billion annually, a figure hotly disputed by the solar industry and climate activists,
who say rooftop panels create many public benefits
that aren’t included in the
calculation, including the
health benefits of less air
pollution from fossil fuels
and the cost savings from
limiting the need for new
power plants and transmission lines. Rooftop solar also doesn’t require paving over
undisturbed land, unlike
sprawling desert solar farms
that can tear up sensitive
ecosystems.

Utility companies have
led the charge for lower
rooftop solar incentives,
alongside politically powerful labor unions representing their employees, who have a vested interest in protecting the monopoly utility business model. But they’re
not alone.

Two influential consumer watchdog groups, the
Utility Reform Network and
the state’s Public Advocates
Office, have joined the utilities in arguing for reduced incentives for rooftop solar.

A handful of prominent environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the
California Environmental
Justice Alliance, have also
argued the program is not
equitable.

Mohit Chhabra, a senior
scientist at NRDC, called
the proposed decision “a
strong North Star.” He was
especially pleased with a
plan to spend $600 million
over four years to bring clean
energy to low-income and
polluted neighborhoods,
possibly through incentives
for batteries or locally built
“community solar” facilities
that serve households unable to install their own solar.

The Utility Reform Network praised the commissioner’s proposal too, with staff attorney Matthew
Freedman describing it as “a
step in the right direction”
that prioritizes low-income
households “who have been
left behind under the current program.”
Southern California Edison offered similar praise,
calling the decision “a meaningful step toward modernizing California’s rooftop solar program” that will “reduce the financial burden on non-solar customers who
have subsidized net energy
metering.”
Guzman Aceves thinks
the $3-billion cost shift estimate is “on the low side” of what non-solar ratepayers
are actually paying for net
metering. If, instead, the
state were to spend the same
amount building large solar
farms — which generate
electricity more cheaply
than rooftop systems — it
could triple its solar capacity, a comparison that helps illustrate “how much we’re
spending and how much
we’re getting” from the
rooftop program, Guzman
Aceves said.

The commissioner wants
to make several seismic
changes to net metering.

First, she would slash the
payments that newly
enrolled solar customers receive for the electricity they send to the power grid when
their systems generate more
than they need. Instead of
being compensated at the
retail rate — the same rate
they pay for electricity from
the grid — they would be
paid at a much lower rate
known as the “avoided cost.”
That would amount to
about 5 cents per kilowatthour of electricity, down
from 20 to 30 cents today, according to the California Solar & Storage Assn., an industry trade group.

Second, new solar customers would pay a monthly
“grid participation charge”
of $8 per kilowatt of solar
power per month to help
cover the costs of maintaining the grid, such as safety projects to reduce the risk of
wildfire ignitions. Net metering critics say that type of “fixed charge” can ensure
that crucial utility expenditures aren’t just paid for by lower-income households.

A home with a six-kilowatt system would be
charged $48 per month, or
$576 per year. Low-income
homes would be exempt.

The proposed decision
responds to concerns raised
by solar companies by creating a “market transition
credit” of up to $5.25 per kilowatt per month for homes that add solar panels within
four years of the new program taking effect. The size
of the available credit would
drop each of those four
years, but customers who
add solar — with or without
batteries — would lock in the
savings for a decade.

Guzman Aceves said the
credits are designed to create a “payback period” of 10 years for new solar customers, meaning that’s how long it would take them to make
back their upfront investment through lower electric
bills. Payback periods currently hover around five
years.

Solar executives, though,
aren’t convinced the commissioner’s proposal would
actually result in 10-year
paybacks — and even if it
did, they say, that’s far longer than the seven years or less that is needed to persuade most people to invest
in solar.

Bernadette Del Chiaro,
executive director of the California Solar & Storage
Assn., said in an email that
she was “shocked at how
bad” the proposed decision
is. The idea that it’s pro-batteries, she said, “couldn’t be further from the truth,” with
new monthly fees applying
to all solar-powered homes
and businesses, whether or
not they have energy storage.

Del Chiaro also pointed
out that many of the
changes could take effect as
soon as May. She said that’s
not nearly enough time for
the industry to reorient itself
around energy storage.
“We need to ramp up the
battery market, but making
solar more expensive in the
next five months is how you
kill the entire distributed
generation market, not how
you drive a storage market,”
she said.

Homes and businesses
that already have solar
would be switched from net
metering to the new “net
billing” program envisioned
by Guzman Aceves 15 years
after their systems were installed.

Existing solar customers
that switch to the new program — as well as new solar
customers — would also pay
higher rates for power from
the grid during times when
the utility system is strained
and lower rates at other
times.

All customers are shifting to those “time of use”
rates, whether or not they
have solar. But under Guzman Aceves’ proposal, the
difference between “peak”
and “off peak” charges would
be even greater for solar
homes, to prompt them to
add batteries.

The proposed decision
would only affect customers
of Edison, PG&E and Sempra subsidiary San Diego
Gas & Electric. Customers
of publicly owned utilities
such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power wouldn’t see their solar incentives change.

The earliest the Public
Utilities Commission could
vote on the proposal would
be Jan. 27, after a public comment period.

By then the agency will
have a new president, with
Marybel Batjer stepping
down and being replaced by
Newsom’s energy advisor,
Alice Reynolds, on Dec, 31.

Guzman Aceves will also be
leaving the commission at
the end of this week, after being appointed by President Bidento lead the southwestern region of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Especially if Newsom
moves quickly to replace
Guzman Aceves, he could
have a lot of sway over the final decision — if he wants to.

The governor’s office didn’t
respond to a request for
comment about his position
on net metering.

The Save California Solar
campaign which includes
more than 600 organizations
, released a statement from
Pastor William Smart Jr.,
president of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference, who described the
proposed decision as a “utility profit grab,” saying it would “take California back
to a time when solar was a
luxury for the wealthy and
out of reach for our communities.”
A big cut in rooftop solar incentives?
Proposed net metering policy change would put brakes on shift to clean energy, critics fume By Sammy Roth
A PUC PROPOSAL would slash the payments that newly enrolled solar customers receive for electricity they send to the grid when their systems generate an excess. Above, installers work at a home in Watts in June.

Photographs by Gary Coronado Los Angeles Times
BACKERS of the change say current rules shift costs to ratepayers who don’t have solar. Above, Juan Alcantara, left, Sal Miranda and Lee Kwok install a panel.

Attachment D
654
Agenda Item No.: 12.A
Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION IN CALIFORNIA'S DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES

RECYCLING AND RECOVER (CAL-RECYCLE) BEVERAGE
CONTAINER RECYCLING CITY PAYMENT PROGRAM.

DATE: January 10, 2022
BACKGROUND:

CalRecycle has an annual Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program and will distribute $10,500,000 in fiscal year 2021-22 to eligible cities and counties specifically for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities. Cities are eligible to receive a minimum of $5,000 and counties are eligible to receive a minimum of $10,000 per grant award. The City of Rolling Hills is eligible for a $5,000 grant award upon completion of the funding application due January 18, 2022. A resolution authorizing submittal of application is necessary to complete the application. CalRecycle has granted the city an extension of 12 days to submit an executed resolution and will accept a draft resolution with the funding application submission.

The Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program has an Expenditure Period of two years after awarding and will not close until April 2024. The Program has a variety of eligible activities and options to allow jurisdictions to utilize the funds most appropriately.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Rolling Hills can use grant funds towards replacing existing public trash receptacles with dual bin receptacles at the following locations: City Hall Parking Lot, 2 Riding Ring areas, Tennis Courts, Crest Gate, Eastfield Gate, and the Crest Lookout Point. These are eligible for 100% reimbursement through the grant. For examples of dual bins see Attachment A.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The grant has no fiscal impact to the general fund.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve participation in the program and direct City Attorney to draft multi-year resolution authorizing submittal of application for the January 24, 2022 City Council meeting. 655
ATTACHMENTS:

PW_REF_220118_CRC_BevGrant_DualBinExamples_AttachA.pdf
656
Examples of dual bin solutions
657

← All documents from this meeting