Rolling Hills City Council
May 23, 2022

Zoe Heller
Acting Deputy Director, Materials Management and Local Assistance Division
From:

Request Date: April 14,2022
Table 1. Funding
333
with meeting the requirements below:
. Provide organics collection services to all residents and businesses . Conduct education and outreach to the community
o Secure access to recycling and edible food recovery capacity o Establish edible food recovery program
r Procure recyclable and recovered organic products
e Monitor compliance and conduct enforcement
Criteria and Process
The Eligibility Criteria and Evaluation Process was approved by the Deputy Director on December 28,2021, and presented at the January 2022 CalRecycle Monthly Public Meeting.

The Notice of Funds Available was placed on the CalRecycle website on January 4, 2022, wilh an appropriate notice sent to stakeholders.

Applicationsweredue February 1,2022, with asecondaryduedateof Marci 1,2022,for Resolution submission. CalRecycle received 476 applications requesting $54,947,783. Staff reviewed the applications in accordance with the approved evaluation criteria; 399 applications met the application requirements and adopted their enforceable ordinance, or similarly enforceable mechanism, by April 1, 2022, and are therefore eligible for first round funding.

Subsequently, one application is ineligible. ln addition, first round awardees will receive additional remaining funds from entities who did not apply. The remaining 82 76 applications will be moved to the second funding round, tentatively scheduled for award in September 2022. please note that if a participant in a Regional or Joint Powers Authority application did not meet the application requirements, the entire application was moved to the second funding round.

The types of projects recommended for funding include: green, blue, and brown bins, education and ouheach materials, record keeping subscriptions, refrigerators for food rescue, side loaders for collection, and personnel and administrative costs.

Recommendation
staff recommends approval of 393 399 grant awards as listed below for $41,782.906 $42,936*76.

Table 2. Recommended Awards
APPlicant
Alameda County
Almonte Sanitary District
Alto Sanitary District
Bolinas Community Public Utility District
Cs+te4€snty
Calaveras County
Cambria Community Services District
Castro Valley Sanitary District
City of Agoura Hills
City of Alameda
Award Amount

$208,136
$20,143
$20,1 18
$20,106
$84.;76+
$58,808
$20,558
$77,526
$29,860
$115,019
334
Applicant Award Amount
City of Albany
City of Alhambra
City of Aliso Viejo
City of American Canyon
City of Anaheim
City of Antioch
City of Arcadia
City of Artesia
City of Atwater
City of Auburn
City of Avalon
City of Avenal
City of Azusa
City of Bakersfield
City of Baldwin Park
City of Banning
City of Barstow
City of Beaumont
City of Bell Gardens
City of Bellflower
City of Belmont
City of Benicia
City of Berkeley
City of Beverly Hills
City of Blythe
City of Bradbury
City of Brawley
City of Brea
City of Brentwood
City of Brisbane
City of Buellton
City of Buena Park
City of Burbank
City of Burlingame
City of Calabasas
City of Calexico
City of California City
City of Calimesa
City o1_Calip-al!?
City of Camarillo
City of Canyon Lake
City of Capitola
City of Carlsbad
City of Carmel-bythe-Sea
City of Carpinteria
$25,065
$122,592
$71,231
$30,346
$499,168
$160,065
$82,290
$24,261
$45,859
$21,419
$20,391
$21,214
$70,912
$561,069
$108,044
$46,456
$35,142
$75,280
$60,548
$'110,191
$38,334
$39,237
$165,580
$48,099
$27,181
$20,103
$39,540
$64,641
$94,'180
$20,450
$20,534
$116,064
$147,552
$42,951
$35,333
$58,085
$21,388
$21,006
$20,640
$99,269
$21,084
$20,992
$163,804
$20,395
$21,297

Applicant Award Amount
City of Carson
City of Cathedral City
City of Ceres
City of Cerritos
City of Chico
City of Chino
City of Chino Hills
City of Chowchilla
City of Citrus Heights
City of Claremont
City of Clovis
City of Coachella
Citv of oalinqa
City of Colfax
City of Colton
City of Commerce
City of Concord
City of Corcoran
City of Corona
City of Coronado
City of Costa lvlesa
$130,217
$77,093
$69,946
$71,562
$158,151
$125,307
$117,523
$25,453
$124,781
$s1,351
$172,729
$68,429
$24.633
$20,214
$77,411
$21,257
$183,213
$29,887
$239,839
$32,537
$159,969
$69,850
$34,501
$57,127
$83,693
$69,424
$154,077
$47,803
$98,687
$20,419
$20,164
$73,002
$80,961
$38,400
$29,493
$158,060
$31,269
$92,204
$43,802
$96,334
$146,529
$64,444
$36,045
$165,163
$24,509
City of Covina
City of Cudahy
City of Culver City
City of Cupertino
City of Cypress
City of Daly City
City of Dana Point
City of Davis
City of Del Mar

City of Del Rey Oaks
City of Delano
Cig of Diamond Bar
City of Dinuba
City of Dixon
City of Downey
City of Duarte
City of Dublin
City of East Palo Alto
City of Eastvale
City of El Cajon
City of El Centro
City of El Cerrito
City of El Monte
City of El Segundo
336
Applicant Award Amount
City of
Glendale
City of Glendora
City of Goleta
City of Gonzales
City of Grand Terrace
City of Grass Valley
City of Greenfield
City of Guadalupe
City of Half Moon Bay
City of Hawaiian Gardens
$252,058
$21,237
$88,813
$214,802
$21,081
$167,333
$23,307
$20,799
$117,019
$302,539
$2H2€
$47,314
$78,475
$20,649
$331 ,140
$771,586
$197,528
$37,835
$244,098
$86,072
$288,291
$73,665
$46,605
$20,835
$21,219.
$21,254
$26,964
$20,820
$21,210
$21,422
$123,637
$223,823
$120,150
$37,480
$28,442
$136,396
$20,188
$78,625
$20,613
$20,718
$278,482
$84,089
$29,623
$20,534
$20,042
City of Elk Grove
City of Emeryville
City of Encinitas
City of Escondido
City of Exeter
City of Fairfield
City of Fillmore
City of Firebaugh
City of Folsom
City of Fontana
erty-e++e*S+agg
City of Foster City
City of Fountain Valley
City of Fowler
City of Fremont
City of F-resno
City of Fullerton
City of Galt
City of Garden Grove
City of Gardena
City of HaMhorne
City of Hayward
City of Hemet
City of Hercules
City of Hermosa Beach
City of Hesperia
City of Hidden Hills
City of Highland
City of Holtuille
City of Hughson
City of Huntington Beach
City of Huntington Park
City of lmperial
City of lndian Wells
City of lndustry

Applicant Award Amount
City of lrvine
City of lrwindale
City of Jurupa Valley
City of Kerman
City of King City
City of Kingsburg
City of La Canada Flintridge
City of La Habra
City of La Mesa
City of La Mirada
City of La Palma
City of La Puente
City of La Quinta
City of La Verne
City of Lafayette
City of Laguna Hills
City of Laguna Niguel
City of Laguna Woods
City of Lake Elsinore
City of Lake Forest .

City of Lakevood
City of Lancaster
City of Larkspur
City of Lawndale
City of Lemon Grove
City of Lemoore
City of Lindsay
City of Livermore
City of Lomita
City of Lompoc
City of Long Beach
City of Los Alamitos
City of Los Altos
City of Los Banos
City of Lynwood
City of Malibu
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Manteca
City of Marina
City of Martinez
City of Maywood
City of Mendota
City of Menifee
City of Menlo Park
City of Merced
$383,742
$20,142
$153,370
$23,745
$22,137
$21,286
$29,489
$89,545
$84,993
$69,565
$22,792
$57,524
$59,159
$47,655
$36,767
$44,821
$e2,870
$23,629
$92,298
$120,168
$114,080
$228,449
$21,199
$47,128
$38,1 58
$38,812
$21,287
$129,580
$29,823
$60,915
$660,1 96
$21,134
$44,027
$61,445
$99,511
$21,134
$50,437
$124,088
$31,922
$52,930
$40,025
$21,224
$141,516
$50,108
$129,234

Applicant Award Amount
City of Mill Valley
City of Millbrae
City of Milpitas
City of Mission Viejo
City of Modesto
City of Monrovia
City of Montebello
City of Monterey
City of Monterey Park
City of Moorpark
City of Moreno Valley
City of Mountain View
City of Murrieta
City of Napa
City of National City
City of Needles
City of Newark
City of Newport Beach
City of Norco
City of Norwalk
City of Novato
City of Oakdale
City of Oakland
City of Oakley
City of Oceanside
City of Ojai
City of Ontario
City of Orange
City of Orinda
City of Oroville
City of Oxnard
City of Pacific Grove
City of Pacifica
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Palo Alto
City of Paramount
City of Parlier
City of Pasadena
City of Patterson
City of Perris
City of Pico Rivera
City of Piedmont
City of Pinole
City of Pittsburg
$21,535
$32,752
$107,661
$133,671
$310,078
$55,258
$89,694
$41,028
$86,123
$51,738
$296,171
$1 17,739
$163,340
$112,923
$89,461
$20,526
$69,886
$122,038
$37,822
$149,559
$76,407
$33,778
$614,794
$61,481
$250,127
$20,731
$257.526
$194,618
$27,916
$26,204
$289,476
$22,925
$54,428
$76,979
$68,329
$96,378
$78,823
$23,336
$205,808
$33,872
$1'12,331
$90,036
$21 ,1 10
$28,327
$106,019

Applicant Award Amount
City of Placentia
City of Placerville
City of Pleasant Hill
City of Pleasanton
City of Point Arena
City of Pomona
City of Porterville
City of Poway
City of Rancho Cordova
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
City of Redondo Beach
City of Redwood City
City of Reedley
City of Richmond
City of Ridgecrest
City of Rio Vista
City of Riverside
City of Rocklin
City of Rolling Hills
City of Rolling Hills Estates
City of Rosemead
City of Sacramento
City of Salinas
City of San Bernardino
City of San Bruno
City of San Buenaventura
City of San Carlos
e+tfefSaneemente
City of San Dimas
City of San Fernando
City of San Gabriel
City of San Jacinto
City of San Jose
City of San Juan Capistrano
City of San Leandro
City of San Marcos
City of San Marino
City of San Mateo
City of San Pablo
City of San Rafael
City of San Ramon
City of Sand City
$73,147
$21,070
$49,133
$111,477
$20,043
$214,282
$84,983
$69,995
$1 13,297
$247,840
$27,523
$59,573
$68,934
$94,725
$121 ,076
$37,794
$156,235
$42,732
$20,991
$458,065
$100,341
$20,183
$20,796
$77,454
$727,761
$226,806
$305,846
$64,358
$149,590
$43,047
$9+31€
$48,950
$35,916
$57,324
$73,283
$1,452,288
$51,484
$124,045
$136,747
$21,274
$146,250
$44,776
$84,201
$119,217
$20,038

Applicant Award Amount
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City of Sanger
City of Santa Barbara
City of Santa Clara
City of Santa Cruz
$39,578
$132,171
$185,289
$80,170
$152,451
$132,049
$44,282
$81,078
$20,723
$21 ,1 56
$46,298
$29,847
$21,047
$21,142
$176,441
$21,359
$35,493
$20,542
$31,042
$1 37,101
$34,005
$37,204
$95,643
$56,800
$41,733
$217,816
$20,702
$21,180
$159,957
$52,081
$177,791
$205,140
$139,987
$1 13,786
$43,262
$103,597
$111,677
$139,1 98
$167,109
$20,029
$20,566
$146,564
$43,076
$101,536
$38,820
of Santa Maria
of Santa Monica
of Santa Paula
of Santee
of Sausalito
of Scotts Valley
of Seaside
of Shafter
of Sierra Madre
of Signal Hill
of Simi Valley
of Solana Beach
of Soledad
of Solvang
of South El Monte
of South Gate
ity
ity
Ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
City cCCcCCcCCc
City of South Lake Tahoe
City of South Pasadena
City of South San Francisco
City of Stanton
City of Suisun City
City of Sunnyvale
of Taft
of Tehachapi
of Temecula
of Temple City
of Thousand Oaks
of Torrance
of Tracy
of Tustin
of Twentynine Palms
of Union City
of Upland
of Vacaville
City of Vallejo
City of Vernon
City of Villa Park
City of Vista
City of Walnut
City of Walnut Cr,eek
City of Wasco

City of Waterford
City of West Covina
City of West Hollywood
City of West Sacramento
City of Westlake Village
City of Westmorland
City of Whittier
City of Wildomar
City of Winters
City of Woodlake
City of Woodland
City of Yorba Linda
City of Yucaipa
Contra Costa County
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority
o City of Crescent City
o Del Norte County
E+D€mdo€oun$
f+esneeeun$
Heber Public Utility District
Homestead Valley Sanitary District
Kern County
Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District
Los Angeles County
Madera County
Marin County
[qenC€€ine€o$nry
Merced County
Midway City Sanitary District
Mono County
Monterey County
Mountain House Community Service District
Nevada County
Novato Sanitary District
Orange County
Oro Loma Sanitary District
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Placer County
Regional Waste Management Authority
. City of Live Oak
. City of Marysville
o City of Wheatland
. City of Yuba City
o Sutter County
Award Amount
w&e32
$24OJe3
$20,649
$20,231
$449,757
$43,309
$1,444,427
$106,687
$95,294
$s3J34
$131,133
$141,153
$20,538
$151,474
$35,556
$93,217
$75,890
$181 ,1 1
9 $191 ,284
$20,442
$162,553
$284,735
Applicant
$20,879
$'149,841
$51,941
$77,085
$20,804
$20,227
$122,505
$53,192
$20,749
$20,792
$86,966
$96,645
$79,434
$246,842
$168,262
$50,774

342
Applicant
o Yuba County
Riverside County
Rodeo Sanitary District
Rubidoux Community Services District
Sacramento County
San Benito County lntegrated Waste Management Regional
Agency
. City of Hollister
o City of San Juan Bautista
o San Benito County
Sa+Ce+na+dm€€oufiV
San Diego County
3:l lxi: 3ii:3: 3:xlil rntegrated waste Management
Authority
. California Valley Community Service District
. Cayucos Sanitary District
o City of Arroyo Grande
o City of Atascadero
o City of El Paso de Robles
o City of Grover Beach
. City of Morro Bay
o City of Pismo Beach
. City of San Luis Obispo
o Heritage Ranch Community Service Dishict
. Nipomo Community Service District
. Oceano Community Service District
. Templeton Community Service District
San Mateo County
Santa Barbara County
Santa Clara County (CEPA)
Santa Cruz County
Solano County
Sonoma County Waste Management Agency d.b.a. Zero
Waste Sonoma
o City of Cloverdale
c City of Cotati
o City of Healdsburg
o City of Petaluma
. City of Rohnert Park
. City of Santa Rosa
. City of Sebastopol
o City of Sonoma
o Sonoma County
o Town of Windsor
Award Amount
$550,518
$20,886
$53,174
$833,204
$108,766
$42932s
$703,210
$163,811
$371,025
$92,465
$188,960
$121 ,7',t3
$186,699
$26,912
$725,996

Applicant Award Amount
Strawberry Recreation District
Tamalpais Community Services District
Tehama County Solid Waste Management Agency
. City of Corning
. City of Red Bluff
o City of Tehama
o Tehama County
Town of Apple Valley
Town of Atherton
Town of Colma
Town of Danville
Town of Fairfax
Town of Hillsborough
Town of Loomis
Town of Los Altos Hills
Town of Moraga
Town of Ross
Town of San Anselmo
Town of Tiburon
Town of Truckee
Town of Woodside
Tulare County
Upper Valley Waste Management Agency
o City of Calistoga
. City of St. Helena
o Napa County
r Town of Yountville
Ventura County
West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority
. City of Campbell
o City of Monte Sereno
o City of Saratoga
. Town of Los Gatos
Yolo County
$20,s90
$20,688
$123,787
$131 ,025
$168,481
$105,81 1
$20,678
$20,163
$62,906
$20,737
$21,120
$20,669
$20,825
$24,734
$20,250
$21,247
$20,930
$23,879
$20,553
$203,512
$95,370
Total Award $41,
$37,167
782.906
$42p36+75
Revisions were made to the RFA because one iurisdiction qualified for round one fundino that was inadvertentlv olaced in round two fundinq. Seven iurisdictions did not fundinq and are subseouentlv moved

qualifu for round one
for consideration to round two
344
Zoe HeIIer5!li:',*,**
Digilally signed by Zoe
13:05122 -07'00'
Zoe Heller
Acting Deputy Director
Dated

Deputy Director Action
On the basis of the information and analysis in this Request for Approval and the findings set out herein, I hereby conditionally approve the grant awards for the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program as listed in Table 2. Each proposed grantee's award is subject to the following condition:
. The recommended grantee must pay all outstanding debts due to CalRecycle, or bring current any outstanding payments owed to CalRecycle, within 60 days of the date of the award email.
345
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 1 Exhibit A
Terms and Conditions
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program
Fiscal Year 2021–22
The following terms used in this Grant Agreement (Agreement) have the meanings given to them below, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
• "CalRecycle" means the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. • "Director" means the Director of CalRecycle or his or her designee. • "Grant Agreement" and "Agreement" means all documents comprising the agreement between CalRecycle and the grantee for this grant. • "Grant Manager" means CalRecycle staff person responsible for monitoring the grant.
• "Grantee" means the recipient of funds pursuant to this Agreement. • "Program" means the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program. • "State" means the State of California, including, but not limited to, CalRecycle and/or its designated officer.

Air or Water Pollution Violation
The grantee shall not be:
(a) In violation of any order or resolution not subject to review promulgated by the State Air Resources Board or an air pollution control district. (b) Out of compliance with any final cease and desist order issued pursuant to Water Code Section 13301 for violation of waste discharge requirements or discharge prohibitions.
(c) Finally determined to be in violation of provisions of federal law relating to air or water pollution.

Amendment
No amendment or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing, signed by the parties, and approved as required. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated into this Agreement is binding on any of the parties. This Agreement may be amended, modified or augmented by mutual consent of the parties, subject to the requirements and restrictions of this paragraph.

Americans with Disabilities Act
The grantee assures the state that it complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C.§ 12101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA.
346
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 2 Assignment, Successors, and Assigns
(a) This Agreement may not be assigned by the grantee, either in whole or in part, without CalRecycle’s prior written consent.
(b) The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of CalRecycle, the grantee, and their respective successors and assigns.

Audit/Records Access
The grantee agrees that CalRecycle, the Department of Finance, the Bureau of State Audits, or their designated representative(s) shall have the right to review and to copy any records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of this Agreement. The grantee agrees to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of three (3) years after final payment date or grant term end date, whichever is later, unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated, or until completion of any action and resolution of all issues which may arise as a result of any litigation, dispute, or audit, whichever is later. The grantee agrees to allow the designated representative(s) access to such records during normal business hours and to allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records. Further, the grantee agrees to include a similar right of the State to audit records and interview staff in any contract or subcontract related to performance of this Agreement.
[It may be helpful to share the Terms and Conditions (Exhibit A) and Procedures and Requirements (Exhibit B) with your finance department, contractors and subcontractors.

Examples of audit documentation include, but are not limited to: expenditure ledger, payroll register entries and time sheets, personnel expenditure summary form, travel expense log, paid warrants, contracts, change orders, invoices, and/or cancelled checks.]
Authorized Representative
The grantee shall continuously maintain a representative vested with signature authority authorized to work with CalRecycle on all grant-related issues. The grantee shall, at all times, keep the Grant Manager informed as to the identity and contact information of the authorized representative.

Availability of Funds
CalRecycle's obligations under this Agreement are contingent upon and subject to the availability of funds appropriated for this grant.

Bankruptcy/Declaration of Fiscal Emergency Notification If the grantee files for protection under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §901 et seq.) or declares a fiscal emergency at any time during the Grant Term, the grantee shall notify CalRecycle within 15 days of such filing or declaration, pursuant to the procedures set forth in the section entitled “Communications” herein. 347
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 3 Charter Cities
If the grantee is a charter city, a joint powers authority that includes one or more charter cities, or the regional lead for a regional program containing one or more charter cities, the grantee shall not receive any grant funding if such funding is prohibited by Labor Code section 1782. If it is determined that Labor Code section 1782 prohibits funding for the grant project, this Agreement will be terminated and any disbursed grant funds shall be returned to CalRecycle.

Child Support Compliance Act
For any agreement in excess of $100,000, the grantee acknowledges that:
(a) The grantee recognizes the importance of child and family support obligations and shall fully comply with all applicable state and federal laws relating to child and family support enforcement, including, but not limited to, disclosure of information and compliance with earnings assignment orders, as provided in Family Code Section 5200 et seq.
(b) The grantee, to the best of its knowledge, is fully complying with the earnings assignment orders of all employees, and is providing the names of all new employees to the New Hire Registry maintained by the California Employment Development Department.

Communications
All communications from the grantee to CalRecycle shall be directed to the Grant Manager. All notices, including reports and payment requests, required by this Agreement shall be given in writing by email, letter, or fax to the Grant Manager as identified in the Procedures and Requirements (Exhibit B). If an original document is required, prepaid mail or personal delivery to the Grant Manager is required following the email or fax.

Compliance
The grantee shall comply fully with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and permits. The grantee shall provide evidence, upon request, that all local, state, and/or federal permits, licenses, registrations, and approvals have been secured for the purposes for which grant funds are to be expended. The grantee shall maintain compliance with such requirements throughout the Grant Term. The grantee shall ensure that the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act are met for any approvals or other requirements necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. The grantee shall ensure that all of grantee’s contractors and subcontractors have all local, state, and/or federal permits, licenses, registrations, certifications, and approvals required to perform the work for which they are hired. Any deviation from the requirements of this section shall result in nonpayment of grant funds.

Conflict of Interest
The grantee needs to be aware of the following provisions regarding current or former state employees. If the grantee has any questions on the status of any person 348
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 4 rendering services or involved with this Agreement, CalRecycle must be contacted immediately for clarification.

Current State Employees (Pub. Contract Code, § 10410):
(a) No officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise from which the officer or employee receives compensation or has a financial interest and which is sponsored or funded by any state agency, unless the employment, activity, or enterprise is required as a condition of regular state employment. (b) No officer or employee shall contract on his or her own behalf as an independent contractor with any state agency to provide goods or services.

Former State Employees (Pub. Contract Code, § 10411):
(a) For the two-year period from the date he or she left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract in which he or she engaged in any of the negotiations, transactions, planning, arrangements or any part of the decision-making process relevant to the contract while employed in any capacity by any state agency.
(b) For the twelve-month period from the date he or she left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract with any state agency if he or she was employed by that state agency in a policy-making position in the same general subject area as the proposed contract within the twelve month period prior to his or her leaving state service.

If the grantee violates any provisions of above paragraphs, such action by the grantee shall render this Agreement void. (Pub. Contract Code, § 10420).

Contractors/Subcontractors
The grantee will be entitled to make use of its own staff and such contractors and subcontractors as are mutually acceptable to the grantee and CalRecycle. Any change in contractors or subcontractors must be mutually acceptable to the parties.

Immediately upon termination of any such contract or subcontract, the grantee shall notify the Grant Manager.

Nothing contained in this Agreement or otherwise, shall create any contractual relation between CalRecycle and any contractors or subcontractors of grantee, and no agreement with contractors or subcontractors shall relieve the grantee of its responsibilities and obligations hereunder. The grantee agrees to be as fully responsible to CalRecycle for the acts and omissions of its contractors and subcontractors and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by any of them as it is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by the grantee. The grantee's obligation to pay its contractors and subcontractors is an independent obligation from CalRecycle’s obligation to make payments to the grantee. As a result, CalRecycle shall have no obligation to pay or to enforce the payment of any moneys to any contractor or subcontractor.

Copyrights
Grantee retains title to any copyrights or copyrightable material produced pursuant to this Agreement. grantee hereby grants to CalRecycle a royalty-free, nonexclusive, 349
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 5 transferable, world-wide license to reproduce, translate, and distribute copies of any and all copyrightable materials produced pursuant this Agreement, for nonprofit, noncommercial purposes, and to have or permit others to do so on CalRecycle’s behalf.

Grantee is responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses, permissions, releases or authorizations to use text, images, or other materials owned, copyrighted, or trademarked by third parties and for extending such licenses, permissions, releases, or authorizations to CalRecycle pursuant to this section.

Corporation Qualified to do Business in California
When work under this Agreement is to be performed in California by a corporation, the corporation shall be in good standing and currently qualified to do business in the State. "Doing business" is defined in Revenue and Taxation Code Section 23101 as actively engaging in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit.

Discharge of Grant Obligations
The grantee's obligations under this Agreement shall be deemed discharged only upon acceptance of the final report by CalRecycle. If the grantee is a non-profit entity, the grantee’s Board of Directors shall accept and certify as accurate the final report prior to its submission to CalRecycle.

Disclaimer of Warranty
CalRecycle makes no warranties, express or implied, including without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, regarding the materials, equipment, services or products purchased, used, obtained and/or produced with funds awarded under this Agreement, whether such materials, equipment, services or products are purchased, used, obtained and/or produced alone or in combination with other materials, equipment, services or products. No CalRecycle employees or agents have any right or authority to make any other representation, warranty or promise with respect to any materials, equipment, services or products, purchased, used, obtained, or produced with grant funds. In no event shall CalRecycle be liable for special, incidental or consequential damages arising from the use, sale or distribution of any materials, equipment, services or products purchased or produced with grant funds awarded under this Agreement.

Discretionary Termination
The Director shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at his or her sole discretion at any time upon 30 days written notice to the grantee. Within 45 days of receipt of written notice, grantee is required to:
(a) Submit a final written report describing all work performed by the grantee. (b) Submit an accounting of all grant funds expended up to and including the date of termination.
(c) Reimburse CalRecycle for any unspent funds.

Disputes
In the event of a dispute regarding performance under this Agreement or interpretation of requirements contained therein, the grantee may, in addition to any other remedies 350
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 6 that may be available, provide written notice of the particulars of such dispute to the Branch Chief of Financial Resources Management Branch, Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, PO Box 4025, Sacramento, CA 95812-4025. Such written notice must contain the grant number.

Unless otherwise instructed by the Grant Manager, the grantee shall continue with its responsibilities under this Agreement during any dispute.

Drug-Free Workplace Certification
The person signing this Agreement on behalf of the grantee certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of California, that the grantee will comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Gov. Code, § 8350 et seq.) and will provide a drug-free workplace by taking the following actions:
(a) Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions that will be taken against employees for violations. (b) Establish a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about all of the following:
(1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace.
(2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace. (3) Any available counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs. (4) Penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations. (c) Require that each employee who works on the grant:
(1) Receive a copy of the drug-free policy statement of the grantee. (2) Agrees to abide by the terms of such statement as a condition of employment on the grant.

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under the Agreement or termination of the Agreement or both and grantee may be ineligible for award of any future State agreements if CalRecycle determines that the grantee has made a false certification, or violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above.

Effectiveness of Agreement
This Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by both parties.

Entire Agreement
This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, oral or written, made with respect to the subject hereof and, together with all attachments hereto, contains the entire agreement of the parties.

Environmental Justice
In the performance of this Agreement, the grantee shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that ensures the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income levels, including minority populations and low-income populations of the state. 351
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 7 Failure to Perform as Required by this Agreement
CalRecycle will benefit from the grantee's full compliance with the terms of this Agreement only by the grantee's:
(a) Investigation and/or application of technologies, processes, and devices which support reduction, reuse, and/or recycling of wastes.
(b) Cleanup of the environment.
(c) Enforcement of solid waste statutes and regulations, as applicable.

Therefore, the grantee shall be in compliance with this Agreement only if the work it performs results in:
(a) Application of information, a process, usable data or a product which can be used to aid in reduction, reuse, and/or recycling of waste.
(b) The cleanup of the environment.
(c) The enforcement of solid waste statutes and regulations, as applicable.

If the Grant Manager determines that the grantee has not complied with the Grant Agreement, the grantee may forfeit the right to reimbursement of any grant funds not already paid by CalRecycle, including, but not limited to, the 10 percent withhold.

Force Majeure
Neither CalRecycle nor the grantee, its contractors, vendors, or subcontractors, if any, shall be responsible hereunder for any delay, default, or nonperformance of this Agreement, to the extent that such delay, default, or nonperformance is caused by an act of God, weather, accident, labor strike, fire, explosion, riot, war, rebellion, sabotage, flood, or other contingencies unforeseen by CalRecycle or the grantee, its contractors, vendors, or subcontractors, and beyond the reasonable control of such party.

Forfeit of Grant Funds/Repayment of Funds Improperly
Expended
If grant funds are not expended, or have not been expended, in accordance with this Agreement, or if real or personal property acquired with grant funds is not being used, or has not been used, for grant purposes in accordance with this Agreement, the Director, at his or her sole discretion, may take appropriate action under this Agreement, at law or in equity, including requiring the grantee to forfeit the unexpended portion of the grant funds, including, but not limited to, the 10 percent withhold, and/or to repay to CalRecycle any funds improperly expended.

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
The grantee is required to use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in documenting all grant expenditures.

Grant Manager
The Grant Manager’s responsibilities include monitoring grant progress, and reviewing and approving Grant Payment Requests and other documents delivered to CalRecycle pursuant to this Agreement. The Grant Manager may monitor grantee performance to ensure that the grantee expends grant funds appropriately and in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions contained herein. The Grant Manager does not have the authority to approve any deviation from or revision to the Terms and Conditions 352
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 8 (Exhibit A) or the Procedures and Requirements (Exhibit B), unless such authority is expressly stated in the Procedures and Requirements (Exhibit B).

Grantee Accountability
The grantee is ultimately responsible and accountable for the manner in which the grant funds are utilized and accounted for and the way the grant is administered, even if the grantee has contracted with another organization, public or private, to administer or operate its grant program. In the event an audit should determine that grant funds are owed to CalRecycle, the grantee is responsible for repayment of the funds to CalRecycle.

Grantee's Indemnification and Defense of the State
The grantee agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the state and CalRecycle, and their officers, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, laborers, and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by the grantee as a result of the performance of this Agreement.

Grantee's Name Change
A written amendment is required to change the grantee's name as listed on this Agreement. Upon receipt of legal documentation of the name change, CalRecycle will process the amendment. Payment of Payment Requests presented with a new name cannot be paid prior to approval of the amendment.

In Case of Emergency
In the event of an emergency, or where there is an imminent threat to public health and safety or the environment, the grantee may choose, at its own risk, to incur granteligible expenses not previously included in the approved Budget, subject to subsequent approval by the Grant Manager of both the Budget change and the need to implement the Budget change on an emergency basis. The grantee shall notify the Grant Manager of the emergency and the Budget change at the earliest possible opportunity. CalRecycle reserves the right to accept or reject the grantee’s determination that the circumstances constituted an emergency or a threat to public health and safety or the environment. If the Grant Manager determines that the circumstances did not constitute an emergency or a threat to public health or safety, the Budget change will be disallowed.

No Agency Relationship Created/Independent Capacity
The grantee and the agents and employees of grantee, in the performance of this Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees or agents of CalRecycle.
353
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 9 No Waiver of Rights
CalRecycle shall not be deemed to have waived any rights under this Agreement unless such waiver is given in writing and signed by CalRecycle. No delay or omission on the part of CalRecycle in exercising any rights shall operate as a waiver of such right or any other right. A waiver by CalRecycle of a provision of this Agreement shall not prejudice or constitute a waiver of CalRecycle’s right otherwise to demand strict compliance with that provision or any other provision of this Agreement. No prior waiver by CalRecycle, nor any course of dealing between CalRecycle and grantee, shall constitute a waiver of any of CalRecycle’s rights or of any of grantee’s obligations as to any future transactions. Whenever the consent of CalRecycle is required under this Agreement, the granting of such consent by CalRecycle in any instance shall not constitute continuing consent to subsequent instances where such consent is required and in all cases such consent may be granted or withheld in the sole discretion of CalRecycle.

Non-Discrimination Clause
(a) During the performance of this Agreement, grantee and its contractors shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment on the bases enumerated in Government Code Section 12900 et seq.
(b) The person signing this Agreement on behalf of the grantee certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the grantee has, unless exempted, complied with the nondiscrimination program requirements (Gov. Code, § 12990, subd. (a-f) and California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 8103). (Not applicable to public entities.)
Order of Precedence
The performance of this grant shall be conducted in accordance with the Terms and Conditions (Exhibit A), Procedures and Requirements (Exhibit B), Project Summary/Statement of Use, Work Plan, and Budget of this Agreement, or other combination of Exhibits specified on the Grant Agreement Coversheet attached hereto (collectively referred to as “Terms”). Grantee’s CalRecycle-approved Application (Grantee’s Application) is hereby incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of conflict or inconsistency between the articles, exhibits, attachments, specifications or provisions that constitute this Agreement, the following order of precedence shall apply:
(a) Grant Agreement Coversheet and any Amendments thereto (b) Terms and Conditions
(c) Procedures and Requirements
(d) Project Summary/Statement of Use
(e) Budget
(f) Work Plan
(g) Grantee’s Application
(h) All other attachments hereto, including any that are incorporated by reference.

Ownership of Drawings, Plans and Specifications
The grantee shall, at the request of CalRecycle or as specifically directed in the Procedures and Requirements (Exhibit B), provide CalRecycle with copies of any data, drawings, design plans, specifications, photographs, negatives, audio and video 354
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 10 productions, films, recordings, reports, findings, recommendations, and memoranda of every description or any part thereof, prepared under this Agreement. Grantee hereby grants to CalRecycle a royalty-free, nonexclusive, transferable, world-wide license to reproduce, translate, and distribute copies of any and all such materials produced pursuant to this Agreement, for nonprofit, non-commercial purposes, and to have or permit others to do so on CalRecycle’s behalf.

Payment
(a) The approved Budget, if applicable, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and states the maximum amount of allowable costs for each of the tasks identified in the Work Plan, if applicable, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. CalRecycle shall reimburse the grantee for only the work and tasks specified in the Work Plan or the Grantee’s Application at only those costs specified in the Budget and incurred in the term of the Agreement. (b) The grantee shall carry out the work described in the Work Plan or in the Grantee’s Application in accordance with the approved Budget, and shall obtain the Grant Manager’s written approval of any changes or modifications to the Work Plan, approved project as described in the Grantee’s Application or the approved Budget prior to performing the changed work or incurring the changed cost. If the grantee fails to obtain such prior written approval, the Director, at his or her sole discretion, may refuse to provide funds to pay for such work or costs. (c) The grantee shall request reimbursement in accordance with the procedures described in the Procedures and Requirements (Exhibit B). (d) Ten percent will be withheld from each Payment Request and paid at the end of the grant term, when all reports and conditions stipulated in this Agreement have been satisfactorily completed. Failure by the grantee to satisfactorily complete all reports and conditions stipulated in this Agreement may result in forfeiture of any such funds withheld pursuant to CalRecycle’s 10 percent) retention policy. (e) Lodgings, Meals and Incidentals: Grantee’s Per Diem eligible costs are limited to the amounts authorized in the California State Administrative Manual (contact the Grant Manager for more information).
(f) Payment will be made only to the grantee.
(g) Reimbursable expenses shall not be incurred unless and until the grantee receives a Notice to Proceed as described in the Procedures and Requirements (Exhibit B).

Personnel Costs
If there are eligible costs pursuant to Exhibit B, Procedures and Requirements, any personnel expenditures to be reimbursed with grant funds must be computed based on actual time spent on grant-related activities and on the actual salary or equivalent hourly wage the employee is paid for his or her regular job duties, including a proportionate share of any benefits to which the employee is entitled, unless otherwise specified in the Procedures and Requirements (Exhibit B).

Real and Personal Property Acquired with Grant Funds
(a) All real and personal property, including equipment and supplies, acquired with grant funds shall be used by the grantee only for the purposes for which CalRecycle 355
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 11 approved their acquisition for so long as such property is needed for such purposes, regardless of whether the grantee continues to receive grant funds from CalRecycle for such purposes. In no event shall the length of time during which such property, including equipment and supplies, acquired with grant funds, is used for the purpose for which CalRecycle approved its acquisition be less than five (5) years after the end of the grant term, during which time the property, including equipment and supplies, must remain in the State of California.
(b) Subject to the obligations and conditions set forth in this section, title to all real and personal property acquired with grant funds, including all equipment and supplies, shall vest upon acquisition in the grantee. The grantee may be required to execute all documents required to provide CalRecycle with a security interest in any real or personal property, including equipment and supplies, and it shall be a condition of receiving this grant that CalRecycle shall be in first priority position with respect to the security interest on any such property acquired with the grant funds, unless preapproved in writing by the Grant Manager that CalRecycle will accept a lower priority position with respect to the security interest on the property. Grantee shall inform any lender(s) from whom it is acquiring additional funding to complete the property purchase of this grant condition.
(c) The grantee may not transfer Title to any real or personal property, including equipment and supplies, acquired with grant funds to any other entity without the express authorization of CalRecycle.
(d) CalRecycle will not reimburse the grantee for the acquisition of equipment that was previously purchased with CalRecycle grant funds, unless the acquisition of such equipment with grant funds is pre-approved in writing by the Grant Manager. In the event of a question concerning the eligibility of equipment for grant funding, the burden will be on the grantee to establish the pedigree of the equipment.

Reasonable Costs
A cost is reasonable if, in its nature or amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. Consideration will be given to:
(a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the performance of the grant.
(b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as generally accepted sound business practices, arms-length bargaining, federal and state laws and regulations, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
(c) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances, considering their responsibilities to the organization, its members, employees, clients, and the public at large.
(d) Significant deviations from the established practices of the organization which may unjustifiably increase the grant costs.

Recycled-Content Paper
All documents submitted by the grantee must be printed double-sided on recycledcontent paper containing 100 percent post-consumer fiber. Specific pages containing full color photographs or other ink-intensive graphics may be printed on photographic paper.
356
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 12 Reduction of Waste
In the performance of this Agreement, grantee shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that materials purchased or utilized in the course of the project are not wasted. Steps should include, but not be limited to: the use of used, reusable, or recyclable products; discretion in the amount of materials used; alternatives to disposal of materials consumed; and the practice of other waste reduction measures where feasible and appropriate.

Reduction of Waste Tires
Unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, in the performance of this Agreement, for all purchases made with grant funds, including, but not limited to equipment and tirederived feedstock, the grantee shall purchase and/or process only California waste tires and California waste tire-derived products. As a condition of final payment under this Agreement, the grantee must provide documentation substantiating the source of the tire materials used during the performance of this Agreement to the Grant Manager.

Reimbursement Limitations
Under no circumstances shall the grantee seek reimbursement pursuant to this Agreement for a cost or activity that has been or will be paid for through another funding source. The grantee shall not seek reimbursement for any costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other CalRecycle funded program.

All costs charged against the Agreement shall be net of all applicable credits. The term “applicable credits” refers to those receipts or reductions of expenditures that operate to offset or reduce expense items that are reimbursable under this Agreement. Applicable credits may include, but are not necessarily limited to, rebates or allowances, discounts, credits toward subsequent purchases, and refunds. Grantee shall, where possible, deduct the amount of the credit from the amount billed as reimbursement for the cost, or shall deduct the amount of the credit from the total billed under a future invoice.

Reliable Contractor Declaration
Prior to authorizing any contractor or subcontractor to commence work under this Grant, the grantee shall submit to CalRecycle a Reliable Contractor Declaration (CalRecycle 168) from the contractor or subcontractor, signed under penalty of perjury, disclosing whether of any of the events listed in Section 17050 of Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Natural Resources (https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/laws/regulations/title14), Division 7, has occurred with respect to the contractor or subcontractor within the preceding three (3) years. If a contractor is placed on CalRecycle’s Unreliable List after award of this Grant, the grantee may be required to terminate that contract.

Remedies
Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, the rights and remedies hereunder are in addition to, and not in limitation of, other rights and remedies under this Agreement, at law or in equity, and exercise of one right or remedy shall not be deemed a waiver of any other right or remedy.
357
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 13 Self-Dealing and Arm’s Length Transactions
All expenditures for which reimbursement pursuant to this Agreement is sought shall be the result of arm’s-length transactions and not the result of, or motivated by, self-dealing on the part of the grantee or any employee or agent of the grantee. For purposes of this provision, “arm’s-length transactions” are those in which both parties are on equal footing and fair market forces are at play, such as when multiple vendors are invited to compete for an entity’s business and the entity chooses the lowest of the resulting bids. “Self-dealing” is involved where an individual or entity is obligated to act as a trustee or fiduciary, as when handling public funds, and chooses to act in a manner that will benefit the individual or entity, directly or indirectly, to the detriment of, and in conflict with, the public purpose for which all grant monies are to be expended.

Severability
If any provisions of this Agreement are found to be unlawful or unenforceable, such provisions will be voided and severed from this Agreement without affecting any other provision of this Agreement. To the full extent, however, that the provisions of such applicable law may be waived, they are hereby waived to the end that this Agreement be deemed to be a valid and binding agreement enforceable in accordance with its terms.

Site Access
The grantee shall allow the state to access sites at which grant funds are expended and related work being performed at any time during the performance of the work and for ninety (90) days after completion of the work, or until all issues related to the grant project have been resolved.

Stop Work Notice
Immediately upon receipt of a written notice from the Grant Manager to stop work, the grantee shall cease all work under this Agreement.

Termination for Cause
CalRecycle may terminate this Agreement and be relieved of any payments should the grantee fail to perform the requirements of this Agreement at the time and in the manner herein provided. In the event of such termination, CalRecycle may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper by CalRecycle. All costs to CalRecycle shall be deducted from any sum due the grantee under this Agreement. Termination pursuant to this section may result in forfeiture by the grantee of any funds retained pursuant to CalRecycle’s 10 percent retention policy.

Time is of the Essence
Time is of the essence to this Agreement.

Tolling of Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations for bringing any action, administrative or civil, to enforce the terms of this Agreement or to recover any amounts determined to be owing to 358
CalRecycle’s Non-Competitive Grant Terms and Conditions – Revised 3/30/21 14 CalRecycle as the result of any audit of the grant covered by this Agreement shall be tolled during the period of any audit resolution, including any appeals by the grantee to the Director.

Union Organizing
By signing this Agreement, the grantee hereby acknowledges the applicability of Government Code Sections 16645, 16645.2, 16645.8, 16646, 16647, and 16648 to this Agreement and hereby certifies that:
(a) No grant funds disbursed by this grant will be used to assist, promote, or deter union organizing by employees performing work under this Agreement. (B) If the grantee makes expenditures to assist, promote, or deter union organizing, the grantee will maintain records sufficient to show that no state funds were used for those expenditures, and that grantee shall provide those records to the Attorney General upon request.

Venue/Choice of Law
(a) All proceedings concerning the validity and operation of this Agreement and the performance of the obligations imposed upon the parties hereunder shall be held in Sacramento County, California. The parties hereby waive any right to any other venue. The place where the Agreement is entered into and place where the obligation is incurred is Sacramento County, California. (b) The laws of the State of California shall govern all proceedings concerning the validity and operation of this Agreement and the performance of the obligations imposed upon the parties hereunder.

Waiver of Claims and Recourse against the State
The grantee agrees to waive all claims and recourse against the state, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and servants, including, but not limited to, the right to contribution for loss or damage to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or in any way connected with or incident to this Agreement. This waiver extends to any loss incurred attributable to any activity undertaken or omitted pursuant to this Agreement or any product, structure, or condition created pursuant to, or as a result of, this Agreement.

Work Products
Grantee shall provide CalRecycle with copies of all final products identified in the Work Plan. Grantee shall also provide CalRecycle with copies of all public education and advertising material produced pursuant to this Agreement.

Workers’ Compensation/Labor Code
The grantee is aware of Labor Code Section 3700, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the Labor Code, and the grantee agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement. 359
Procedures and Requirements
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (FY 2021–22) - First Round Funding Amended April 2022 1
January 2022
Amended April 2022
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Exhibit B
Procedures and Requirements
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant
Program
First Round Funding
Fiscal Year 2021–22
Copies of these Procedures and Requirements must be shared with both the Grantee’s Finance Department and the staff responsible for implementing the grant activities.
360
Procedures and Requirements
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (FY 2021–22) - First Round Funding Amended April 2022 2
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 Milestones...................................................................................................................... 3 Grants Management System (GMS)............................................................................. 3 Accessing the Grant .................................................................................................... 4 Contact Updates.......................................................................................................... 4 Prior to Commencing Work.......................................................................................... 5 Reliable Contractor Declaration................................................................................... 5 Grant Term..................................................................................................................... 6 Eligible Costs............................................................................................................... 6 Ineligible Costs ............................................................................................................ 7 Modifications................................................................................................................ 8 Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... 8 Reporting Requirements.............................................................................................. 9 Electronic and Original Signatures............................................................................... 9 Progress Report......................................................................................................... 10 Final Report ............................................................................................................... 10 Grant Payment Information........................................................................................ 10 Expenditure Itemization Summary and Documentation ......................................... 11 Unspent Funds....................................................................................................... 12 Audit Considerations.................................................................................................. 12 361
Procedures and Requirements
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (FY 2021–22) - First Round Funding Amended April 2022 3
Introduction
The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) administers the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program. These Procedures and Requirements describe project and reporting requirements, report due dates, report contents, grant payment conditions, eligible and ineligible project costs, project completion and closeout procedures, and records and audit requirements.

This document is attached to, and incorporated by reference, into the Grant Agreement.

Milestones
April 1, 2022: Grant Term Begins: Date CalRecycle sends the award email October November 3, 2022: Expenditure Itemization Summary 1 Due  Covering expenses from April 1, 2022, the Grant Term Start Date through October November 2, 2022
April May 3, 2023: Expenditure Itemization Summary 2 Due  Covering expenses from October November 3, 2022, through April May 2, 2023
October November 2, 2023: Expenditure Itemization Summary 3 Due  Covering expenses from April May 3, 2023, through October November 1, 2023
April May 2, 2024: Expenditure Itemization Summary 4 Due  Covering expenses from October November 2, 2023, through May 2, 2024 April May 2, 2024: Final Report Due
 Covering activities from April 1, 2022 the Grant Term Start Date through April May 2, 2024
April May 2, 2024: Grant Term End
Note: These dates are subject to change. If they change, Grant Managers will notify the Awardees immediately.

Grants Management System (GMS)
GMS is CalRecycle’s web-based grant application and Grants Management System.

Access to GMS is secure; grantees must log in using a WebPass. WebPass accounts are tied to a specific email address. If an email address changes, or if it becomes inactive, the grantee must create a new WebPass account to continue accessing GMS.

Establish or manage a WebPass at CalRecycle’s WebPass page (https://secure.calrecycle.ca.gov/WebPass/).
362
Procedures and Requirements
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (FY 2021–22) - First Round Funding Amended April 2022 4
Accessing the Grant
Grantees must log in to GMS (https://secure.calrecycle.ca.gov/Grants) using their web pass. After logging in, locate the grant in the My Awarded/Open Grants table and select the Grant Management link. The Grant Management Module includes the following sections:
 Summary tab: Shows approved budget, paid and remaining amounts. (This section is available to the grantee in read-only mode.)  Payment Request tab: Grantee uploads expenditure documentation.  Reports tab: Grantee uploads required reports.
 Documents tab: Grantee uploads all other grant documents that are not supporting documents for an expenditure or a report. This section also provides access to documents that were uploaded within other sections of GMS.

Follow the instructions in GMS to work in the system. The following sections describe the reports, transactions, and supporting documents CalRecycle requires.

Contact Updates
Access to the grant is limited to those listed in the Contacts tab of the Application Module with the “Allow Access” check box marked. A contact may be listed but not granted access by not checking the box. Please note, if a contact is granted access to a grant, they will be able to edit contacts, submit payment requests, upload reports, and view all documents. Those with access may update contact information for all contact types except Signature Authority. Email the assigned Grant Manager regarding any changes to Signature Authority information.
363
Procedures and Requirements
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (FY 2021–22) - First Round Funding Amended April 2022 5
Prior to Commencing Work
Prior to commencing work under this grant, the grantee’s Grant Manager or primary contact and authorized grant Signature Authority should review the Terms and Conditions (Exhibit A) and the Procedures and Requirements (Exhibit B) to identify key grant administrative requirements. Evaluation of the grantee’s compliance with these requirements is a major focus of grant audits.

Reliable Contractor Declaration
Prior to authorizing a contractor or subcontractor to commence work under this grant, the grantee shall submit to the Grant Manager a declaration from the contractor or subcontractor, signed under penalty of perjury, stating that within the preceding three (3) years, none of the events listed in section 17050 of Title 14 (https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Regulations/Title14/), California Code of Regulations, Natural Resources, Division 7, has occurred with respect to the contractor or subcontractor. The grantee must submit this form for each contractor and subcontractor working under the grant.

If a contractor or subcontractor is placed on the CalRecycle Unreliable Contractor List (https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Funding/Unreliability/) after award of this grant, the grantee may be required to terminate the contract. Obtain the Reliable Contractor Declaration form (CalRecycle 168) from CalRecycle's Grant Forms web page (https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Funding/Forms/).

The grantee must upload a scanned copy of each signed Reliable Contractor Declaration form in GMS. To upload the form:

1. Go to the Reports tab.

2. Click on Reliable Contractor Declaration under Report Type.

3. Click the Add Document button.

4. Select Reliable Contractor Declaration in the Document Type drop down box, enter a document title, click the Browse button to search and upload the document, and then Save.

5. Click on the Submit Report button.

For further instructions regarding GMS, including login directions, see the “Grants Management System” section (above).
364
Procedures and Requirements
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (FY 2021–22) - First Round Funding Amended April 2022 6
Grant Term
The Grant Term begins on the date CalRecycle sends the award email April 1, 2022 and ends on April May 2, 2024. The grantee must make all grant-eligible program expenditures and incur all grant-eligible costs within this period. Expenditures made or costs incurred prior to April 1, 2022 the grant term start date or after the grant term end date will be considered ineligible.

The Final Report, final Expenditure Itemization Summary, and Certification Document are due on April May 2, 2024.

Eligible Costs
Grantees may incur eligible costs only during the Grant Term, which starts on the date CalRecycle sends the award email and ends on May 2, 2024 April 1, 2022 and ends April 2, 2024. All grant expenditures must be for activities, products, and costs specifically included in the approved Budget. Costs must be incurred after the term start date. All services must be provided and goods received during this period in order to be eligible costs.

Eligible costs include:
 Personnel
 Consultants
 Safety Equipment
 Vehicles/Trucks
o For compost procurement activities - Vehicles/tractors, turf tires, forklifts or compost slingers
Note: The Grantee needs to own and control the vehicle, however they may allow participants to use the vehicle for grant implementation purposes only.  Education and Outreach materials
o Print Media
o Television, radio, video, and social media
o Materials offered in other languages
 Door-to-Door Outreach
 Signage
 Recordkeeping or tracking software
o Software to match donor with food bank
o Recordkeeping/reporting software
o Procurement tracking software
o Apps for food recovery
 Inspections and Enforcement
 Training
 Tablet/Electronic Devices (seven inches or more measured diagonally) used for the purposed of organic tracking and Education and Outreach o Maximum price of $500 (excluding sales tax) and limit to one (exceptions may be approved on a case-by-case basis)
o Accessories used for security, protection, and charging 365
Procedures and Requirements
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (FY 2021–22) - First Round Funding Amended April 2022 7
 Equipment
o For larger items, The Grantee needs to own and control the equipment, however, they may allow participants use of said equipment for grant implementation purposes.
 Bins (green and blue only) and lids
o Includes, but is not limited to, curbside, small household food waste pail, labeling, and liners
 Procurement of recovered/recycled organic products
 Equipment
o Food distribution - included refrigeration, coolers, and packing materials Ineligible Costs
Any costs not specifically included in the approved Budget and not directly related to grant implementation will be considered ineligible. The grantee should contact the Grant Manager if clarification is needed.

Ineligible costs include, but are not limited to:
 Costs incurred prior to April 1, 2022 the Term Start Date or after April May 2, 2024
 Development, purchase, or distribution of strictly promotional give-away items Stuff We All Get, (SWAG) (https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Funding/SWAG/)  Purchase or lease of land or buildings
 Equipment or services not directly related to grant implementation  Food dehydrators or liquefiers
 Disposal costs
 Costs currently covered by or incurred under any other CalRecycle loan, grant, or contract
 Cell phones
 Purchase of data plans and/or mobile service plans/hotspots  Costs related to website host and web page domain
 Audit expenses
 Sponsorship or licensing fees for events/programs
 Out-of-state travel
 Conferences and symposiums
 Food or beverages (e.g., as part of meetings, workshops, or events)  Travel costs exceeding the state-approved rates for mileage, per diem, lodging, etc.
o Refer to the Memorandum
(https://www.calhr.ca.gov/employees/Pages/travel-reimbursements.aspx) for travel policies.
o Reimbursement rates are subject to change at any time by the State of California without prior notification.
 Personnel costs not directly related to grant activities  Fines or penalties due to violation of federal, state, or local laws, ordinances, or regulations
 Any costs for construction projects by charter cities prohibited by Labor Code section 1782
 Any costs not consistent with local, state, or federal laws, guidelines, and regulations
366
Procedures and Requirements
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (FY 2021–22) - First Round Funding Amended April 2022 8
 The total amount of indirect costs charged to the grant shall not exceed 10 percent of the grant funds reimbursed. These costs are expenditures not capable of being assigned or not readily itemized to a particular project or activity but considered necessary for the operation of the organization and the performance of the program. The costs of operating and maintaining facilities, accounting services, and administrative salaries as well as contractor’s indirect costs in their contracts, are examples of indirect costs. All indirect costs charged to the grant must be associated with grant activities.
 Costs deemed unreasonable or not related to the project by the Grant Manager Modifications
The grantee must submit any proposed revision(s) to the project in writing to the Grant Manager. The grantee may not incur costs or make expenditures based on the revision without first receiving the Grant Manager’s written approval. Proposed revisions must be accompanied by a summary of proposed changes or modifications, including justification for the proposed changes. If approved, the Grant Manager will upload the final revised changes to GMS and notify the grantee. The grantee should retain the approval document(s) for audit purposes. See the “Audit Record/Access” section of the Terms and Conditions (Exhibit A).

Acknowledgements
The grantee shall acknowledge CalRecycle’s support each time a project is funded, in whole or in part, by this Agreement is publicized in any medium, including news media, brochures, or other types of promotional materials. The acknowledgement of CalRecycle’s support must incorporate the CalRecycle logo. Initials or abbreviations for CalRecycle shall not be used. The Grant Manager may approve deviation from this requirement on a case-by-case basis where such deviation is consistent with CalRecycle’s Communication Strategy and Outreach Plan.

The following items require acknowledgement of funding from CalRecycle and preapproval from the CalRecycle Grant Manager prior to incurring the expense:
 All television, radio and video scripts
 Functional premiums, if the per unit price is greater than $6.00  Advertisements
 Audio and/or visual material
 Brochures
 Newspaper ads
 Pamphlets
 Other outreach
All publicity and education materials must include the following:

1. “Funded by a grant from CalRecycle.” Exception: The acknowledgement line is not required on small items where space constraints would not allow for this line or if it would interfere with the message.
o There are two acceptable Spanish translations: “Financiado por una beca del CalRecycle” or “Patrocinado por fondos del CalRecycle.” For other languages, the Grantee must work with a certified translator or person fluent in reading and writing that language. All exceptions must be preapproved in writing by the CalRecycle Grant Manager. 367
Procedures and Requirements
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (FY 2021–22) - First Round Funding Amended April 2022 9

2. CalRecycle logo (https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/gallery/) as reflected on the CalRecycle website, can be obtained from the Office of Public Affairs at [email protected].

3. Press Releases – the only requirement is to place the name of “CalRecycle” as an acknowledgement in the body of the release.

Reporting Requirements
The Grant Agreement requires a Final Report; however, the Grant Manager may require additional status information at any time during the Grant Term. Failure to submit the Final Report with appropriate documentation by the due date may result in forfeiture by the grantee of any unspent funds received under this agreement, and repayment of all funds to CalRecycle.

The grantee must upload all reports in GMS. For further instructions regarding GMS, including login directions, see the “Grants Management System” section (above).

To upload a report:

1. Go to the Reports tab.

2. Click on the appropriate Report Type.

3. Click on the Add Document button.

4. Choose the Document Type, enter a document title, click the Browse button to search and upload the document, and then Save.
 Select the Back button to upload another document and continue the process until all required documents as listed below are uploaded.  The maximum allowable file size for each document is 35MB.

5. Click the Submit Report button to complete your report submittal. The Submit Report button will not be enabled until all required reporting documents are uploaded.

Failure to comply with the specified reporting requirements may be considered a breach of the Grant Agreement and may result in the termination of the Grant Agreement, and/or forfeiture by the grantee of claims for costs incurred that might otherwise have been eligible for grant funding. The grantee must report any problems or delays immediately to the Grant Manager.

Electronic and Original Signatures
CalRecycle now allows for certified e-Signature or original wet signature on documents or forms that certify legally binding information.

Note: E-signatures must include the first and last name of the Signature Authority, be in the Adobe Digital ID format (or through another certified digital signature program) and cannot be the “Fill and Sign” function within Adobe. Any documents using the “Fill and Sign” method is considered incomplete and may be sent back to the grantee.

If you have questions, email [email protected]. 368
Procedures and Requirements
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (FY 2021–22) - First Round Funding Amended April 2022 10
Progress Report
Grantees with awards over $1,000,000 will need to collect and submit information on any jobs created or paid by the grant on a bi-annual basis. Grant Managers will work with Grantees on when and how to submit the information. CalRecycle will provide a report template at a later date. Progress reports must include the following:
 Jobs
o Provide number of jobs created and paid for in whole or in part by this grant during the reporting period. Include job title or classification, job permanence, total project work hours, hourly pay rates or salaries, as well as benefits from the job, such as healthcare, paid vacation or sick leave and hiring strategy.
 Jobs provided to members of Priority Populations.
o In addition to the item, above, provide the same jobs information for any positions filled by members of priority populations. More information about Priority Populations can be found at California Air Resources Board Priority Population Investments webpage (www3.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/communityinvestm ents.htm).

Note: This requirement is subject to change at CalRecycle’s discretion. If any reporting requirement changes, Grant Managers will notify the Awardees.

Final Report
The Final Report is due April May 2, 2024 (report template will be provided at a later date). This report should cover grant activities from April 1, 2022 the Term Start Date through April May 2, 2024. The grantee must include the following items in the Final Report:

1. The Grant Number, grantee’s name, and Grant Term.

2. The following disclaimer statement on the cover page:
“The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the grantee and not necessarily those of the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), its employees, or the State of California. The state makes no warranty, express or implied, and assumes no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text.”
Note: This requirement is subject to change at CalRecycle’s discretion. If any reporting requirement changes, Grant Managers will notify the Grantees.

Grant Payment Information
 CalRecycle will make grant payments to only the grantee. It is the grantee’s responsibility to pay all contractors and subcontractors for purchased goods and services. CalRecycle will make payments to the grantee as promptly as fiscal procedures permit.
 The grantee must provide a Reliable Contractor Declaration (CalRecycle 168) (https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Funding/forms/) signed under penalty of perjury by the grantee’s contractors and subcontractors in accordance with the “Reliable Contractor Declaration” section of the Terms and Conditions (Exhibit A). The declaration must be received and approved by the Grant Manager prior to 369
Procedures and Requirements
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (FY 2021–22) - First Round Funding Amended April 2022 11
commencement of work. See the “Reliable Contractor Declaration” section in Terms and Conditions (Exhibit A) for more information.

Expenditure Itemization Summary and Documentation
The grantee must submit the EIS and Certification Document (a template will be provided at a later date) in GMS. For further instructions regarding GMS, including login directions, see the “Grants Management System” section (above). Please refer to the “Milestones” section (above) for required due dates.
 Expenditure Itemization Summary (EIS)
o All expenditures must be itemized and arranged by the reporting and expenditure categories as contained in the grantee’s Budget tab. o Grantees are required to maintain supporting documentation pertaining to the EIS and may be required to provide them at the request of the Grant Manager at any time.
 Certification Document
o The Signature Authority will need to certify under penalty of perjury that information provided in the EIS is correct.

Note: This requirement is subject to change at CalRecycle’s discretion. If any expenditure reporting requirement changes, Grant Managers will notify the Awardees.

Failure to submit the EIS and Certification Document by the due date may result in the forfeiture by the grantee of claims for costs incurred that might otherwise have been eligible for grant funding.

To submit an EIS:

1. Go to the Payment Request tab.

2. Click on the Create a Payment Request button.
a. Choose Advance Reconcile for the Transaction Type and enter the amount spent in each budget subcategory.
b. When the transaction is complete, click the Save button. c. After the transaction is saved, the Upload Supporting Documents button will appear in the lower right corner.

3. Click the Upload Supporting Documents button.
a. Choose the Document Type, enter a document title, click the Browse button to search and upload the document, and then Save. b. Select the Back button to upload another document and continue this process until all required supporting documents as listed below are uploaded.
c. The maximum allowable file size for each document is 35MB.

4. Click the Submit Transaction button, located on the transaction page, to complete your payment request. The Submit Transaction button will not be enabled until all required supporting documents are uploaded.

Note: Once a transaction is saved, select the transaction number from the Payment Request tab to access it again. Please do not create multiple transactions for the same requested funds.
370
Procedures and Requirements
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (FY 2021–22) - First Round Funding Amended April 2022 12
Unspent Funds
Funds that are unspent at the end of the grant term must be returned by check to CalRecycle by June 15, 2024 May 16, 2024. Checks should be made payable to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Checks must contain the Grant Number (i.e., OWR1-21-xxxx), specify “SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Unspent Funds,” and be mailed to:

CalRecycle Accounting
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Unspent Funds
PO Box 4025
Sacramento, CA 95812-4025
Unspent funds due to CalRecycle but left unpaid may result in ineligibility for future grant and payment program funding. If there are questions or other issues related to expenditures, work with your Grant Manager to resolve these issues.

Audit Considerations
The grantee agrees to maintain records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of this grant subject to possible audit for a minimum of three (3) years after Final Report approval date or Grant Term end date, whichever is later. CalRecycle may stipulate a longer period of records retention in order to complete any action and/or resolution of all issues which may arise as a result of any litigation, dispute, or audit, whichever is later.

Examples of audit documentation include, but are not limited to, competitive bids, grant amendments, copies of any agreements with contractors or subcontractors if utilized, expenditure ledger, payroll register entries, time sheets, Expenditure Itemization Summary forms, payment supporting documentation, paid warrants, contracts and change orders, samples of items and materials developed with grant funds, invoices, and cancelled checks. Please refer to the Terms and Conditions (Exhibit A) for more information.
371
372
373
374
375
Resolution No. 1299 1
RESOLUTION NO. 1299

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF

GRANT FUNDING FROM CALRECYCLE IN THE AMOUNT
OF $20,183; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER,

OR DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY

DOCUMENTS TO MEET THE GRANT REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE SB 1383 LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT

PROGRAM

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals.

A. The City of Rolling Hills (“City”) applied to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (“CalRecycle”) for the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program for a one-time grant meant to aid in the implementation of regulations adopted by CalRecycle.

B. The SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program is a non-competitive grant program that provides $57,000,000 of funding to local jurisdictions to assist with the implementation of regulation requirements associated with SB 1383.

C. CalRecycle awarded the City a one-time grant in the amount of $20,183 to aid in the implementation of the SB 1383 requirements.

D. The City Council desires to accept the grant funds from CalRecycle and to direct the City Manager, or designee, to execute any necessary documents to meet the grant requirements.

Section 2. The City Council hereby accepts the award of the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program grant in the amount of $20,183 from CalRecycle to be used for implementation of the SB 1383 requirements.

Section 3. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or her designee, to execute any necessary documents to meet the grant requirements. The City Manager, or her designee, is also authorized to take necessary action to comply with the grant requirements.

Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of May, 2022. 376
Resolution No. 1299 2
______________________________
JAMES BLACK, M.D.

MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK
377
Resolution No. 1299 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
The foregoing Resolution No. 1299 entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING

HILLS AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDING FROM
CALRECYCLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,183; AND AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER, OR DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY

DOCUMENTS TO MEET THE GRANT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SB
1383 LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23rd day of May, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK
378
Agenda Item No.: 7.L
Mtg. Date: 05/23/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT SAMARIO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: REPORT BY BUDGET/AUDIT/FINANCE COMMITTEE ON MEETING HELD ON MAY 9, 2022
DATE: May 23, 2022
BACKGROUND:

Annually, the City Manager presents a budget to the Finance/Audit/Budget Committee followed by a budget workshop with the City Council. In preparing the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the priorities and goals discussed at the 2022 City Council Strategic Planning Session were taken into consideration and programmed accordingly.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee met on May 9th to receive a presentation of the FY 22/23 proposed budget..

REVENUE PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2021/22 AND 2022-2023 The development of the fiscal year 2022/23 projected revenues began with a projection of current year revenues. With only nine months of revenues recorded, the year-end revenue totals were projected based on several factors, including prior year results, current year trends, and other pertinent data.

By far, the largest General Fund revenue is derived from property taxes. The current year adopted budget of $1,249,800 assumed a 4% growth. Staff expects actual revenues at year end will be $1,281,715 representing a growth of 4.8%. For fiscal year 2022/23, staff recommends again using a growth rate assumption of 4%, which would translate into a projected revenue of $1,333,000. The 4% growth rate consists of a CPI factor of 2%, which is the maximum increase allowed under Proposition 13, plus another 2% growth based on reassessments for resales and home improvements.

A related revenue is Property Transfer Tax. Whenever a real estate property is sold in the City of Rolling Hills, a transfer tax is levied at $1.10 for every $1,000 in the sale price. The tax is split 50/50 between the City of Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County. In fiscal year 2020/21, revenues totaled $96,433. This fiscal year revenues are expected to reach $117,986. For 379
fiscal year 2022/23, staff recommends an assumed growth of 2% as a conservative approach given the recent spike in mortgage rates will likely result in fewer home sales.

The second largest General Fund revenue is from Building & Other Permits. These revenues have experienced a dramatic decline as a result of the pandemic, dropping to $183,378 in fiscal year 2020/21. Before the pandemic, building-related permit revenues exceeded $700,000. With the pandemic seemingly waning, revenues have experienced a moderate rebound. Based on revenues received through March 31, 2022, staff estimates revenues at year end at $472,969. Accordingly, staff proposes estimated revenues for fiscal year 2022/23 of $475,000, recognizing that if the current trend continues, revenue could be higher.

Motor Vehicle In Lieu (MVIL) tax revenues are fairly flat from the prior year. Projected fiscal year 2021/22 revenues of $246,694 are 4.2% higher than last year. Staff recommends a assuming a 2% growth and total revenues for next fiscal year $252,000. The unknown is to what degree higher interest rates, which affect rates offered on car loans, will affect new car sales. Otherwise, MVIL taxes trend downward absent new car sales as the tax rate is applied on a depreciating scale.

In total, staff recommends total General Fund budgeted revenues of $2,399,289, which are $274,989 higher than fiscal year 2021/22 adopted revenues, buoyed primarily by the increase in property taxes and building permit revenues.

The committee had no concerns with the revenue projections as presented.

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 The proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year projects $3,137,956 in expenditures. The proposed expenditures would result in a deficit of $738,667 before transfers and a deficit of $2,008,167 after transfers in and out. The following highlights the proposed expenditures:

Increased allocations to Emergency Preparedness for wildfire mitigation measures, Block Captain Program, fire fuel abatement in the Preserve, citywide emergency alert drill, Emergency Information System (EIS) support, Alert Southbay subscription and asneeded consulting services.

3.5% Cost of Living Adjustment to salaries
Increased City Attorney fee based on BBK's activities of the last two fiscal years Fees for the November 2022 Municipal Election
Fees for records management
Increased Finance Department fee for grants management, reimbursement support, restricted funds management, benefits/pension activities for city personnel, and technology implementation.

Update to the 1990 General Plan and companion environmental assessment.

Contracted code enforcement services.

Fee for a grant writer to pursue fund for sewer project Budget for expanded resident services (i.e., outdoor movie night).

Budget for Human Resource support.

Anticipated subsidy to absorb the cost increase to residents' refuse fees.

Capital Improvement Cost for the City Hall ADA design, and construction. 380
OTHER FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
Majority of the restricted funds such as Proposition C, Measure R, Measure M, and Measure A are expected to roll the revenue to future years to save up for eligible projects. The following summarizes the anticipated activities of the other restricted funds for next fiscal year:

Measure W's expenditure plan for FY 2022-2023 was previously approved by the City Council in March 2022 and submitted to the Los Angeles County for approval. It is anticipated that $80,000 of Measure W would be spent on eligible storm water compliance measures.

The City of Beverly Hills expressed interest in $45,200 of Prop A exchange.

The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery funds (American Rescue Plan Act - ARPA) is expected to provide half of the overall allocation.

The Capital Projects fund includes $96,000 for Pacific Architecture Engineers' design fee recently approved by the City Council for the development of layout Option 3 and $1M for construction of the City Hall ADA Improvement project.

The Refuse fund anticipates absorbing the expected refuse rate increase for residents.

The newly established Fund 16 Cal OES captures the grants awarded to the city in the last two years with transfers from the Utility Fund (Southern California Edison Rule 20 credits) for grant match.

The committee expressed concern with some expenditure numbers specific to employees.

Staff has corrected those items and they will be presented as part of the Budget Workshop.

The committee asked for clarifications on expense line item fluctuations. Staff explained that they were re-assigning expenditures to more appropriate categories to ensure clarity and transparency. The committee expressed concerns about proposed election costs being high.

Staff has been able to subsequently converse with Los Angeles County's Registrar, Recorder and County Clerk and has modified the projected costs based on their input. The committee expressed concern about more clearly understanding the difference between what constitutes as core budget ongoing expenditures versus one-time capital expenses. Staff has broken out these numbers to help present a clearer picture during the workshop. The committee expressed concerns about stormwater compliance costs. Staff explained that the number do not necessarily reflect Measure W offsets which come later and replenish monies expended by the general fund. The committee requested seeing fund sources and expenditures broken out. The committee expressed concern about expenditures related to the general plan updates and recommend delaying the process of updating elements for the time being unless absolutely required. The Committee expressed concerns with the overall budget and projected deficit spending.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and File
ATTACHMENTS:
381
Agenda Item No.: 7.M
Mtg. Date: 05/23/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1298 MEMORIALIZING A REDUCTION IN THE SELF-INSURANCE FUND RESERVES FROM $500,000 TO
$250,000
DATE: May 23, 2022
BACKGROUND:

At the May 9, 2022 City Council meeting, the Council unanimously voted to reduce the Municipal Self-Insurance Reserve Fund Balance to $250,000 and directed staff to prepare a resolution memorializing the reduction.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve as presented.

ATTACHMENTS:

ResolutionNo1298_AdministrativeFinancialPolicy.pdf
FN_POL_220518_AdminProcedures_BudgetDebtPolicies.pdf
382
1 RESOLUTION NO. 1298

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ROLLING HILLS APPROVING THE FINANCIAL, BUDGET

AND DEBT POLICIES IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE

POLICY/PROCEDURES

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals.

A. Each year, the City Council reviews the City’s policies to identify whether changes need to be made.

B. The Finance Committee considered the Financial, Budget and Debt Policies in the Administrative Policy/Procedures and recommended reducing the self-insurance fund from $500,000 to $250,000.

C. On May 9, 2022, the City Council considered the Finance Committee’s recommendation to amend the Financial, Budget and Debt Policies.

Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the Financial, Budget and Debt Policies in the Administrative Policy/Procedures, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of May, 2022. ______________________________
JAMES BLACK, M.D.

MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK
383
2 EXHIBIT A
384
65277.00001\40089220.1
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/23/2022 1

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADMINISTRATIVE

POLICY/PROCEDURES

FINANCIAL, BUDGET AND DEBT POLICIES
Original Version Effective: 09/24/2007 See end of document for complete policy history
Current Version Effective: 05/23/2022
Policy Framework:

The purpose of the Financial, Budget and Debt Policies is to guide the City Council and other City officials in developing sustainable, balanced budgets and managing the City’s finances in a prudent manner consistent with best practices. The City’s commitment to adopting and operating within a balanced budget is a core financial value and policy of the City.

The City of Rolling Hills Financial Policies represents the City’s framework for planning and management of the City’s fiscal resources. Adherence to the Financial Policies promote sound financial management which can lead to unqualified annual audits, provide assurance to the taxpayers that tax dollars are being collected and spent per City Council direction and provide a minimum of unexpected impacts upon taxpayers and users of public services.

The City Council Finance / Budget Committee shall serve as the City’s audit committee for the purpose of recommending the selection of an auditor to the City Council, meeting with the City Auditor, reviewing the annual audit and necessary financial statements, responding to conflicts between management and the auditor and responding to fraudulent activities. The City Council will conduct a competitive process for the selection of the independent external auditor every 6 years to be in conformance with California Government Code Section 12410.6(b). Any non- audit work performed by the independent external auditor, if allowed, will be done under a separate contract approved by the City Council.

The City Manager shall be responsible for developing and, as appropriate, implementing and managing these policies as well as subsidiary policies that execute the City’s Financial Policies.

The City’s Financial Policies shall be in conformance with all state and federal laws, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA).
385
65277.00001\40089220.1
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/23/2022 2

1. Financial Reporting Entity:

The City of Rolling Hills was incorporated in 1957 under the general laws of the State of California. The City operates under the Council-Manager form of government. The City Council consists of five members elected at large for overlapping four-year terms. The Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem are selected from the City Council members and serve a oneyear term. The City Council appoints a City Manager, City Attorney and City Treasurer.

In addition, the City Council appoints the members of advisory Commissions and Committees.

The City, directly or by contract, provides municipal services as authorized by statute.

Services provided include:
• Public safety through the Los Angeles County Sheriff and Fire Department • Refuse collection by contract with a private hauler
• Water through California Water Service Company
• Sewer through Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts • Recreation
• Public improvements
• Planning and zoning
• General administrative and support services

2. Financial Reporting Policies:

The City’s accounting and financial reporting systems will be maintained in conformance with all state and federal laws, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). Further, the City will make every attempt to implement all changes to governmental accounting practices at the earliest practical time.
• The financial report should be in conformity with GAAP, demonstrate compliance with finance related legal and contractual provisions, disclose thoroughly with detail sufficient to minimize ambiguity and potential for misleading interferences.
• An annual audit will be performed by an independent public accounting firm with an audit opinion to be included with the City’s published Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
• The City’s budget should satisfy criteria as a financial and programmatic policy document, as a comprehensive financial plan, as an operations guide for all organizational units and as a communications device for all significant budgetary issues, trends, and resource choices. • The City shall evaluate the fiscal impact of proposed changes in employee benefits to be provided. Prior to assuming liability for expanded benefits, 386
65277.00001\40089220.1
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/23/2022 3
a viable funding plan with estimates of long term impacts shall be incorporated into the analysis.
• The City shall endeavor to avoid committing to new spending for operating or capital improvement purposes until an analysis of all current and future cost implications is completed.
• The City shall endeavor to maintain cash reserves sufficient to fully fund the next present value of accruing liabilities, obligations to employees for vested payroll and benefits and similar obligations as they are incurred. • The City shall prepare and present to the City Council monthly interim revenue and expenditure reports and a Mid-Year Review to allow evaluation of potential discrepancies from budget assumptions.

3. Internal Control Accounting Policies:

To provide a reasonable basis for making management’s required representations concerning the finances of the City.
• Accounting Records – Maintain accounting records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
• Monthly Posting – Post a monthly record, which maintains each month’s activities separate and distinct from another month’s work. This provides visibility in locating errors and fixing corrections. Accounting ledgers will be reviewed and reconciled on a monthly basis to supporting documentation – Cash Receipts, Accounts Payable, Payroll and Monthly Journal Entries.
• Sequential Number – Sequentially numbered instruments will be used for checks and cash receipts. Pre-numbered receipts are controlled and accounted for by an individual with no accounting handling responsibilities.

The City’s pre-numbered checks and pre-numbered cash receipts should be safeguarded in the Vault. All copies of voided receipt forms are retained, accounted for, and documented.
• Audit Trail – The City’s accounting records and systems shall provide an audit trail (e.g. paper document) that allows for the tracing of each transaction from its original document to completion.

4. Operating Management Policies:

The budget process is intended to weigh all competing requests for City resources within expected fiscal constraints. Requests for new, on-going programs made outside the budget process will be discouraged.
387
65277.00001\40089220.1
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/23/2022 4
• Budget development will consider multi-year implications of current decisions and allocations and use conservative revenue forecasts. • Revenues will not be dedicated for specific purposes, unless required by law or Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP). All nonrestricted revenues will be deposited in the General Fund (or other designated fund as approved by the City Manager) and appropriated by the City Council.
• Current revenues will fund current expenditures. City revenues will be managed to protect programs from short-term fluctuations that impact expenditures.
• The City will endeavor to identify entrepreneurial solutions to cover or recover costs of operating program.
• The City shall strive to avoid returning to the City Council for new or expanded appropriations during the fiscal year. Exceptions may include emergencies, unforeseen impacts, mid-year adjustments or new opportunities.
• Additional personnel will be requested after service needs have been thoroughly examined and is substantiated for new program initiatives or policy directives.
• All non-Enterprise user fees and charges will be evaluated at least every three years to determine the direct and indirect cost recovery rate. The analysis will be presented to the City Council.
• The City shall endeavor to maintain adequate cash reserves to fund 100% replacement of capital equipment. Replacement costs will be based upon equipment lifecycle financial analysis developed by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager.
• Balanced revenue and expenditure forecasts will be prepared to examine the City’s ability to absorb operating costs due to changes in the economy, service demands, and capital improvements. The forecast will be updated annually and include a four-year outlook.
• Cash and investment programs will be maintained in accordance with the Government Code and the adopted investment policy will ensure that proper controls and safeguards are maintained. City funds will be managed in a prudent and diligent manner with an emphasis on safety of principal, liquidity, and financial return on principal, in that order. Pursuant to State law, the City, at least annually, revises and the City Council affirms a detailed investment policy.
388
65277.00001\40089220.1
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/23/2022 5

5. Capital Management Policies:
• Capital improvement projects are defined as infrastructure or equipment purchases or construction which results in a capitalized asset and having a useful (depreciable) life of at least one year with a cost of $5,000 or more per the City’s resolution Number 953.
• The Finance Department shall utilize the straight-line method of calculating depreciation over the estimated useful life for all classes of assets. • The capital improvement plan will attempt to include, in addition to current operating maintenance expenditures, adequate funding to support, repair and replace deteriorating infrastructure and avoid a significant unfunded liability. • Capital improvement lifecycle costs will be coordinated with the development of the City’s operating budget. Future operating, maintenance, and replacement costs associated with new capital improvements will be forecast, matched to available revenue sources and be included in the operating budget. Capital project contract awards or purchases will include a fiscal impact statement disclosing the expected operating impact of the project or acquisition and when such cost is expected to occur.

6. Reserve Policies:

It is the goal of the City to obtain and maintain a General Fund operating reserve (Rainy day fund) in the form of cash, of at least 40% of prior year audited annual General Fund revenues to cover normal seasonal cash flow variations, as well as unforeseen emergency or catastrophic impacts upon the City.
• One-time revenue windfalls should be designated as a reserve or used for onetime expenditures. The funds should not be used for on-going operations. For purposes of this policy, one-time revenue windfalls shall include:

CalPERS rebates
Tax revenue growth in excess of 10% in a single year
Unexpected revenues (e.g., litigation settlement)
Any other revenues the City Council may elect to designate as extraordinary
• All unexpended General Funds from the prior fiscal year will be deposited in the General Fund Reserve Fund (Rainy Day Fund.)
• The City will strive to maintain the Municipal Self-Insurance Fund with a July 1 balance of $250,000.
• The City will strive to transfer $250,000 annually into the Utilities Fund for the purpose of building up the necessary balance for underground projects. • Enterprise Fund (e.g., for refuse collection) user fees and charges will be examined annually to ensure that they recover all direct and indirect costs of the service, 389
65277.00001\40089220.1
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/23/2022 6
provide for capital improvements and maintenance and maintain adequate reserves. Moreover, maintenance of cash reserves will provide a de facto rate stabilization plan. Rate increases shall be approved by the City Council following formal noticing and public hearing. Rate adjustments for enterprise operations will be based on five-year financial plans unless a conscious decision is made to the contrary. The current cash reserves shall be adjusted annually and will be equal to the proposed annual General Fund subsidy to the Refuse Fund and will be budgeted as a Transfer into the Refuse Fund.
• The City has established a PARS Pension Rate Stabilization Program Section 115 Trust. The Trust was created to fund the City’s unfunded PERS Pension Liability and as funds are available they would be deposited into the Trust in order to maintain adequate reserves.

7. Budget Policies:

The function of the City of Rolling Hills is primarily administrative.

A. Categories of Funds
• The City’s annual budget contains fifteen different funds managed in conformance with the City’s Fund Balance Policy:

General Fund
Community Facility Fund
Self-Insurance Fund
Refuse Fund Traffic Fund Transit Fund - Proposition A
Transit Fund - Proposition C
Transit Fund – Measure R
Transit Fund – Measure M
LA County Measure W
Capital Projects Fund
Citizens Options for Public Safety Fund (COPS) Fund
California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) Fund.

Utility Fund
OPEB (Post-Employment Benefits Other Than Pensions) Fund • Each fund is considered to be a separate accounting entity for budgeting and financial reporting purposes.
• The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set of selfbalancing accounts which are comprised of each fund’s assets, liabilities, equity, revenues and expenditures, as appropriate.
• The City resources are allocated to and for individual funds based upon the purpose of the spending activities.
• All funds and reserves will be evaluated annually for long-term adequacy and use requirements in conjunction with development of the City’s long-term budget assumptions.
390
65277.00001\40089220.1
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/23/2022 7
• For approved capital projects unexpended budget appropriations would be reviewed annually by the Finance/Budget/Audit Committee for recommendation for carryover to the following fiscal year.

B. Operating Budget Guidelines
• The Budget is detailed - Expenditures are authorized line by line, item by item. Line items are used to limit precisely the amount and narrowly define what can be spent. • The Budget is annual - The annual budget period is from July 1 to June 30. The time span of the authority to spend is restricted to one year. Each year the regular cycle of budgeting is repeated.
• The budget is comprehensive – The budget is prepared for all funds expended by the City.
• The City adopts a budget by June 30 of each year.
• Comparative Data - Comparative data from the prior year is presented in the annual budget in order to provide an understanding of changes in the City’s financial position and operation.
• Public Hearing - The City Council reviews a tentative budget and adopts the final budget. A public hearing is conducted to receive comments prior to adoption.

C. Financial Review
Throughout the fiscal year, monthly financial reports comparing actual amounts with budgeted amounts are prepared by the Finance Director and submitted to the City Manager and members of the City Council. As these reports are reviewed, attention is drawn to variances between budgeted amounts and actual amounts.

D. Budgeted Revenues & Expenditures
The City reviews fees and charges to keep pace with the cost of providing the service.

8. Debt Management Policies:

The City will seek to avoid incurring debt. While the City is disposed to funding capital improvements and expenditures on a cash basis, the City will consider, and when necessary, enter into debt financing for citywide public improvement projects such as sewers and utility undergrounding.
• Lease Equipment - Office Equipment has been leased on a monthly basis with the expense incurred at the time of payment.

Policy Administrative History:
391
65277.00001\40089220.1
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/23/2022 8
Adopted September 24, 2007
Revised and Adopted March 24, 2008
Revised and Adopted February 23, 2009
Revised and Adopted March 8, 2010
Reviewed and Adopted February 28, 2011
Revised and Adopted May 23, 2011
Reviewed and Adopted May 14, 2012
Reviewed and Adopted April 22, 2013
Revised and Adopted September 9, 2013
Reviewed and Adopted March 24, 2014
Reviewed and Adopted April 27, 2015
Reviewed and Revised April 25, 2016
Reviewed and Adopted April 24, 2017
Reviewed and Adopted April 22, 2019
Reviewed and Adopted May 11, 2020
Reviewed and Adopted May 23, 2022
392
Agenda Item No.: 7.N
Mtg. Date: 05/23/2022
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: UPDATE ON RESTRICTED TRANSPORTATION FUND PROJECTS DATE: May 23, 2022
BACKGROUND:

The Proposition A, Proposition C, and Measure R and Measure M Local Return programs are four one-half cent sales tax measures approved by Los Angeles County voters to finance a countywide transit development program.

By ordinance, Metro is responsible for administering the programs and establishing guidelines.

The Proposition A tax measure was approved in 1980, the Proposition C tax measure was approved in 1990, Measure R was approved in 2008 and Measure M was approved in 2016.

Collection of the taxes began on July 1, 1982; April 1, 1991; July 1, 2009; and July 1, 2017, respectively, while each year, more than $1 billion is generated in local transportation revenue.

As a condition of voter approval, 25 percent of the Proposition A tax revenues, 20 percent of the Proposition C tax revenues, 15 percent of Measure R and 17 percent of Measure M tax revenues are earmarked for the Local Return Programs to be used by cities and the County of Los Angeles in developing and/or improving local public transit, paratransit and related transportation infrastructure.

Local Return funds are allocated and distributed monthly to jurisdictions on a “per capita” basis by Metro.

Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian funds are available to local agencies in Los Angeles County (all cities and the County) on an annual basis. The final amount is subject to revision based on actual receipts. These funds may be used for operations, maintenance, design, and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and 393
amenities (including wheelchair ramps).

TDA Article 3 local funds are allocated to local agencies on a per-capita basis. The amount of each agency’s allocation is detailed in Metro’s Funding Allocation Procedure (FAP). Fifteen (15) percent of the total annual allocation amount will be designated to the City and the County of Los Angeles, with 30 percent going to the City and 70 percent going to the County, to cover their maintenance costs on seven pre-determined regionally significant Class I bicycle facilities. These percentages were Metro Board approved and are based on previous maintenance expenditures on these facilities by the City and the County.

TDA Article 3 funds may be used for the following activities relating to pedestrian and bicycle facilities (including sidewalk wheelchair ramps):

Engineering expenses leading to construction.

Maintenance of bicycling trails
Right-of-way acquisition.

Construction and reconstruction.

Retrofitting existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including installation of signage, to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Route improvements such as signal controls for cyclists, bicycle loop detectors, rubberized rail crossings and bicycle-friendly drainage grates.

Purchase and installation of bicycle facilities such as secure bicycle parking, benches, drinking fountains, changing rooms, rest rooms and showers which are adjacent to bicycle trails, employment centers, park-and-ride lots, and/or transit terminals and are accessible to the general public.

DISCUSSION:

Measures R & M
On March 24, 2022, in order to avoid allocated Measure R & M local return funds from lapsing, staff filed for Capital Reserves Projects. The intent was to ensure that funds could be preserved for upcoming capital re-investments to the City Hall Campus that better serve the Rolling Hills Community while meeting Metro's Active Transportation guidelines. The project description written by staff was as follows: This project is meant to improve community access for use of the city hall campus. Aspects include creating a pedestrian "ring pathway" around the perimeter, asphalt replacement, drainage improvements, re-evaluating parking striping and ADA accessibility amongst other potential ways for the community to actively engage.

Prop A & C
As the City does not have any potential Prop A projects due to our boundaries and unique nature, it has been customary to exchange our lapsing funds to jurisdictions that could benefit from them. This year, the City is exploring an exchange of funds with the City of Beverly Hills.

Any proceeds go to the General Fund.

TDA3
Metro staff has also communicated that they have some flexibility for communities like Rolling Hills to tie-in other non-vehicle based modes that a pedestrian/equestrian community may use. As such, staff is currently applying for a project related to both the overall future vision for 394
the City Hall campus pedestrian and mobility improvements combined with the requests of the Rolling Hills Needs of Seniors Committee. The project description provided to Metro is as follows:

As a result of COVID-19, the Rolling Hills Needs of Seniors Committee (NSC) has requested improvements to the City Hall Campus in order to provide usable community outdoor space and walking track for pedestrians who want to exercise, improved equestrian hitching posts and /or bicycle racks, and adjacent gathering/sitting areas (both shaded and unshaded). They have also requested improved lighting for early morning or evening hour usage. This project will require the city to perform a topographic survey, enlist a landscape architect, contractors and materials.

At the time of Agenda preparation, staff does not know if the project submitted will be approved as presented or require modification.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file.

ATTACHMENTS:
395
Agenda Item No.: 10.A
Mtg. Date: 05/23/2022
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 2022 SCE RELIABILITY REPORT AND WILDFIRE

DETECTION CAMERAS ON THE PENINSULA (DIERINGER)
DATE: May 23, 2022
BACKGROUND:

On May 9, 2022, during her meeting with the City Manager, Councilmember Dieringer requested a representative from Southern California Edison (SCE) attend the May 23, 2022 City Council meeting to answer her questions on the 2022 Reliability Report and installation of wildfire cameras on the Peninsula.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

None.

ATTACHMENTS:
396
Agenda Item No.: 10.B
Mtg. Date: 05/23/2022
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 EXISTING CELLULAR SERVICE ISSUES (BLACK) DATE: May 23, 2022
BACKGROUND:

At a recent Council Meeting Mayor Black requested to agendize this item for further discussion.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

None.

ATTACHMENTS:
397
Agenda Item No.: 11.A
Mtg. Date: 05/23/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT SAMARIO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 BUDGET WORKSHOP DATE: May 23, 2022
BACKGROUND:

On May 9, 2022, staff presented the proposed fiscal year 2022-23 revenue and expenditure budgets for all funds to the Budget Committee, with the focus of the presentation being on the General Fund. The recommended budget for the General Fund included $4,407,456 in expenditures, including $1,269,000 in transfers to other funds, of which $1,096,000 was a transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund primarily for the City Hall Improvements Capital Project. With estimated revenues of $2,399,289, the recommended budget presented to the Budget Committee would have resulted in an operating deficit of $738,667 and an overall deficit of $2,008,167.

The Budget Committee directed staff to break down the recommended budget between ontime and ongoing components, and make whatever adjustments are needed to eliminate the ongoing deficit. This will allow Council to determine which one-time costs, such as capital, can be appropriately funded from the use of reserves.

DISCUSSION:

REVENUE PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2021/22 AND 2022-2023 The development of the fiscal year 2022/23 projected revenues began with a projection of current year revenues. With only nine months of revenues recorded, the year-end revenue totals were projected based on several factors, including prior year results, current year trends, and other pertinent data.

By far, the largest General Fund revenue is derived from property taxes. The current year adopted budget of $1,249,800 assumed a 4% growth. Staff expects actual revenues at year end will be $1,281,715 representing a growth of 4.8%. For fiscal year 2022/23, staff recommends again using a growth rate assumption of 4%, which would translate into a projected revenue of $1,333,000. The 4% growth rate consists of a CPI factor of 2%, which is 398
the maximum increase allowed under Proposition 13, plus another 2% growth based on reassessments for resales and home improvements.

A related revenue is Property Transfer Tax. Whenever a real estate property is sold in the City of Rolling Hills, a transfer tax is levied at $1.10 for every $1,000 in the sale price. The tax is split 50/50 between the City of Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County. In fiscal year 2020/21, revenues totaled $96,433. This fiscal year revenues are expected to reach $117,986. For fiscal year 2022/23, staff recommends an assumed growth of 2% as a conservative approach given the recent spike in mortgage rates will likely result in fewer home sales.

The second largest General Fund revenue is from Building & Other Permits. These revenues have experienced a dramatic decline as a result of the pandemic, dropping to $183,378 in fiscal year 2020/21. Before the pandemic, building-related permit revenues exceeded $700,000. With the pandemic seemingly waning, revenues have experienced a moderate rebound. Based on revenues received through March 31, 2022, staff estimates revenues at year end at $472,969. Accordingly, staff proposes estimated revenues for fiscal year 2022/23 of $475,000, recognizing that if the current trend continues, revenue could be higher.

Motor Vehicle In-Lieu (MVIL) tax revenues are fairly flat from the prior year. Projected fiscal year 2021/22 revenues of $246,694 are 4.2% higher than last year. Staff recommends a assuming a 2% growth and total revenues for next fiscal year $252,000. The unknown is to what degree higher interest rates, which affect rates offered on car loans, will affect new car sales. Otherwise, MVIL taxes trend downward absent new car sales as the tax rate is applied on a depreciating scale.

In total, staff recommends total General Fund budgeted revenues of $2,619,971, which includes one-time revenues for the ARPA grant of $220,682. As such, ongoing revenues of $2,399,289 are $274,989 higher than fiscal year 2021/22 adopted revenues, buoyed primarily by the increase in property taxes and building permit revenues.

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 The revised recommended budget, as shown in the attached schedule, totals $4,369,997 which is made up of $2,983,131 in on-going costs and $1,386,266 in one-time costs. The ongoing costs in many cases have been trimmed to what essential costs and services.

The one-time costs include a $1,096,000 transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund primarily for the City Hall Improvements Capital Project. The balance of $285,200 in one-time costs were identified within the various expenditure accounts, including the following:

Project Management - $45,000
Grant Writer - $17,000
Agenda system Granicus enhancements - $19,400
399
Information Technology enhancements - $8,800
Records Management - $45,000
Special Project Study & Consulting (General Plan update) - $150,000 The following highlights the proposed expenditures:

Block Captain Program, fire fuel abatement in the Preserve, Emergency Information System (EIS) support, Alert Southbay subscription

3.5% Cost of Living Adjustment to salaries
Increased City Attorney fee based on BBK's activities of the last two fiscal years Fees for the November 2022 Municipal Election
Increased Finance Department fee for grants management, reimbursement support, restricted funds management, benefits/pension activities for city personnel, and technology implementation.

Contracted code enforcement services.

Anticipated subsidy to absorb the cost increase to residents' refuse fees.

Capital Improvement Cost for the City Hall ADA design, and construction.

OVERALL GENERAL FUND BALANCING
Based strictly on ongoing revenues and ongoing costs, the General Fund deficit is now down to $480,984. The one-time costs of $1,386,266 would be offset by one-time ARPA revenues of $220,682, leaving a one-time deficit of $1,165,584. On a combined basis, including all revenues and expenditures, the General Fund budget would require the use of reserves of $1,646,568 to balance.

OPTIONS FOR BALANCING THE GENERAL FUND
Staff have developed several options for addressing the projected operating deficit $480,984, which are included in the attached schedule of balancing options. The balancing options provide a number of cost reductions and revenue enhancements that in total range from approximately $535,000 to $610,000. With respect to one-time costs of $1,386,266, Council can choose which, if any, can be funded from reserves. From a policy perspective, the use of reserves (a one-time source) can appropriately be used to fund one-time costs, such as capital. Given General Fund reserve balances are currently in excess of 150% of the operating budget, Council has some latitude in the use of reserves for any one-time cost deemed to be a high priority.

OTHER FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
Majority of the restricted funds such as Proposition C, Measure R, Measure M, and Measure A are expected to roll the revenue to future years to save up for eligible projects. The following summarizes the anticipated activities of the other restricted funds for next fiscal year:

Measure W's expenditure plan for FY 2022-2023 was previously approved by the City Council in March 2022 and submitted to the Los Angeles County for approval. It is anticipated that $80,000 of Measure W would be spent on eligible storm water compliance measures.

The City of Beverly Hills expressed interest in $45,200 of Prop A exchange.

The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery funds (American Rescue Plan Act - 400
ARPA) is expected to provide half of the overall allocation.

The Capital Projects fund includes $96,000 for Pacific Architecture Engineers' design fee recently approved by the City Council for the development of layout Option 3 and $1M for construction of the City Hall ADA Improvement project.

The Refuse fund anticipates absorbing the expected refuse rate increase for residents.

The newly established Fund 16 Cal OES captures the grants awarded to the city in the last two years with transfers from the Utility Fund (Southern California Edison Rule 20 credits) for grant match.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact will be determined when the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget has been adopted.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review the proposed Fiscal Year 2022/23 budget and provide staff with comments. With the Council’s direction, staff will bring the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget and the three-year CIP to the City Council Meeting for adoption on June 13, 2022.

ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_220523_FY2023_Revenue Budget Recommendations.pdf CL_AGN_220523_FY2023_Recommended Budget_General Fund Exp.pdf CL_AGN_220523_FY2023 Summary of Sources and Uses of Funds_General Fund.pdf CL_AGN_220523_Twelve Year History_ Rev Exp and Reserves.pdf CL_AGN_FY22-23_OptionsToCloseBudgetDeficit_v2.pdf
CL_AGN_220523_FY2023 Recommended Budget - Other Funds.pdf CL_AGN_220523_CC_BlueFolderItem_11A_01_Redacted.pdf
401
FY 2022 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 Adopted Revenues Year-End Projected FY 2023 Projected Revenues Budget 03/31/22 Projection Growth Projection Growth Property Taxes $ 1,222,947 $ 1,249,800 $ 775,950 $ 1,281,715 4.8% $ 1,333,000 4.0% Sales Taxes 23,262 4,800 18,014 18,550 -20.3% 19,300 3.0% Property Transfer Tax 93,449 40,200 96,433 117,986 26.3% 121,500 2.0% Disaster Grants 50,000 20,000 13,040 13,040 -73.9% - N/A Motor Vehicle In Lieu 236,725 246,100 124,694 246,694 4.2% 252,000 2.0% Building & Other Permits 183,378 300,000 354,727 472,969 157.9% 475,000 Flat Variance, Planning & Zoning 49,158 22,000 14,596 19,461 -60.4% 20,000 Flat Animal Control Fees 472 1,000 160 213 -54.9% 250 Flat
Franchise Fees 10,753 14,900 10,274 13,699 27.4% 14,000 Flat Fines & Traffic Violations 4,293 14,300 3,712 4,950 15.3% 4,500 Flat RHCA Lease Revenue 68,988 68,000 51,743 68,991 0.0% 69,000 Flat Interest on Investments 90,251 80,000 22,670 30,227 -66.5% 60,239 N/A Public Safety Aug Fund 1,003 800 895 1,193 19.0% 1,000 Flat Burglar Alarm Response 500 600 - - -100.0% 500 Flat
Miscellaneous Revenue 3,275 37,800 35,071 36,000 999.2% 5,000 Flat Transfers In - ARPA 220,682 100.0% 220,682 Flat
Transfers In - Refuse Fund 24,000 24,000 18,000 24,000 0.0% 24,000 Flat TOTALS $ 2,062,454 $ 2,124,300 $ 1,539,978 $ 2,570,369 24.6% $ 2,619,971

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Revenues
FY 2022 and 2023 Projection
402
Adopted Year-End Presented to
Budget Projections FAB - May 9 Ongoing One-Time Total
01 - CITY ADMINISTRATOR
702 Salaries -Full Time $ 429,100 $ 408,639 $ 451,448 $ 474,258 $ - $ 474,258 710 Retirement CalPERS-Employer 29,000 36,431 30,508 39,769 - 39,769 712 CalPERS Unfunded Liability 59,026 57,063 65,095 65,095 - 65,095 715 Workers Compensation Insurance 7,700 7,271 8,100 8,100 - 8,500 716 Group Insurance 55,000 76,111 11,446 71,316 - 71,316 8100 0.669 12673 8491 717 Retiree Medical 30,300 37,159 35,231 35,231 - 35,231 4000 12700 718 Employer Payroll Taxes 28,400 25,071 29,876 36,997 - 36,997 12100 8500 719 Deferred Compensation 4,300 3,732 4,523 4,559 - 4,559 4200 720 Auto Allowance 4,800 5,067 4,800 4,800 - 4,800
XXX Phone Allowance 1,300 - 1,300 1,970 - 1,970
740 Office Supplies 38,040 25,184 11,000 11,000 - 11,000 745 Equipment Leasing Costs 14,850 11,048 11,450 11,450 - 11,450 750 Dues & Subscriptions 15,240 4,596 16,240 16,240 - 16,240 755 Conference Expense 10,000 9,052 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 757 Meetings Expense 2,000 3,357 2,000 2,000 - 2,000
759 Training & Education 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 - 5,000
761 Auto Mileage 500 - 500 500 - 500
765 Postage 20,000 12,468 21,100 21,000 - 21,000
770 Telephone 5,700 5,959 - - - -
775 City Council Expense 10,000 2,440 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 776 Miscellaneous Expenses - 564 6,200 6,200 - 6,200
780 Communications/Newsletters and Outreach 6,000 3,007 26,560 5,000 - 5,000 785 Codification 5,000 3,749 5,000 5,000 - 5,000
790 Advertising 1,000 - 2,400 2,400 - 2,400
795 Other Gen Admin Expense 4,900 2,422 1,050 1,050 - 1,050 801 City Attorney 91,000 119,887 120,000 120,000 - 120,000 802 Legal Expense - Other 3,000 - 3,000 3,000 - 3,000
820 Website 6,000 12,179 6,000 6,000 - 6,000
850 Election Expense City Council - 222 36,000 15,000 - 15,000 890 Consulting Fees 161,400 69,903 62,000 - 62,000 62,000 XXX Records Management 46,700 1,700 45,000 46,700
955 Disaster Emergency Equipment - 2,784 - - -
Total City Administrator 1,048,556 945,366 1,044,527 994,635 107,000 1,102,035 Revised - Version 2

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund
Projected FY 2021-22 and Recommended FY 2022-23 Expenditures FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 Recommended
Department/Object Account
1 Page: 1403
Adopted Year-End Presented to
Budget Projections FAB - May 9 Ongoing One-Time Total
Revised - Version 2

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund
Projected FY 2021-22 and Recommended FY 2022-23 Expenditures FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 Recommended
Department/Object Account
05 - Finance
750 Dues & Subscriptions 200 - 2,000 2,000 2,000
810 Annual Audit 17,630 17,110 18,500 18,500 18,500
890 Consulting Fees 99,500 116,167 120,000 120,000 - 120,000 Total Finance 117,330 133,277 140,500 140,500 - 140,500 15- PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
702 Salaries 237,200 189,687 234,237 236,748 - 236,748
703 Salaries - Part-Time 26,600 26,587 - 26,587
710 Retirement CalPERS-Employer 17,750 14,345 18,673 18,100 - 18,100 715 Workers Compensation Insurance 3,800 3,581 4,000 4,000 - 4,200 716 Group Insurance 30,900 23,162 32,510 44,275 - 44,275 718 Employer Payroll Taxes 18,790 14,663 19,672 20,237 - 20,237 719 Deferred Compensation 1,200 - - - - -
720 Auto Allowance 2,400 1,467 2,400 1,200 - 1,200
XXX Phone Allowance 600 - 600 600 - 600
758 Planning Commission Meetting - 1,415 - - - -
761 Auto Mileage - 50 300 300 - 300
770 Telephone - 1,281 - - - -
776 Miscellaneous Expense 2,000 1,301 - - - -
750 Dues & Subscription 850 - 1,000 1,000 - 1,000
755 Conference Expense 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 - 5,000
759 Training & Education 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 - 1,000
790 Publication - 3,208 15,000 15,000 - 15,000
801 City Attorney - 811 - - -
802 Legal Expenses-Other - 23,169 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 872 Property Development-Legal Exp 100,000 33,336 80,000 80,000 - 80,000 878 Build Inspect. LA County 150,000 191,785 150,000 150,000 - 150,000 xxx Willdan Building 50,000 50,000 - 50,000
881 Storm Water Management 275,800 231,435 280,000 97,142 - 97,142 882 Variance & CUP Expense 7,000 10,613 - - - -
884 Special Project Study & Consulting 180,000 79,584 170,000 20,000 150,000 170,000 886 Consulting Fees - - 87,880 87,880 - 87,880
2 Page: 2404
Adopted Year-End Presented to
Budget Projections FAB - May 9 Ongoing One-Time Total
Revised - Version 2

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund
Projected FY 2021-22 and Recommended FY 2022-23 Expenditures FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 Recommended
Department/Object Account
950 Capital Outlay 26,400 - - - - -
Total Planning & Development 1,060,690 824,891 1,198,872 879,069 150,000 1,029,269 25 - Public Safety
830 Law Enforcement 220,380 181,251 225,000 225,000 - 225,000 833 Other Law Enforcement Expenses 3,000 3,651 4,000 4,000 - 4,000 837 Wild Life Mgmt & Pest Control 50,000 1,883 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 838 Animal Control Expense 6,000 4,398 6,000 6,000 - 6,000 Total Public Safety 279,380 191,183 245,000 245,000 - 245,000 65 - NON-DEPARTMENTAL
895 Insurance & Bond Expense 30,260 21,816 25,000 29,657 - 29,657 901 South Bay Comm. Organization 20,100 4,017 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 915 Community Recognition 16,000 5,624 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 916 Civil Defense Expense 650 - - - - -
917 Emergency Preparedness 137,360 195,894 218,845 188,200 - 188,200 985 Contingency 25,000 - - - - -
Total Non-Departmental 229,370 227,351 278,845 252,857 - 252,857 75 - CITY PROPERTIES
925 Utilities 33,810 35,493 85,212 85,212 - 85,212
930 Repairs & Maintenance 36,963 26,793 35,000 35,000 - 35,000 932 Area Landscaping 28,500 12,760 25,000 12,500 - 12,500 XXX Capital Outlay - Buildings & Equip 250,000 - - - - - XXX IT Services - - 50,000 54,000 8,866 62,866
XXX Granicus Services - - 30,000 8,000 19,400 27,400
XXX Computer Hardware Fund - - 5,000 5,000 - 5,000
Total City Properties 349,273 75,046 230,212 199,712 28,266 227,978 TOTALS BEFORE TRANSFERS 3,084,599 2,397,113 3,137,956 2,711,773 285,266 2,997,639

OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT
699 Traffic Safety Fund 10,000 10,000 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 Capital Improvement Fund 88,000 88,000 1,096,000 - 1,096,000 1,096,000 3 Page: 3405
Adopted Year-End Presented to
Budget Projections FAB - May 9 Ongoing One-Time Total
Revised - Version 2

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund
Projected FY 2021-22 and Recommended FY 2022-23 Expenditures FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 Recommended
Department/Object Account
Refuse Collection Fund 159,200 159,200 168,500 168,500 - 168,500 Total Transfers Out 257,200 257,200 1,269,500 168,500 1,101,000 1,269,500 GENERAL FUND TOTALS $ 3,341,799 $ 2,654,313 $ 4,407,456 $ 2,880,273 $ 1,386,266 $ 4,267,139 4 Page: 4406
FY 2022-23
Recommended

ONGOING
Operating Revenues - Ongoing $ 2,399,289
Operating Expenditures - Ongoing 2,880,273
Net Operating Surplus (Deficit) (480,984)

ONE-TIME
One-time Revenues
ARPA Grant 220,682
One-Time Costs
Operating Expenditures 290,266
Capital Improvements 1,096,000
1,386,266
Net Use of Reserves for One-Time Costs (1,165,584)
TOTAL USE OF RESERVES $ (1,646,568)

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Summary of Proposed One-Time vs Ongoing Revenues and Expenditures

GENERAL FUND
407
408
$3,321,129
$3,110,058
$3,340,499
$3,831,115
$4,372,689
$4,600,994
$4,806,155 $5,120,797
$5,795,780
$5,617,133
$5,650,328
$4,432,829
$5,345,702
$3,595,676
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
2010-11
Actual
2011-12
Actual
2012-13
Actual
2013-14
Actual
2014-15
Actual
2015-16
Actual
2016-17
Actual
2017-18
Actual
2018-19
Actual
2019-20
Actual
2020-21
Actual
2021-22
Budget
2021-22
Projected
2022-23
Proposed

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
HIstory of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance
General Fund
Fund Balance Revenues Expenditures
409
Description Amount Impact
1 Eliminate funding of contracted part-time Code
Enforcement services
$87,880 Workload will be spread among the current
positions, prolonging the processing of
cases, reducing productivity on all other
positions, and reducing the overall service
level to residents.
2 Delay fire fuel abatement in the Preserve slated
for FY 22-23 to future years when projected
revenue is more aligned with projected
expenditures.
$82,000 Not leverage the fire fuel abatement work
performed to date and will not diminish
risk of wildfires originating from the
Preserve.
3 Reduce support for the Block Captain Program $25,000 Constrain Block Captain Program initiatives such as educational programs for
community, support for zone meetings,
and community emergency prepardness
events.
4 Reinstate building permit multiplier to 2.5% pre
FY18-19 level. Multiplier was reduced to 2.25%
commencing in FY 2018-2019.
$20,000 - $75,000 Financial burden on development
applicants. Revenue level depends on the
level of building activities.
5 Cost recover publication expenses associated
with development projects.
$15,000 Financial burden on development
applicants.
6 Cost recover staff time on processing
development applications.
$30,000 - $50,000 Financial burden on development
applicants. Could deter development
activities and or improve submittal quality
and ultimately improve efficiency on the
developers' activities.
7 Use of one-time ARPA revenues $220,682 No impact
8 Eliminate funding for Community Recognition $20,000 Eliminate holiday open house, and appreciation lunch for volunteers. There
would be no community events sponsored
by the city. Lost opportunity for city
officials to engage the community socially.
9 Eliminate Repairs & Maint $35,000 Deferr repairs needed at City Hall and the campus. Lost of functionality, and heavier
financial burden from anticipated increases
in improvement cost over time.
10 Fund deficit using reserves As needed Short term solution, reducing rainy day fund.
11 Defer capital improvements As Needed Liability associated with deferred maintenance and heavier financial burden
from anticipated increases in improvement
costs over time.

Total $535,562 - $610,562
Ongoing Budget Deficit $480,984

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Schedule of Proposed Options for Balancing the General Fund Ongoing Budget Fiscal Year 2022-23
410
411
Actuals FY 2022
FY 2021 Adopted Amended Thru Year-End FY 2023
Actuals Budget Budget 03/31/22 Projection Recomm'd
10 - COPS FUND
Revenues
570 COPS Allocation $ 156,727 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 163,403 $ 165,000 $ 165,000 670 Interest Earned 147 - - - - -
156,874 160,000 160,000 163,403 165,000 165,000
Expenditures
840 COPS Program Expenditures 176,180 160,000 160,000 104,914 179,852 165,000 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ (19,453) $ - $ - $ 58,489 $ (14,852) $ - 11 - CLEEP FUND
Revenues
670 Interest Earned $ 27 $ 50 $ 50 $ - $ 1,100 $ 2,000
Expenditures
840 CLEEP Technology Program - 1,100 1,100 2,000 1,100 2,000 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 27 $ (1,050) $ (1,050) $ (2,000) $ - $ - 13 - TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
Revenues
699 Transfers In - General Fund $ 5,460 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ 4,390 $ 5,000 Expenditures
927 Road Striping - Delineators 5,460 10,000 10,000 4,390 4,390 5,000 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ (4,390) $ - $ - 15 - ARPA FUND
586 American Rescue Plan Act $ - $ - $ 220,682 $ 220,682 $ 220,682 16 - CAL OES FUND

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Fiscal Year 2022 Projections and FY 2023 Recommended Budget 412
Actuals FY 2022
FY 2021 Adopted Amended Thru Year-End FY 2023
Actuals Budget Budget 03/31/22 Projection Recomm'd
Revenues
588 Crest Road FEMA Grant - 4434-526-112R $ - $ - $ 1,145,487 $ - $ 75,000 $ - 590 Vegetation Management FEMA Grant - HMGP-4382-175-13R - - 242,625 - 75,000 - 591 Eastfield Undergrounding FEMA Grant - DR-4382-177-7R-CA - - 1,971,882 - - - 589 Safety Element Disaster Grants - DR 4344 PL0521 - - - 13,040 13,040 - 699 Transfers In - Utility Fund - 4434-526-112R - - 381,819 - 25,000 - 699 Transfers In - Utility Fund - DR4382-177-7R - - 657,294 - - - 699 Transfers In - General Fund - - 80,875 - 25,000 -
Total Revenues - - 4,479,982 13,040 213,040 -
Expenditures
957 Crest Road East Project - 4434-526-112R - - 1,527,306 - 100,000 - 959 Veg. Mgmt Mitig. Proj. - HMGP-4382-175-13R - - 323,500 99,787 100,000 - 960 Eastfield Drive Utility U.G. - 4382-177-7R - - 2,629,176 - - - 958 Safety Element DR4344-PL0521 - - - 11,258 11,258 -
Total Expenditures - - 4,479,982 111,045 211,258 -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ - $ (98,005) $ 1,782 $ - 25 - PROPOSITION A FUND
Revenues
500 Grant Revenues $ 38,067 $ 38,000 $ 38,000 $ 35,462 $ 47,283 $ 45,000 670 Interest Earned 165 600 600 - 200 200
Total Revenues 38,232 38,600 38,600 35,462 47,483 45,200 Expenditures
905 Prop A Exchange 84,000 - - - 45,200
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ (45,768) $ 38,600 $ 38,600 $ 35,462 $ 47,483 $ - 26 - PROPOSITION C
Revenues
501 Grant Revenue-Prop C $ 31,575 $ 31,500 $ 31,500 $ 29,416 $ 39,221 $ 37,000 670 Interest Earned 125 650 650 - 200 200
Total Revenues 31,700 32,150 32,150 29,416 39,421 37,200 Expenditures
906 Prop C Gifted 65,000 - - - - -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ (33,300) $ 32,150 $ 32,150 $ 29,416 $ 39,421 $ 37,200 27- MEASURE R TRANSIT
Revenues
413
Actuals FY 2022
FY 2021 Adopted Amended Thru Year-End FY 2023
Actuals Budget Budget 03/31/22 Projection Recomm'd
502 Measure R Grant Revenues $ 23,714 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ 22,061 $ 29,414 $ 28,000 670 Interest Earned 206 1,000 1,000 - 200 200
Total Revenues 23,920 25,000 25,000 22,061 29,614 28,200 Expenditures
907 Measure R Gifted - - - - - -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 23,920 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 22,061 $ 29,614 $ 28,200 29 - MEASURE M
Revenues
507 Measure M Local Return $ 26,869 $ 26,500 $ 26,500 $ 24,966 $ 33,288 $ 31,000 670 Interest Earned 167 1,100 1,100 - 200 200
Total Revenues 27,036 27,600 27,600 24,966 33,488 31,200 Expenditures
909 Measure M Gifted - - - -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 27,036 $ 27,600 $ 27,600 $ 24,966 $ 33,488 $ 31,200 30 - MEASURE W
Revenues
508 Grant Revenues $ 103,577 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 $ 104,742 $ 104,742 $ 105,000 670 Interest Earned - 900 900 -
Total Revenues 103,577 110,900 110,900 104,742 104,742 105,000 Expenditures
907 Storm Water Management - 38,750 38,750 2,926 50,000 80,000 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 103,577 $ 72,150 $ 72,150 $ 101,817 $ 54,742 $ 25,000 35 - MEASURE A
Revenues
502 Grant Revenue $ - $ 26,100 $ 26,100 $ - $ - $ -
670 Interest Earned - 900 900 - - -
Total Revenues $ - $ 27,000 $ 27,000 $ - $ - $ -
40 - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
699 Transfers from General Fund $ - $ 88,000 $ 121,235 $ - $ 88,000 $ 1,096,000 Expenditures
414
Actuals FY 2022
FY 2021 Adopted Amended Thru Year-End FY 2023
Actuals Budget Budget 03/31/22 Projection Recomm'd
890 Consulting Fees 800 - - - - 96,000
XXX 1 Middleridge Lane South Storm Drain - - 33,235 32,616 75,000 - 947 Non-Building Improvements - 300,000 300,000 - - -
948 City Hall Improvements 33,561 - - 13,673 13,673 1,000,000 Total Expenditures 34,361 300,000 333,235 46,289 88,673 1,096,000 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ (34,361) $ (212,000) $ (212,000) $ (46,289) $ (673) $ - 41- UTILITY FUND
Revenues
550 Rule 20A Power Utility Grant Project $ - $ 763,638 $ - $ - $ - Expenditures
803 Legal & Other Outside Counsel - - - 1,452 -
883 Sewer Feasibility Study 2,560 - - - -
886 Underground Utility Project 4,560 763,638 - - -
887 Sewer Feasibility Project 41,585 - - 40,321 40,321
999 Transfers Out - Cal OES Fund - - 1,039,113 - 25,000 - Total Expenditures 48,705 763,638 1,039,113 41,773 65,321 - Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ (48,705) $ - $ (1,039,113) $ (41,773) $ (65,321) $ - 50 - REFUSE FUND
Revenues
441 Construction & Demo Permits $ 31,450 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ 11,550 $ 15,400 $ 20,000 665 Service Charges 753,500 753,500 753,500 565,128 753,504 780,000 618 Transfers In - General Fund 68,706 159,200 159,200 - 159,200 168,500 Total Revenues 853,656 936,700 936,700 576,678 928,104 968,500 Expenditures
776 Misc Expense 3,918 - - - -
815 Refuse Service Contract 886,143 912,700 912,700 684,522 912,700 944,500 999 Transfers Out 24,000 24,000 24,000 18,000 24,000 24,000 Total Expenditures 914,061 936,700 936,700 702,522 936,700 968,500 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ (60,405) $ - $ - $ (125,844) $ (8,596) $ - 415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
Agenda Item No.: 12.A
Mtg. Date: 05/23/2022
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: PRESENTATION OF EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS ON FIRE FUEL MANAGEMENT IN THE CANYON; RECOGNIZE LEAD BLOCK

CAPTAIN GENE HONBO, BLOCK CAPTAIN DEBRA SHRADER, AND

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FORESTRY DIVISION

TREVOR MOORE FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP IN COMPLETING THE
PROJECT; AND DIRECT STAFF TO DISSEMINATE THE VIDEOS
THROUGH THE BLOCK CAPTAIN PROGRAM.

DATE: May 23, 2022
BACKGROUND:

At the City Council meeting on October 25, 2021, lead Block Captain Gene Honbo received approval of his storyboards depicting new educational videos for the Rolling Hills community on "Fuel Load Management in the Canyons." The city engaged WorldWise Productions, who had previously produced the Home Hardening Videos, to do three days of video shoots including local canyon and property footage. Deputy Forrester Trevor Moore of the Los Angeles County Fire Department was involved in the videos and together with the Forestry Division, provided support on the content.

The videos have been vetted by the Block Captains, approved at the highest level of the Los Angeles County Fire Department and are ready for official presentation to the City Council and subsequent distribution to the community via the City Website https://www.rolling-hills.org The six video series takes residents through an easy to follow education on how to identify and cure potential fire fuel issues on their properties and in the canyons covering the following topics:

1. Introduction to Canyon Management

2. Fire Risks

3. Creating Fire Safe Canyons

4. Techniques to Follow

5. Environmental Concerns
431

6. Canyon Management Overview
DISCUSSION:

The production of the educational videos is a part of the Block Captain Program's initiative to educate the community on best practices to mitigate wildfire risks.

In 2021, the Hardening the Home educational videos were well received by the community as informative and easy to understand. Anecdotally, the Hardening the Home educational videos sparked actions in the community with reports to City Hall noting many have made improvements as outlined in the videos.

A similar effort is intended with fire fuel management best practices for the canyons to further reduce wildfire risks. To repeat the model of the Hardening the Home effort, the City Council allocated budget and engaged the services of Wildland Res Management to provide private property complimentary inspections by fire experts on vegetation management measures for properties with canyons. As with the Hardening the Home complimentary inspections by Los Angeles County Fire Department Trevor Moore, the complimentary inspections by Wildland Res Management are recommendations and not enforceable by any agency.

The educational videos on fire fuel management in the canyons will be available on the City's website. Staff recommends that the City Council roll out the educational videos through the Block Captain Program.

Spearheading the education video series are Lead Block Captain Gene Honbo, Block Captain Debra Shrader and Los Angeles County Fire Department Deputy Forester Trevor Moore.

These individuals donated, and dedicated their time and expertise to completing the project.

The City thanks the leaders of this project for their generous offering, their expertise, and community minded efforts in keeping Rolling Hills prepared.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The production of the educational videos cost $25,000 funded with the budget allocated in the Emergency Preparedness account.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve as presented.

ATTACHMENTS:
432
Agenda Item No.: 12.B
Mtg. Date: 05/23/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE AMENDED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH

CHAMBERS GROUP TO PREPARE A CEQA DOCUMENT FOR THE
6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT TO ADDRESS COMMENTS FROM

THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
DATE: May 23, 2022
BACKGROUND:

On November 22, 2021, the City Council approved an agreement with Chambers Group to provide environmental consulting services for the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element and Safety Element update. Chambers Group was selected as the environmental consultant to assist the City with preparation of the environmental document for adoption of the City's updated Housing and Safety elements because of the firm's high level of experience and expertise.

The City had initially planned a single environmental document covering the Housing Element and Safety Element, but this was bifurcated at the time the Safety Element was adopted in March 28, 2022, due to comments received from an agency to include mitigation measures that address potential housing development described in the Housing Element. Chambers Group will be preparing an environmental document for the Housing Element that will consider mitigation measures to address the concerns. Specifically, the concerns involved the potential impacts of housing to be developed on vacant lots. As such, Chambers Group will do a reconnaissance level biological survey/report on the vacant lots to be included in the environmental document. Once completed, the environmental document will be circulated for public review and brought to the Planning Commission and City Council at the same time as the Housing Element.

DISCUSSION:

At the direction of the City Council, a mitigated negative declaration (MND) is being prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines that includes mitigation measures to address potentially significant impacts on biological resources. Much of the MND will be based on the environmental document prepared before the original document was bifurcated, however, Chambers Group will be refining the entire document as it pertains 433
to development of housing. Chambers Group is currently preparing the proposal which will be delivered to the Council at the meeting. An amendment to the agreement will also be brought to Council for consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If approved, the City will fund the amended agreement with Chambers Group from the General Fund reserves. The estimated amount is $50,000. Staff's recommendation includes a 20% contingency up to $60,000.

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the preparation of a contract amendment approved to form by the City Attorney in a not to exceed amount of $60,000; and authorize the City Manager to execute such an agreement.

ATTACHMENTS:

Agreement for Planning Services - Chambers-EXECUTED.pdf CL_AGN_220523_CC_BlueFolderItem_12B_IS-MND_ChangeOrder.pdf 434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
1 Task 1: Project Initiation 7 days Thu 12/2/21 Fri 12/10/21 2 Initial Meeting 1 day Wed 12/2/20Wed 12/2/20
3 Project Description 1 wk Thu 12/2/21 Wed 12/8/21 2
4 City Review of Project
Description
1 day Thu 12/9/21 Thu 12/9/21 3
5 Task 2: Preparation of the
Appropriate CEQA Document
and Supporting Technical
Studies
13 days Thu 12/9/21 Mon 12/27/21
6 Prepare Admin Draft
IS/MND
2 wks Thu 12/9/21 Wed 12/22/21 3
7 City Review of Admin Draft
IS/MND
3 days Thu
12/23/21
Mon 12/27/21 6
8 Tasks 3: Tribal Consult 90 days Fri 12/10/21 Thu 4/14/22 9 SB 18 90 days Fri 12/10/21 Thu 4/14/22 4
10 AB 52 30 days Fri 12/10/21 Thu 1/20/22 4
11 Task 4: Public Draft IS/MND
and Notices
28 days Tue 12/28/21Thu 2/3/22
12 Prepare Public Draft
IS/MND and Notices
1 wk Tue 12/28/21Mon 1/3/22 7
13 City Review of Public Draft
IS/MND And Notices
1 day Tue 1/4/22 Tue 1/4/22 12
14 Public Circulation 30 edays Tue 1/4/22 Thu 2/3/22 13 15 Task 5: Response to
Comments and Final IS/MND
11 days Mon 1/24/22Mon 2/7/22
16 Prepare Draft Final IS/MND
with Response to
Comments and MMRP
9 days Mon 1/24/22Thu 2/3/22
17 City Review of Draft Final
IS/MND with Response to
Comments and MMRP
1 day Fri 2/4/22 Fri 2/4/22 16
18 Prepare Final MND with
Response to Comments
and MMRP
1 day Mon 2/7/22 Mon 2/7/22 17
19 Task 6: Public Hearings 10 days Mon 2/7/22 Fri 2/18/22 20 Planning Commission 1 day Mon 2/7/22 Mon 2/7/22
21 City Council 1 day Fri 2/11/22 Fri 2/11/22
22 Prepare and submit NOD 1 wk Mon 2/14/22Fri 2/18/22 21

D J F M A
Half 1, 2022
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress

Project: City of Rolling Hills
Date: Fri 12/3/21
450
451
452
453
"P:\CLIENT Change Order form.doc"
Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Project: Change Order Request 1 Date 5/20/2022 Change Order No. 1 Project Name Rolling Hills Housing Element Client Contract No. Project No. 21330
Original Contract Amount $45,493.62
Net Amount of Previous Changes 0
Amount of this Change Order $53,765.62 (Amount @ Fixed Price) $53,765.62 Revised Contract Total $99,259.24
This Change Order was prepared for the following reason(s):

Due to a comment letter received during the public review period from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on the Initial Study / Negative Declaration (IS/ND) prepared for the City of Rolling Hills (City) Housing Element Update, the City has opted to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Housing Element Update to address concerns brought forth by CDFW. As discussed with the City, Chambers Group proposes to update the Project Description, complete a reconnaissance level biological survey/report, and update the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document to evaluate the sites on a programmatic level. While the intent is to include mitigation measures for biological resources, looking at all resources areas from a programmatic level may result in a need for mitigation in other resources areas. See proposal attached.

Schedule: See attached. Project approval set for early October.

The work covered by this Change Order shall be performed in accordance with the same terms and conditions as included in the original contract.

CHANGE AUTHORIZED BY:

CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
(Client Company Name)
By By
(Printed) (Printed)
Signature Signature
Title Date Title Date
454
Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Project:

Change Order Request 1
City of Rolling Hills
1 21330/63836
Scope of Work
Approach to the Scope of Work
Due to a comment letter received during the public review period from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on the Initial Study / Negative Declaration (IS/ND) prepared for the City of Rolling Hills (City) Housing Element Update, the City has opted to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Housing Element Update to address concerns brought forth by CDFW. As discussed with the City, Chambers Group proposes to update the Project Description, complete a reconnaissance level biological survey/report, and update the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document to evaluate the sites on a programmatic level. While the intent is to include mitigation measures for biological resources, looking at all resources areas from a programmatic level may result in a need for mitigation in other resources areas. Chambers Group will commence work on these additional tasks as soon as we receive written Notice to Proceed (NTP). We will accomplish the scope of work, which consolidates the tasks, as described below.

Task 1: Project Description Update
Chambers Group will update the Project description to include a more detailed discussion of the vacant sites that are available for future housing development. The MND will be analyzed based on the updated Project Description.

Deliverables: One electronic portable document format (PDF) copy and one electronic copy in Microsoft Word format of the Project Description for one round of review by the City.

Task 2: Technical Reports / Updates
Task 2.1: Tribal Consultation Update
As discussed with the City and the City’s legal counsel, it is not necessary for AB 52 or SB 18 consultation periods to be re-opened. Nonetheless, as a courtesy to the consulting Tribes, an updated letter will be sent noting that, from a policy perspective, nothing is changing and the Project still does not entitle any specific development. Chambers Group will prepare this letter for the City to send to both of the consulting Tribes.

Deliverables: One draft electronic copy in Microsoft Word format of the letter.

Task 2.2: Biological Reconnaissance Constraints Survey and Letter Report Chambers Group will conduct a biological reconnaissance survey for 20 vacant lots identified in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. The sites proposed for a literature search and field survey include 1, 3, 4, 18-34, as identified in Table 4.2 of the Rolling Hills Housing Element Draft for HCD Review (December 3, 2021). The purpose of the preliminary biological study is to document existing conditions at each site and determine if there are any records of listed and/or sensitive plant and wildlife species and communities occurring on or in the immediate vicinity of the 20 vacant lots proposed for development. This task will include a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Sensitive Species Occurrences and National Wetland Inventory and National Hydrography Database maps, and aerial images.

After conducting the literature search, biologists familiar with the resources known or expected to occur in the project’s vicinity will conduct a general reconnaissance-level survey of the biological resources in each of the proposed sites.

During the survey, the biologists will map plant communities and record photographs to document the current conditions of the sites. The biologists will evaluate each lot for the potential for sensitive wildlife species that are known to occur in the surrounding area including coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis), El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), Lyon’s pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii), aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides), south coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica), Catalina crossoma 455
Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Project:

Change Order Request 1
City of Rolling Hills
2 21330/63836
(Crossosoma californicum), Island green dudleya (Dudleya virens ssp. insularis), Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn (Lycium brevipes var. hassei), and woolly seablite (Suaeda taxifolia). An analysis of the habitats to potentially support the presence of federal- and state-listed or otherwise sensitive plant and wildlife species within each lot will be performed. This task does not include a formal jurisdictional delineation; however, the sites will be assessed for the potential of waters under agency jurisdiction.

After completing the biological survey, Chambers Group will prepare one Biological Letter Report that will include an introduction, methods used to conduct the surveys, results of the existing conditions of biological resources within the survey areas, a discussion of sensitive species and plant and wildlife communities, and references cited.

The letter report will include a discussion of the potential for sensitive species to occur within the vacant lot sites.

The report will include current photographs and maps documenting existing site conditions. The report will also discuss any waters or wetland habitats that may occur within each vacant lot. The report will identify potential mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts as a result of project activities. The report will contain up to 40 pages of text and tables and up to 20 pages of appendices.

Assumptions:
• This scope of work assumes two biologists working two full days to survey and map the 20 vacant lots. If additional surveys other than the biological reconnaissance surveys are required by the City, Chambers Group will be pleased to provide these services under a separate cost and scope of work. • This scope of work includes a general vegetation mapping effort and is not intended for impact analysis. If impact analysis is required, detailed mapping to account for impacts at a square-foot level can be accomplished under a change order.
• This scope of work does not include a formal jurisdictional delineation; however, the sites will be assessed for the potential of waters under agency jurisdiction.
• This scope of work and cost does not include any costs associated with habitat mitigation. If required, Chambers Group will be pleased to provide these services under a separate cost and scope of work. • This scope of work does not include protocol-level surveys for listed or otherwise sensitive species. If required, Chambers Group will be pleased to provide these services under a separate cost and scope of work. • Additional meetings, agency consultations, permitting and additional sensitive species memos are not included in this scope of work. If required, Chambers Group will be pleased to provide these services under a separate cost and scope of work.

Deliverables: One electronic copy of the letter report will be provided for review within four weeks of completing the survey. Chambers Group will incorporate one round of comments into the final report within two weeks of receiving comments on the draft report. Electronic copies of the final report will be submitted.

Task 3: Preparation of the Updated CEQA Document
Based on discussions with the City and legal counsel, under this task Chambers Group will update the existing IS/ND to include the results of the biological reconnaissance level survey and report and to evaluate the 20 vacant sites on a programmatic level for each CEQA environmental checklist discipline item. This will result in an IS / MND and will include mitigation measures for each resource area as appropriate.

For each CEQA environmental checklist discipline item, the existing environmental setting of the project site and surroundings will be characterized from the existing literature base and additional technical study. An environmental impacts analysis will be prepared for each checklist entry. Based on CEQA-defined significance criteria, Chambers Group will determine the potential for any adverse or significant adverse impacts and present mitigation measures to reduce any such impacts to a level below significance. It should be noted that while the intent is to include mitigation measures for biological resources, looking at all resources areas from a programmatic level may result in a need for mitigation in other resources areas.
456
Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Project:

Change Order Request 1
City of Rolling Hills
3 21330/63836
Assumptions: This task does not include any evaluation of any zone changes if requested by HCD. This task does not include any additional technical studies as was the direction provided during discussions with legal counsel.

Deliverables: One electronic PDF copy and one electronic copy in Microsoft Word format of the Administrative Draft MND for one round of review by the City.

Task 4: Public Review MND and Corresponding Notices
After receipt of one set of integrated comments on the Administrative Draft MND from the City, Chambers Group will then revise the MND accordingly. Chambers Group will prepare and distribute copies of the Draft MND to the City, State Clearinghouse, County Clerk, and affected public agencies.

For submittal to the State Clearinghouse (Office of Planning and Research [OPR]), Chambers Group will draft a Notice of Intent (NOI), Notice of Completion (NOC), Summary Form, and the MND with associated appendices. Chambers Group can submit these electronically on behalf of the City. The City must approve Chambers Group as a submitter on the OPR CEQANet Web portal. For submittal to the County Clerk, documents will be sent via mail pending the status of public access to County buildings. This proposal assumes no other agencies or interested parties would receive a copy of the NOI. To comply with the CEQA guidelines, the City must distribute the NOI through at least one of the following methods:
• Publication at least one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project. • Posting of the notice on and off-site in the area where the project is located. • Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project.

Fees associated with coordinating and publishing to public newspapers, websites, or posting of a physical notice at the Project will require a change order as these tasks are not included in this scope and associated fees for newspaper postings vary.

Deliverables: An electronic PDF copy with appendices for the City. One electronic copy of the NOC, NOI, and Summary Form for OPR submittal. One NOI to be filed with the County Clerk.

Task 5: Responses to Comments and Final CEQA Document
Chambers Group will prepare responses to comments received from public review. A draft of these responses will be provided to the City for review. It is assumed that Chambers Group will coordinate with City to address public comments received, and comments will be addressed based on available data. We anticipate no more than 15 comment letters with an average of five comments each (75 comments total) will be received and addressed. The cost estimate for this task is based on the assumption that no new technical analysis will be required in response to the public comments. If more comments than assumed are received or additional analysis will be required to respond to comments, Chambers Group will coordinate with the City to identify comments to be addressed by the Chambers Group team and/or provide these services under a separate scope and fee.

Upon receipt of one complete set of comments from the City on the responses, a Final MND will be prepared. This document combined with the Draft MND will constitute the Final MND to be used by the City when considering approval of the project.

Deliverables: One electronic Microsoft Word copy of the Draft Response to Comments for one round of review by the City. One electronic PDF copy of the Final MND with appendices for the City.

Task 6: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Following preparation of the MND, Chambers Group will prepare a Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as required by CEQA for review by the City. The Final MMRP incorporating the City’s comments will be incorporated into the Final MND.
457
Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Project:

Change Order Request 1
City of Rolling Hills
4 21330/63836
Deliverables: One electronic PDF copy and one Microsoft Word copy of the Draft MMRP for one round of review by the City. The Final MMRP will be incorporated into Final MND.

Task 7: Findings and Filings
The Notice of Determination (NOD) is filed following the City’s decision to carry out or approve the project for which the MND has been prepared. Chambers Group will prepare the NOD and will file the NOD with the State Clearinghouse and the County Clerk.

Assumption: The City would be responsible for providing the check to the County Clerk for the NOD filing fee.

Deliverables: An electronic PDF copy of the NOD for the City. One NOD to be filed with the State Clearinghouse and one with the County Clerk.

Task 8: Attendance at Public Hearings
Chambers Group’s Senior Project Manager, Meghan Gibson, or Project Manager, Victoria Boyd, will attend one Planning Commission hearing and one City Council hearing to answer any questions that decision makers have on the Proposed Project’s environmental document and impacts analysis. If needed, technical staff may also join in attendance at hearings at an additional cost. This scope assumes that hearings would be no longer than three hours each. Chambers Group may also attend any other additional meetings requested by the City on a time and materials basis. 458
Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Project:

Change Order Request 1
City of Rolling Hills
5 21330/63836
Project Schedule
The following schedule is outlined with the assumption that the anticipated services will begin June 1, 2022.

Project Action Project Duration Approximate Dates
NTP 1 Day 6/1/22
Update Project Description 1 Week from the NTP 6/1/22 – 6/8/22 City Review of Project Description 2 Days 6/8/22 – 6/10/22 Tribal Consultation Update 1 Week 6/8/22 – 6/15/22
Biological Reconnaissance Level Survey and Report 5 Weeks 6/13/22 – 7/18/22 Prepare Updated CEQA Document 6 Weeks 6/13/22 – 7/25/22 City Review of Updated CEQA Document 1 Week 7/25/22 – 8/1/22 Prepare/Distribute the IS/MND and Notices 1 Week 8/1/22 – 8/8/22 Public Circulation 30 Days 8/8/22- 9/7/22
Prepare Draft Final IS/MND with Response to Comments
and MMRP
2 Weeks 9/1/22 -9/15/22
City Review of Final IS/MND, Response to Comments
and MMRP
2 Days 9/15/22 – 9/19/22
Prepare Final MND with Response to Comments and MMRP 2 Days 9/19/22 – 9/20/22 Planning Commission Hearing 1 Day 9/20/22
City Council Hearing 1 Day 9/26/22
NOD 1 Week 9/26/22 – 10/3/22
Approximate Total 17 weeks
Note: Some tasks will occur simultaneously.
459
Rolling Hills Housing Element Update Project:

Change Order Request 1
City of Rolling Hills
6 21330/63836
Fee Schedule
The services described in each task will be performed on a fixed fee basis. The costs for each task are shown below. A Standard Rate Sheet is provided on the following page.

Task Fee
Task 1: Project Description Update $1,650.00
Task 2: Technical Reports / Updates
Task 2.1: AB 52 Letter $278.00
Task 2.2: Biological Reconnaissance Level Survey and Report $18,250.00 Task 2: Preparation of the Appropriate CEQA Document $6,272.59 Task 3: Public Review MND and Corresponding Notices $5,294.75 Task 4: Responses to Comments and Final CEQA Document $7,785.00 Task 5: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (if required) $2,224.00 Task 6: Findings and Filings $2,583.50
Task 7: Attendance at Public Hearings $4,540.00
Subtotal $48,877.84
Contingency Fee (10%) $4,887.78
Total without Optional Task $53,765.62
460
Agenda Item No.: 12.C
Mtg. Date: 05/23/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS NOS. 1295 AND 1296 PERTAINING TO A

GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION CONSOLIDATED WITH THE

STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 8, 2022
DATE: May 23, 2022
BACKGROUND:

The California Voter Participation Rights Act prohibits a political subdivision, such as the City of Rolling Hills, from holding an election other than on a statewide election date if holding an election on a non-concurrent date has previously resulted in a significant decrease in voter turnout, being at least 25% less than its average voter turnout in the previous 4 statewide general elections.

The City of Rolling Hills did not meet the qualifying criteria to continue to conduct stand-alone elections on a non-concurrent date and therefore moved its elections to coincide with the date of the statewide election. On October 24, 2016 the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills adopted Ordinance No. 347 moving the date of the City’s General Municipal Election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of odd-numbered years to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years beginning in November 2020.

The City’s next General Municipal Election will be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 for the purpose of electing three members of the City Council to four-year terms. The seats are currently held by Mayor James Black, Mayor Pro Tem Patrick Wilson and Councilmember Leah Mirsch.
461
DISCUSSION:

Enclosed with this staff report are two routine in nature Resolutions relating to the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022. The first resolution is required to call and give notice of an election for November 8, 2022, and to request that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors direct the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to provide full services. The second resolution establishes the regulations for candidates for elective office. The Resolutions are as follows:

A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to order the consolidation of a General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022 with the Statewide General Election to be held in the County of Los Angeles the same day; to authorize the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to canvass the returns of said General Municipal Election; and to request that the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of said County be permitted to render full services to the City of Rolling Hills relating to the conduct of said General Municipal Election pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10403; and
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills, California, adopting regulations for candidates for elective office pertaining to candidate statements submitted to the voters at an election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022.

The City Clerk’s Office will handle all candidate filings and publishing of notices. All other elements of the election would be administered by the Los Angeles County RegistrarRecorder/County Clerk’s office.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The County has provided an unofficial conservative estimated cost for the November 8, 2022 General Election including any potential ballot measure(s) of $15,000. The $15,000 will be included in the General Fund Account for FY 2022/23.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution Nos. 1295 and 1296 pertaining to the General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022 as presented.

ATTACHMENTS:

ResolutionNo1295_CallElection2022_CountyServices.pdf
ResolutionNo1296_EstablishRegulations_CandidateStatement.pdf 462

Resolution No. 1295 1
RESOLUTION NO. 1295

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING

HILLS REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO ORDER THE CONSOLIDATION OF A
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8,
2022 WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THE SAME DAY; TO AUTHORIZE

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

TO CANVASS THE RETURNS OF SAID GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION; AND TO REQUEST THAT THE REGISTRARRECORDER/COUNTY CLERK OF SAID COUNTY BE PERMITTED TO

RENDER FULL SERVICES TO THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF SAID GENERAL MUNICIPAL

ELECTION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE SECTION
10403

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,

CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. RECITALS.

A. A General Municipal Election has been called by the City of Rolling Hills to be held in the City of Rolling Hills on November 8, 2022.

B. A Statewide General Election to be held in the County of Los Angeles has been or will be called to be held on November 8, 2022.

C. It is desired, pursuant to the authority found in California Elections Code section 10403, to consolidate said General Municipal Election with said Statewide General Election to be held in the County of Los Angeles.

Section 2. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is hereby respectfully requested to order the consolidation of said General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022, with the Statewide General Election to be held in the County of Los Angeles on November 8, 2022.

Section 3. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is hereby further respectfully requested to place upon the same ballot as that provided for said Statewide General Election to be held in the County of Los Angeles on November 8, 2022, the names of the candidates for the offices of three (3) Councilmembers for the full term of four years, to be submitted to the electors of the City of Rolling Hills at said General Municipal Election.
463

Resolution No. 1295 2
Section 4. The City of Rolling Hills acknowledges that the consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 10418 of the California Elections Code.

Section 5. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is hereby authorized and respectfully requested to canvass the returns of said General Municipal Election.

Section 6. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is hereby authorized and respectfully requested to authorize and permit the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles to:
a) Print and supply ballots for said City of Rolling Hills General Municipal Election;
b) Mail the City’s sample ballots and candidate statements of qualifications to the electors of the City of Rolling Hills as part of the same material that will be mailed to the voters of the Statewide General Election to be held in the County of Los Angeles;
c) Perform such other services as may be required for the consolidation and conduct of said City of Rolling Hills General Municipal Election with said Statewide General Election to be held in the County of Los Angeles.

Section 7. The vote centers for the election shall be open as required during the identified voting period pursuant to California Elections Code sections 4007 and 14401.

Section 8. The City shall reimburse the County of Los Angeles in full for the services performed on behalf of the City upon the presentation of a bill by the County.

Section 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles and to transmit an electronic copy to the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of May, 2022. ___________________________________
JAMES BLACK, M.D.

MAYOR
ATTEST:
464

Resolution No. 1295 3
___________________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
465

Resolution No. 1295 4
The foregoing Resolution No. 1295 entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING

HILLS REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO ORDER THE CONSOLIDATION OF A
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8,
2022 WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THE SAME DAY; TO AUTHORIZE

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

TO CANVASS THE RETURNS OF SAID GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION; AND TO REQUEST THAT THE REGISTRARRECORDER/COUNTY CLERK OF SAID COUNTY BE PERMITTED TO

RENDER FULL SERVICES TO THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF SAID GENERAL MUNICIPAL

ELECTION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE SECTION
10403
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23rd day of May, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK
466
65277.00001\40089942.1
Resolution No. 1296 -1-
RESOLUTION NO. 1296

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING

REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE

OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATE STATEMENTS

SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE
HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,

CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. RECITALS. Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides that the governing body of any local agency adopt regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the candidate’s statement.

Section 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Pursuant to §13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California, each candidate for elective office to be voted for at an Election to be held in the City of Rolling Hills on November 8, 2022, may prepare a candidate’s statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk. The statement may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than 400 words of the candidate's education and qualifications expressed by the candidate.

The statement shall not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. The statement shall be filed in typewritten form in the office of the City Clerk at the time the candidate's nomination papers are filed. The statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of the next working day after the close of the nomination period.

Section 3. FOREIGN LANGUAGE POLICY
A. Pursuant to the Federal Voting Rights Act, candidate statements will be translated into all languages required by the County of Los Angeles RegistrarRecorder/County Clerk. The County is required to translate candidate’s statements into the following languages: Armenian, Chinese Farsi, Hindi, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog/Filipino, Vietnamese, and other required languages as identified.

B. The County will mail sample ballots and candidate statements in a particular language to only those voters who are on the county voter file as having requested a sample ballot in a particular language. The County will make the sample ballot and candidate statements in the required languages available at all vote centers, on the County’s website, and in the Election Official’s office. 467
65277.00001\40089942.1
Resolution No. 1296 -2-
Section 4. PAYMENT
A. Translations

1. The candidate shall not be required to pay for the cost of translating the candidate statement into any required foreign language as specified in (A) of Section 2 above pursuant to Federal and\or State law.

2. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of translating the candidate statement into any foreign language that is not required as specified in (A) and/or (B) of Section 2 above, pursuant to Federal and\or State law, but is requested as an option by the candidate.

B. Printing

1. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate statement in English in the main voter pamphlet.

2. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate statement in a foreign language requested by the candidate per (B) of Section 2 above, in the main voter pamphlet.

The City Clerk shall estimate the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidate’s statements filed pursuant to this section, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended), and require each candidate filing a statement to pay in advance to the local agency his or her estimated pro rata share as a condition of having his or her statement included in the voter’s pamphlet. In the event the estimated payment is required, the estimate is just an approximation of the actual cost that varies from one election to another election and may be significantly more or less than the estimate, depending on the actual number of candidates filing statements. Accordingly, the City Clerk is not bound by the estimate and may, on a pro rata basis, bill the candidate for additional actual expense or refund any excess paid depending on the final actual cost. In the event of underpayment, the City Clerk may require the candidate to pay the balance of the cost incurred. In the event of overpayment, the City Clerk shall prorate the excess amount among the candidates and refund the excess amount paid within 30 days of the election.

Section 5. MISCELLANEOUS.

A. All translations shall be provided by professionally-certified translators.

B. The City Clerk shall not allow bold type, underlining, capitalization, indentations, bullets, leading hyphens to the same extent and manner as in previous City elections.

C. The City Clerk shall comply with all recommendations and standards set forth by the California Secretary of State regarding occupational designations and other matters relating to elections.

Section 6. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS. No candidate will be permitted to include 468
65277.00001\40089942.1
Resolution No. 1296 -3-
additional materials in the sample ballot package.

Section 7. That the City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate's representative a copy of this Resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued.

Section 8. That all previous Resolutions establishing City Council policy on payment for candidate’s statements are repealed.

Section 9. That this Resolution shall apply only to the election to be held on November 8, 2022 and shall then be repealed.

Section 10. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of May, 2022. ___________________________________
JAMES BLACK, M.D.

MAYOR
ATTEST:

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK
469
65277.00001\40089942.1
Resolution No. 1296 -4-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
The foregoing Resolution No. 1296 entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING

REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE

OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATE STATEMENTS

SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE
HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23rd day of May, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK
470
Agenda Item No.: 13.A
Mtg. Date: 05/23/2022
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: SUBMITTAL OF "ADOPTION DRAFT" 2021-2029 ROLLING HILLS

HOUSING ELEMENT TO HCD
DATE: May 23, 2022
BACKGROUND:

State law requires all cities and counties in California to adopt a Housing Element as part of their General Plans. The Housing Element must be updated every eight years and certified by the State. Through the Housing Element, each jurisdiction must demonstrate that it is accommodating its fair share of the region’s housing needs and taking proactive measures to accommodate housing of all types for persons of all incomes. All cities and counties are subject to this requirement, regardless of their size, physical constraints, or real estate market characteristics.

The current Housing Element cycle (referred to as the “6 th Cycle”) extends from October 15,
2021 through October 15, 2029. To comply with State law, Rolling Hills must show that it has the capacity to add 45 housing units during this period, including 29 that are affordable to lowand very low-income households. The City is not required to build 45 housing units; rather, it must demonstrate that it has created the opportunity for the private and non-profit sectors to do so. There are numerous other Housing Element requirements, including a mandate to affirmatively further fair housing, programs to remove government constraints to housing development, and requirements to allow specific housing types (such as emergency shelters) in every jurisdiction.

The City’s housing strategy is to meet its 45-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) through a combination of an affordable housing overlay zone on the Rancho Del Mar School site (16 units) and the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs—at a rate of roughly five units a year). The City published its Draft 6
th Cycle Element on December 3, 2021 and
circulated this draft for a State-mandated 30-day review period. The Planning Commission convened a hearing on December 16, 2021 to discuss the Draft and provide an opportunity for public comment during the 30-day period.
471
On January 10, 2022, the Rolling Hills City Council directed staff to submit a working draft of the 2021-2029 Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their review. All California cities are required to have their documents reviewed by HCD before adopting them. Once HCD receives the Draft, it has 90 days to issue a “findings” letter indicating the revisions to the document that are needed to receive State certification. Rolling Hills submitted its draft on January 11, 2022 and received its State comments on April 11, 2022. The State indicated that the City had met many of the statutory requirements but indicated the Element required revision before it could be certified. Their findings letter requested 34 changes, some of which were specific and others that were more generalized. The HCD comment letter is included as Attachment “A” of this staff report.

On April 22, 2022, City staff and its Housing Element consultant met with the HCD reviewer by Zoom to go over the State’s comments. The reviewer provided guidance on how the City could respond to some of the comments. The City then prepared written responses to each of the 34 HCD comments. The City’s responses are included as Attachment “B” of this staff report. Concurrently, the City revised the December Draft to incorporate all changes requested by the State. Both a “tracked change” and “clean” copy were produced, making it easier for City officials, the public, and State reviewers to see the changes between the two documents. The new version of the document is referred to as the “Adoption Draft.” (the prior version was referred to as the “HCD Draft).” The tracked change and clean versions are included with this staff report and are referred to as Attachments C and D, respectively.

On May 17, 2022, the Rolling Hills Planning Commission convened a public hearing on the proposed revisions to the Housing Element. The hearing provided an opportunity for public comment as well as an opportunity to discuss proposed changes. No public comments were received at the meeting. At the conclusion of the item, the Commission voted unanimously to forward the latest version of the Housing Element to the City Council, and then on to HCD.

HCD has been much more stringent in its review of 6
th Cycle Housing Elements than it has
been during earlier cycles. Housing Elements for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, which consists of 190 cities and six counties, were due on October 15, 2021. As of May 10, nearly seven months later, only 13 of the 196 jurisdictions have received State certification. The status of Elements in the SCAG region are as follows:
13 are certified
100 have been reviewed by HCD, revised, adopted, and then found out of compliance 26 are on their second drafts, after their first draft was found out of compliance 46 have yet to be adopted, but their first drafts have been found out of compliance (Rolling Hills is in this group)
3 are awaiting HCD’s responses on their first drafts
8 have submitted nothing to HCD yet
DISCUSSION:

The City’s comment letter includes a two-page cover letter and an eight-page appendix. The two-page cover letter is “standard” and is almost identical to what every other city has received following HCD’s review of their initial draft. The letter reiterates the October 15, 2021 due date, reminds the City that any zoning required to meet the RHNA must be completed by October 15, 2022, and identifies the financial benefits of having a certified element (eligibility for grants).
472
The “Appendix” to the Element lists HCD’s specific findings. It is organized according to the requirements of the Government Code. To facilitate responses to the State’s questions, the City’s consultant reviewed responses from the 13 jurisdictions that have been found in compliance with Housing Element law, as well as the edits made by these cities in response to HCD.

Comment 1 asked the City to document the effectiveness of its past efforts to help persons with special needs. In response, the City has amended Chapter 2 to describe efforts to assist seniors and facilitate “aging in place” through home retrofits.

Comments 2 through 6 address the AFFH analysis (Appendix A). HCD asked for additional information on how the City complies with fair housing laws, additional tables and maps comparing Rolling Hills to the region, additional explanation of how public input is reflected in the Housing Element, and additional evidence that housing on the Rancho Del Mar site would not result in the concentration of lower income people in a single area. Staff edited Appendix A with responses to all of these comments. HCD is looking for a particular format that links the AFFH analysis to the City’s policies and programs, and the City has provided that format (see pages A-44 to A-47 in the tracked change version).

Comments 7, 8, and 9 address various aspects of the Needs Assessment. This is Chapter 3 of the Housing Element. HCD requested a projection of the future number of “extremely low income households” in Rolling Hills and an analysis of how many lower income homeowners and renters are paying more than 30% of their incomes on rent. They also asked for an estimate of the number of substandard housing units in the city. Chapter 3 of the Element was revised to address these requests.

Comments 10, 11, and 14 address Chapter 4, which is the Sites Inventory. Comment 10 questions the City’s ability to meet its lower income housing needs through ADUs, and specifically asks for more data on the units that were approved in 2021. The City has provided this data. Comment 11 reminds the City that it needs to enter its list of housing sites in an on-line State data base (after adoption). Comment 14 asks the City to show that the 31- acre Rancho Del Mar site is large enough to accommodate an emergency shelter, single room occupancy hotel, and 16-unit affordable housing development. The City has responded to all of these comments through edits to Chapter 4.

Comments 12, 13, and 15-17 address Chapter 5, which is the Constraints Analysis. Comment 12 asks for more detail on the parking requirements for emergency shelters, and the exact wording of the city’s requirement than shelters must be 300 feet apart. Comment 13 reminds the City that it must allow supportive and transitional housing in its residential zones under state law (there is already a Program in the Housing Element to comply). Comment 15 indicates that the City’s ADU requirements need to be updated, but do not specify what needs to change. The City has added a program to its Housing Element to update the standards.

Comment 16 reminds the City of its obligation to send the adopted Housing Element to water and sewer service providers. Comment 17 asks for an analysis of dry utilities (gas and electricity). The City has amended Chapter 5 to address Comments 12 and 17 and has amended Chapter 6 to address Comments 13 and 15.

Comments 18-25 also address Chapter 5 (and to a lesser extent, Chapter 6). Comment 18 473
asks the City to provide more information on the development approval process, including the site plan review process and approval findings. We have edited Chapter 5 (p 5-17) in response. Comment 19 asks for more information on site improvement requirements (specifically with respect to the Rancho Del Mar site). This has been added to P 5-18.

Comment 20 reminds the City that it must allow residential care facilities (group homes) under State law. The City has added a program to Chapter 6 to meet this requirement. Comment 21 asks the City to explain its reasonable accommodation procedure. This has been added to

cost and supply of housing. We have added a new section (P 5-22) in response.

Comment 23 requests that the City confirm that it complies with AB 1483, which requires fee information to be posted on line (it does). Comment 24 asks the City to create a written procedure for SB 35 applications (we have added this as a new program in Chapter 6).

Comment 25 asks the City to add an analysis of the lag time between when projects are approved and when they are actually constructed. This has been added to Chapter 5 (page 5- 24).

Comments 26-34 primarily relate to Chapter 6, which contains the City’s housing goals, policies, and programs. Many of these comments are quite vague, as they simply say that because the analysis in Chapters 2-5 did not address the issues in the earlier comments, the State cannot confirm that the programs are adequate.

Comment 26 asks the City to assign timelines and metrics to some of its programs. The City has done this through revisions to Chapter 6. Comment 27 is a global statement that indicates the City may not have identified adequate sites. This is followed by more specific comments on the Rancho Del Mar site (Comment 28) and ADUs (Comment 29). The City has asked the City to provide more information supporting its plan to rely on these sites to meet its need for 29 lower income units. This includes a request to monitor ADU production and actively facilitate development of the school site. Comment 30 links back to the earlier comment (13) that a program is needed to allow supportive and transitional housing.

Comments 31 and 32 are general statements that additional programs might be needed to address constraints and AFFH, but nothing specific is requested. The City has strengthened its programs in response to earlier comments, effectively addressing these two comments.

Comment 33 is moot, since HCD retracted it after sending it. Comment 34 asks the City to show how it has incorporated public input. Chapter 1 has been edited to provide a few examples.

None of the proposed revisions to the document substantively change the City’s approach to meeting its RHNA, which is to rely on ADUs and the Rancho Del Mar site.

NEXT STEPS:

The City Council hearing on May 23 is an opportunity to discuss the HCD comments, the City’s responses, and edits to the document. It is also an opportunity for public comment, which is an important part of the Housing Element process. The Commission may recommend specific actions to the Council related to the contents of the document, the HCD comments, and the HCD review and approval process.

On May 23, the Council will be asked to authorize a re-submittal of the “Adoption Draft” to HCD. Assuming this direction is provided, the document will be sent to HCD on May 24. 474
State comments are expected back in late July. At that time, HCD may find that the Element is substantially in compliance due to the changes made by the City or it may determine that changes are still needed. If the latter occurs, the City expects a substantially smaller list of objections. The City will meet with HCD again to discuss any remaining changes.

Following the second HCD review, the City will move ahead with Housing Element adoption.

A follow-up hearing with the Planning Commission and City Council will be required at that time.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

Amendment of the Housing Element is considered a Project under CEQA. The City had initially planned a single CEQA document covering the Housing Element and Safety Element, but this was bifurcated at the time the Safety Element was adopted in March 2022 due to comments received from an agency to include mitigation measures that address potential housing development described in the Housing Element. An amended CEQA document is being prepared for the Housing Element that will consider mitigation measures to address the concerns. Although the Housing Element was expected to be adopted in May 2022, it cannot be adopted without an accompanying CEQA document. Staff will be preparing the amended CEQA document and circulating it for public review. In the meantime, staff is recommending that the Draft Element be sent to HCD for a second review. The amended CEQA document will be issued and circulated when the Housing Element is being considered for adoption.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Housing Element is a planning document that establishes policies for the City of Rolling Hills and will not have a direct fiscal impact on the City. Certification of the Element provides an indirect positive fiscal impact by reducing legal risks and qualifying the City for State planning grants. The City was awarded $65,000 from HCD through the Local Early Action Planning Grants Program (LEAP) to help fund the Housing Element. Remaining costs are paid through the FY2021-2022 General Fund.

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize staff to submit the revised Draft Housing Element to HCD for their second review, along with the responses to HCD’s comments.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. April 11, 2022 Comment letter from HCD
B. May 9, 2022 City Responses to HCD Comments
C. Tracked Change Adoption Draft Housing Element
475
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
April 11, 2022
John F. Signo, Director
Planning & Community Services Department
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear John F. Signo:

RE: City of Rolling Hill’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Rolling Hill’s draft housing element received for review on January 11, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review.

The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code.

The enclosed Appendix describes revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

As a reminder, the City’s 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City’s 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation, including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that 476
John F. Signo, Director

City of Rolling Hill’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2 April 11, 2022
represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf and
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf.

HCD appreciates the hard work the City’s planning staff provided during the course of our review. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Gianna Marasovich, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
477
City of Rolling Hill’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1 April 11, 2022

APPENDIX

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.

Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
The element must provide a cumulative evaluation of the effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness).

B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Enforcement and Outreach: The element must describe the City’s compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations. For additional information, please see pages 28-30 on HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/index.shtml.

Regional Analysis: While the element generally describes some regional data, the element must analyze Rolling Hills relative to the rest of the region regarding integration and segregation (disability, familial status, and income), access to opportunity (education, economic, and environmental), and disproportionate housing needs (cost burdened, overcrowding, and homelessness).

Other Relevant Factors: The element must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. For instance, the element should analyze historical land use, zoning, governmental and nongovernmental spending including transportation investments, demographic trends, historical patterns of 478
City of Rolling Hill’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2 April 11, 2022
segregation, or other information that may have impeded housing choices and mobility.

Sites Inventory: The element must identify sites throughout the community to foster inclusive communities. While the element identifies and show sites and zoning throughout the community, it also notes the plan to accommodate half of the regional housing need for lower income households at the Palos Verdes Unified School District (PVUSD). The element should discuss whether this strategy potentially isolates housing need for lower income households and include actions as appropriate.

Goals, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones: Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues. Programs generally must address enhancing housing mobility strategies; encouraging development of new affordable housing in high resource areas; improving place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing; and protecting existing residents from displacement.

Given that most of the City is considered a high and highest resource community (pg. 3-50), the element could focus on programs that enhance housing mobility and encourage development of more housing choices and affordable housing. Programs also need to be based on identified contributing factors, be significant and meaningful.

The element must add, and revise programs based on a complete analysis and listing and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues. Furthermore, the element must include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. For more information, please see HCD’s guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml.

2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)
Extremely Low-Income Households: The element includes analysis regarding extremely low-income (ELI) households such as the number of households and overpayment but must also identify projected housing needs. The projected housing need for ELI households can be calculated by using available census data to determine the number of very low-income households that qualify as ELI households or presume that 50 percent of the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) for very low-income households qualify as ELI households. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/buildingblocks/housing-needs/extremely-low-income-housing-needs.shtml.

3. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Overpayment: While the element identifies the total number of households overpaying for housing, it must quantify and analyze the number of lower-income households overpaying for housing by tenure (i.e., renter and owner). 479
City of Rolling Hill’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3 April 11, 2022
Housing Stock Condition: The element analyzed the age of the housing stock, discussed code enforcement data, and stated that there are no code enforcement or housing problems in the City. However, the element must estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement.

4. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress in Meeting the RHNA – Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADUs): The element is counting two ADUs as credit towards RHNA. First, the element must demonstrate the availability of these units during the planning period. For example, the element could discuss whether these units have pending or approved building permits. Second, the element must demonstrate affordability based on actual or anticipated rents or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed-restrictions).

Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD.

Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: The element must demonstrate compliance with emergency shelters parking requirements. Pursuant to AB 139 (Chapter 335, Statutes of 2019) emergency shelters are only required to provide sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the states do not requirement more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. Additionally, the element states emergency shelters are not allowed to be within 300 ft from each other; however, state law only allows a maximum of 300 ft separation requirement. The element should describe compliance with these requirements or include programs as appropriate.
• Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651.

The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate.
• Emergency Shelters, Single Room Occupancy (SRO), and Multifamily Zoning:

The element identifies a 31-acre site with an overlay zone that will 480
City of Rolling Hill’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4 April 11, 2022
accommodate the City’s lower-income RHNA, allow for emergency shelters byright, and SROs with a CUP. The element should discuss and analyze the suitability of this site to accommodate these various housing types and the full spectrum of the housing needs (beyond RHNA).
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): After a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which were not consistent with State ADU Law.

This includes but is not limited to restricting bedroom count and permitting procedures, among others. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU noncompliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to update the City’s ADU ordinance in order to comply with state law.

For more information, please consult HCD’s ADU Guidebook, published in December 2020, which provides detailed information on new state requirements surrounding ADU development.

Water Sewer Priority: Water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. The element should discuss compliance with these requirements and if necessary, add or modify programs to establish a written procedure by a date early in the planning period. For additional information and sample cover memo, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/buildingblocks/other-requirements/priority-for-water-sewer.shtml.

Availability of Infrastructure: While the element describes infrastructure capacity to accommodate the regional housing need, the element must also provide an analysis on access to dry utilities for the sites identified in the inventory.

5. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7). Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property, and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element included some information on approving single family homes, the analysis should address the approval body, the number of public hearings, if any, approval findings, and any other relevant information such as any design review requirements. The analysis should address 481
City of Rolling Hill’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5 April 11, 2022
impacts on housing cost, supply, timing, and approval certainty. For example, the element mentioned the requirement of a site plan review for any proposed development, the use of conditional use permit for single room occupancy units, and that City Council and Planning Commission take field trips to the proposed site as part of the review process. The element should specifically identify timing, approval findings, and criteria for approvals.

On/Off Site Improvements: While the element stated that specific parcels zoned for multifamily such as the PVUSD site will require ingress and egress improvements (p. 5-23), the element should identify typical site improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width), and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/constraints/codes-and-enforcement-on-offsiteimprovement-standards.shtml.

Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities:
• Group Homes for Seven or More: The element must discuss how the City defines and permits group homes for seven or more persons. For your information, excluding these uses from residential zones or subjecting the uses to conditional use permits (CUP) is generally considered a constraint and programs should be modified as appropriate with specific commitment to allow the use in residential zones with objectivity and certainty. • Reasonable Accommodation: While the element briefly describes its reasonable accommodation procedures, it must describe the process and decision-making criteria such as approval findings and analyze any potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities.

Other Local Ordinances: The element must analyze any locally adopted ordinances that directly impacts the cost and supply or residential development (e.g., inclusionary requirements, short term rentals, growth controls).

Zoning, Development Standards and Fees: The element must clarify compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning, development standards and fees on the City’s website and add a program to address these requirements, as necessary.

SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process: The element must clarify whether there are written procedures for the SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process and add a program to address these requirements, if necessary.

6. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between 482
City of Rolling Hill’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 6 April 11, 2022
receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
Approval Time: The element must analyze the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.

C. Housing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and address the goals of the housing element, programs must be revised with discrete timelines and specific commitment. Several programs included various actions but still must include a timeline for implementing each action including, Program 8 – Assist Senior and Disabled Households, Program 9 – Assist Extremely Low-Income Households, Program 12 – Facilitate Communication with Affordable Housing Service Providers…Program 14 – Sewer Feasibility Studies and Phase One Construction, Program 20 – Fair Housing Services Program Administration, Program 22 – Fair Housing Training for Staff.

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, singleroom occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
483
City of Rolling Hill’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 7 April 11, 2022
As noted in Finding B4, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning was not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element must be revised, as follows:

Program 2 – Rancho Del Mar Opportunity Site Monitoring: The element identifies one site to accommodate a portion of its lower-income RHNA. While the program includes several actions such as subdividing the site, coordination with the school district, technical assistance and incentives, the program does not commit to these actions nor provide a date for when these actions will occur. Specifically, the element should include timelines for various actions and include commitments to outreaching, coordination, and establishing incentives that facilitate development on this site, as mentioned in the program.

Program 6 – Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Production, Monitoring, and Incentives:

The element heavily relies on ADUs to accommodate most of the City’s RHNA for all income levels. Given the City’s assumptions for ADUs exceed recent trends, the element should include a program to monitor permitted ADUs and affordability every other year and take appropriate action such as adjusting assumptions or rezoning within a specified time period (e.g., six months).

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: The element identifies Program 4 and 5 committing to provide a variety of housing types (e.g., SROs, transitional and supportive housing, employee housing, etc.,) and address constraints for people with disabilities. These actions were also identified in the last planning period but have not been completed. HCD encourages the City to utilize HCD’s technical assistance resources and model ordinances to ensure effective and efficient implementation.

Please see the Housing Hub Site: Housing Planning Hub Site (arcgis.com)

3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Finding(s) B5 and B6, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, 484
City of Rolling Hill’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 8 April 11, 2022
and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete analysis of affirmatively furthering fair housing. Based on the outcome of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs.

D. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).)
While the element does include quantified objectives (p. 6-20), it must be revised to include quantified objectives for number of housing units that will be rehabilitated for low, moderate, and above moderate households.

E. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) While the element described various efforts to achieve public participation in the preparation of the housing element update, it should also describe how comments were considered and incorporated into the element.
485
Revisions Made in Response to HCD Comments on Rolling Hills Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Page 1 May 9, 2022
Revisions Made in Response to HCD Comments on 2021-2029 Rolling Hills Draft Housing Element (HCD’s comments are numbered 1-34 in the left-hand margin) A. Review of the Previous Element (Element Chapter 2)
The element must provide a cumulative evaluation of the effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness).

City Response: A new section has been added to Page 2-4 to evaluate the cumulative effectiveness of past goals, policies, and actions in meeting the needs of special needs populations. See Section 2.3.5 of Adoption document.

B1. Needs Assessment/ Affirmatively Fair Housing (Appendix A: AFFH Analysis) Enforcement and Outreach: The element must describe the City’s compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations.

City Response: This has been added to Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Please see page A-4, which lists various federal and state programs which the City implements and abides by. The Element includes a number of programs to increase awareness of fair housing laws (Chapter 6).

Regional Analysis: While the element generally describes some regional data, the element must analyze Rolling Hills relative to the rest of the region regarding integration and segregation (disability, familial status, and income), access to opportunity (education, economic, and environmental), and disproportionate housing needs (cost burdened, overcrowding, and homelessness).

City Response: Each of the listed items is covered below:

Disability. A map showing the percentage of disabled residents by Census tract was included in the prior draft (Figure A-3), and an analysis was provided. This analysis has been expanded to more deeply interpret the data shown on the map. The City has a higher percentage of disabled residents than many surrounding tracts due to its higher median age (55). In general, health indicators for Rolling Hills confirm the community’s designation as a high resource area. See Page A-10.

Familial Status: A map showing familial status by Census tract has been added (Figure A-4) and an analysis of this map has been provided. See Page A-15.

Income: Maps of income by Census tract were included in the prior draft (formerly Figures A-4 and A-5, renumbered A-5 and A-6), and an analysis was provided. The analysis has been expanded by adding a new map (Figure A-7) showing a larger geographic area. An analysis of the map has been added on pages A-12 and A-13.
1 2
3 486
Revisions Made in Response to HCD Comments on Rolling Hills Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Page 2 Access to Education: A map showing regional data on education was included in the previous draft (formerly Figure A-9, now Figure A-11). Additional text has been added interpreting the data on the map for Rolling Hills, surrounding cities, and nearby parts of the region. See Page A-23.

Economic Opportunities: A map showing regional economic opportunity data was included in the previous draft (formerly Figure A-8, now Figure A-10). Additional text has been added interpreting the data on the map for Rolling Hills, surrounding cities, and nearby parts of the region. See Page A-22.

Environmental Factors: A map showing environmental outcomes was included in the previous draft (formerly Figure A-7, now Figure A-9). Additional text has been added interpreting the scores for Rolling Hills, surrounding cities, and nearby parts of the region. See Page A-22.

Cost Burdened: Two maps showing cost burdened households in the region (one for owners and one for renters) were included in the previous draft (formerly Figures A-11 and A-12, now renumbered as Figures A-13 and A-14). Data on these maps has been described in more detail through revisions to the text. See Pages A-30 and A-31.

Overcrowding: A map showing overcrowding was included in the previous draft (formerly Figure A-13, now Figure A-15). Data on the map has been described in more detail through revisions to the text. See Pages A-32 and A-33.

Homelessness: A new map has been added based on data from the County of Los Angeles. It shows the density of the homeless population throughout the County, providing a regional perspective (see new Figure A-17.) A new text section has been added to discuss the data. See Pages A-39 and A-40.

In HCD’s subsequent clarification to this comment (correspondence from Gianna Marasovich on 4/26 at 4:38 PM), it was suggested that the City add the tables on pages 75-78 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo in response to this comment. We have done this and inserted eight new tables into the AFFH analysis (Appendix A), with data for 2010 and 2020 for Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County in each table, as requested. These tables are found on pages A-6, 7, 11, 13, 20, 29, 31, and 32 (page references are to the tracked changes version). We have also added narrative text that interprets the data.

Other Relevant Factors: The element must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. For instance, the element should analyze historical land use, zoning, governmental and nongovernmental spending including transportation investments, demographic trends, historical patterns of segregation, or other information that may have impeded housing choices and mobility.

City Response: Please see Page A-41 (tracked change version). Additional data on land use, zoning, infrastructure, and historical patterns is included, and a table has been added showing tenure by race.

Information on historical patterns of segregation is included in the section under “local knowledge” on page A-42.
4 487
Revisions Made in Response to HCD Comments on Rolling Hills Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Page 3 Sites Inventory: The element must identify sites throughout the community to foster inclusive communities. While the element identifies and show sites and zoning throughout the community, it also notes the plan to accommodate half of the regional housing need for lower income households at the Palos Verdes Unified School District (PVUSD). The element should discuss whether this strategy potentially isolates housing need for lower income households and include actions as appropriate.

City Response: Please see Page A-43 (tracked change version). We have added a new section called “Distribution of Proposed Housing Sites.” Given the City’s physical constraints and the small size of the RHNA (29 lower income units), the City’s strategy to meet its regional housing need is practical, responsive to economic conditions, and the most effective way to meet State AFFH objectives. As noted in the text, this strategy combines a vacant, developable affordable housing site (Rancho Del Mar) with scattered site ADUs. A single 16-unit affordable housing development plus 40 scattered site ADUs would not result in the isolation of lower income households.

Goals, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones: Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues. Programs generally must address enhancing housing mobility strategies; encouraging development of new affordable housing in high resource areas; improving placebased strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing; and protecting existing residents from displacement. Given that most of the City is considered a high and highest resource community (pg. 3-50), the element could focus on programs that enhance housing mobility and encourage development of more housing choices and affordable housing. Programs also need to be based on identified contributing factors, be significant and meaningful. The element must add, and revise programs based on a complete analysis and listing and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues. Furthermore, the element must include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. For more information, please see HCD’s guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/index.shtml.

City Response: Text edited. See text on pages A-44 to A-47 (tracked change version). The discussion of contributing factors and priorities has been substantially rewritten in response to this comment, and in response to our review of recently certified elements that were deemed to comply with AB 686. We have documented the four categories of programs that address contributing factors (enhancing mobility, new affordable housing development in high resource areas, etc.); we have established priorities in two of these areas; we have ranked these priorities 1, 2, and 3 (disparities in access to opportunity, fair housing education and outreach, access for persons with disabilities), we have identified contributing factors in each case, and we have identified the significant and meaningful actions that are included in Chapter 6 of the Housing Element addressing each contributing factor.

B2. Needs Assessment/ Documentation of projections and existing/projected needs for all income levels (Element Chapter 3)
Extremely Low-Income Households: The element includes analysis regarding extremely low-income (ELI) households such as the number of households and overpayment but must also identify projected housing needs. The projected housing need for ELI households can be calculated by using available census data to determine the number of very low-income households that qualify as ELI households or presume that 50 percent of the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) for very low-income households qualify as ELI households. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at 5 6
7 488
Revisions Made in Response to HCD Comments on Rolling Hills Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Page 4 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-needs/extremely-lowincome-housing-needs.shtml.

City Response: This information was provided in our December 2021 draft on page 6-20 (Table 6-1). As indicated there, the City used the CHAS data (consistent with the link cited by HCD above) to determine that 35 percent of the City’s very low income households were extremely low income. We have edited Chapter 3 so that this same data and conclusion is referenced there. Please see Page 3-33 for new text.

B3. Needs Assessment/ Analysis of Household Characteristics, Overpayment, Housing Condition (Element Chapter 3)
Overpayment: While the element identifies the total number of households overpaying for housing, it must quantify and analyze the number of lower-income households overpaying for housing by tenure (i.e., renter and owner).

City Response: We have edited the document so that this information appears in two places. First, please see Table A-7, which was added to Appendix A (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) to compare cost-burdens among extremely low income and low income renter and owner households in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County. A new Table also has been added to Chapter 3 showing overpayment for housing by tenure among lower income households (see Page 3-17 of tracked change document, Table

3.11) along with supplemental narrative interpreting the table. This is based on CHAS HUD User data.

Housing Stock Condition: The element analyzed the age of the housing stock, discussed code enforcement data, and stated that there are no code enforcement or housing problems in the City.

However, the element must estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement.

City Response: Text edited. There are approximately 700 homes in Rolling Hills. City staff is aware of five houses in need of rehabilitation and replacement. This has been documented and is now included on

B4. Sites Inventory (Element Chapter 4)
Progress in Meeting the RHNA –The element is counting two ADUs as credit towards RHNA. First, the element must demonstrate the availability of these units during the planning period. For example, the element could discuss whether these units have pending or approved building permits. Second, the element must demonstrate affordability based on actual or anticipated rents or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed-restrictions).

City Response: Text edited. ADU permits were issued for the units in question on October 27, 2020 and May 20, 2021 respectively. Both of these projects involve converting existing two-story stables (located on two separate parcels about a mile apart) into ADUs of approximately 600 square feet each. Neither of these units has a finaled building permit yet. Given the eight year timeframe of the Housing Element, both units are expected to be completed before 2029.

These are market rate units. The assumption that they will be affordable to low income households is based on the size of the units and the fact that they are being created by repurposing existing space 9 8
10 489
Revisions Made in Response to HCD Comments on Rolling Hills Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Page 5 rather than building new space, which presumably would cost more. Current HCD income limits for Los Angeles County indicate that the upper end of the low-income range for a two-person household is $75,700. At 30 percent of household income, monthly housing costs would need to be $1,892 to be considered affordable. The City’s survey of comparable properties in 2021 found that ADUs of 400 to 600 square feet in the Palos Verdes Peninsula sub-market were renting for $900 to $1,800 per month. The two new ADUs can be reasonably presumed to rent for comparable rates. Moreover, SCAG’s ADU survey for Los Angeles County found that 60% of all ADUs in the coastal region could be presumed affordable to lower income households. As these two ADUs are the smallest of the nine approved units that are listed in the Housing Element (see Table 4-1), it is reasonable to presume they would fall in this range.

This information has been added to Chapter 4 (see Page 4-2).

Electronic Sites Inventory: Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD.

City Response: The City intends to comply with this requirement immediately following adoption and concurrently with submittal to HCD, consistent with the Government Code.

Emergency Shelters: The element must demonstrate compliance with emergency shelters parking requirements. Pursuant to AB 139 (Chapter 335, Statutes of 2019) emergency shelters are only required to provide sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the states do not requirement more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone [sic]. Additionally, the element states emergency shelters are not allowed to be within 300 ft from each other; however, state law only allows a maximum of 300 ft separation requirement. The element should describe compliance with these requirements or include programs as appropriate.

City Response: Text edited, see Chapter 5 (P 5-11, tracked change version). The City’s emergency shelter standards were reviewed by HCD in December 2020 and were determined to be legally compliant.

Rolling Hills does not require more parking for emergency shelter than for other residential and commercial uses in this zone. This statement has been added to the text. The RDMO overlay is a residential zone, and the parking standards for other uses (multi-family housing and SROs) in this zone are based on the number of units and or bedrooms, which would be substantially higher than the requirements for a shelter. The separation standard used by the City is consistent with State law and is the same as the standard used by other jurisdictions with recently-certified Housing Elements. The current standard would allow two shelters to be 300 feet apart, as required by the Government Code.

The wording in Chapter 5 has been amended for clarity. Please see Page 5-10 (tracked change version) for these edits.
12 11
490
Revisions Made in Response to HCD Comments on Rolling Hills Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Page 6 Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate.

City Response: Text edited, See Chapter 5 (P 5-12). The City acknowledges this requirement and intends to comply with it. It was previously documented on Page 5-12 and also on Page 6-6, where there is a Program to address it (Program 4). The program will be implemented within six months.

Emergency Shelters, Single Room Occupancy (SRO), and Multifamily Zoning: The element identifies a 31-acre site with an overlay zone that will accommodate the City’s lower-income RHNA, allow for emergency shelters by-right, and SROs with a CUP. The element should discuss and analyze the suitability of this site to accommodate these various housing types and the full spectrum of the housing needs (beyond RHNA).

City Response: We have added text to Page 4-10 which highlights the findings of Appendix B.

Appendix B (included in the HCD Draft) demonstrates the suitability of this site for emergency shelters, SROs, and multi-family housing. As a 31-acre property, the site has the capacity for any one of these uses on its own, any combination of these uses, or all three uses (multi-family housing, SRO, and shelter), either in a single development or in three entirely separate developments within the property. As Appendix B notes, the parcel includes multiple subareas, some of which may be more conducive to shelters and SROs and some of which may be better suited for multi-family housing.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) (Addressed in Chapter 5): After a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which were not consistent with State ADU Law. This includes but is not limited to restricting bedroom count and permitting procedures, among others. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU non-compliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to update the City’s ADU ordinance in order to comply with state law.

For more information, please consult HCD’s ADU Guidebook, published in December 2020, which provides detailed information on new state requirements surrounding ADU development.

City Response: Text edited. See Chapter 5 (P 5-7) As of May 9, 2022, the City has not received supplemental correspondence from HCD regarding ADU non-compliance issues. However, the ADU provisions in the Municipal Code were last updated in February 2020 and the City recognizes that State ADU legislation has changed in the last two years. Accordingly, we have added a new Program to Chapter 6 (see Program 6, new Program 6.10) to update the Municipal Code no later than October 15, 2022 to ensure that it complies with all current ADU regulations. This includes eliminating references to the two-bedroom maximum and updating the permitting procedures so that they are compliant with State law.
13 15
14 491
Revisions Made in Response to HCD Comments on Rolling Hills Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Page 7 Water Sewer Priority: Water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. The element should discuss compliance with these requirements and if necessary, add or modify programs to establish a written procedure by a date early in the planning period.

City Response: Text edited. See Chapter 1, page 1-8 (tracked change version). The following language has been added. The City will follow through as described:

In addition, as required by SB 1087, the City sent an electronic copy of its Housing Element to the appropriate water and sewer providers immediately after adoption. The document was accompanied by a letter reminding these agencies they must have adopted written policies and procedures that grant a priority for service hook-ups to developments that help meet the community’s share of the regional need for lower-income housing.

Availability of Infrastructure: While the element describes infrastructure capacity to accommodate the regional housing need, the element must also provide an analysis on access to dry utilities for the sites identified in the inventory.

City Response: Text has been added to Chapter 5, P 5-29 (tracked change version). All of the housing opportunity sites would be able to receive gas, electric, and telecommunication services if they are developed. The Rancho Del Mar site currently has access to these services, as it is a former school.

B5. Constraints Analysis (Element Chapter 5)
Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element included some information on approving single family homes, the analysis should address the approval body, the number of public hearings, if any, approval findings, and any other relevant information such as any design review requirements. The analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing, and approval certainty. For example, the element mentioned the requirement of a site plan review for any proposed development, the use of conditional use permit for single room occupancy units, and that City Council and Planning Commission take field trips to the proposed site as part of the review process. The element should specifically identify timing, approval findings, and criteria for approvals.

City Response: Text edited. See Chapter 5, P 5-17 and -18 (tracked change version). The City has provided more information on the approval body for single family homes (Planning Commission), the number of public hearings (minimum one hearing, plus one field trip, although more hearings typically occur), and the approval findings (these are described in the text). Design review is conducted privately by the RHCA, and is addressed as a non-governmental constraint on Pages 5-22 and 5-23. The text concludes that the processing and permit procedures do not substantially affect the cost, supply, timing or approval certainty for affordable units, ADUs, or multi-family housing, since these housing types are permitted by right (provided they comply with the objective standards in the Municipal Code) and would be exempt from these requirements. The text also documents the high rate of approval for site plan review applications for single family homes. As the text notes, single family homes are typically multimillion dollar construction projects requiring extensive grading and development on sites with geological hazards and very high fire danger. The review process provides an important opportunity to address public health and safety issues, respond to community concerns regarding construction, and establish approval conditions where necessary.
18 16
17 492
Revisions Made in Response to HCD Comments on Rolling Hills Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Page 8 On/Off Site Improvements: While the element stated that specific parcels zoned for multifamily such as the PVUSD site will require ingress and egress improvements (p. 5-23), the element should identify typical site improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width), and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability.

City Response: Text added. See Page 5-18 (tracked change version). Site improvement requirements are documented in the previously submitted draft. The edited text confirms that there would be no special or unique site improvement requirements imposed on the PVUSD site. Off-site improvements are not typically required for new homes. Site improvements are associated with extension of electric service, installation of a septic system, and conformance to lighting standards (there are no street lights). The newly added text describes the site improvements specifically associated with subdivision of land, including street width standards, and requirements to install on-site water and storm drainage systems and to dedicate easements for gas and electric services. The text notes that all streets in Rolling Hills are private.

Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities:
• Group Homes for Seven or More: The element must discuss how the City defines and permits group homes for seven or more persons. For your information, excluding these uses from residential zones or subjecting the uses to conditional use permits (CUP) is generally considered a constraint and programs should be modified as appropriate with specific commitment to allow the use in residential zones with objectivity and certainty.

City Response: Text added. See Page 5-14 (tracked change version). The City does not reference either large or small group homes in its Municipal Code, and treats these uses the same as other residential uses, as required by State law. The newly added text acknowledges that the absence of a definition and explicit listing of large and small residential care facilities as a permitted use could be a constraint. We have also added language to Program 4 (Chapter 6) calling for Code changes to add definitions or large and small residential care facilities, and to list these as permitted uses as required by State law. • Reasonable Accommodation: While the element briefly describes its reasonable accommodation procedures, it must describe the process and decision-making criteria such as approval findings and analyze any potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities.

City Response: Text added. See Page 5-13 (tracked change version). As requested, we have added a description of the process and decision-making criteria, including approval findings. No constraints have been identified.

Other Local Ordinances: The element must analyze any locally adopted ordinances that directly impacts the cost and supply or residential development (e.g., inclusionary requirements, short term rentals, growth controls).

City Response: Text added. See Page 5-22 (tracked change version). We have added a new Section 5.2.9 called “Other Local Ordinances.” There are no other ordinances that directly affect the cost or supply of housing in the city.
20 19
21 22
493
Revisions Made in Response to HCD Comments on Rolling Hills Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Page 9 Zoning, Development Standards and Fees: The element must clarify compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning, development standards and fees on the City’s website and add a program to address these requirements, as necessary.

City Response: Text added. See Page 5-22 (tracked change version). The newly added Section 5.2.9 now includes a summary of AB 1483, requiring the posting of the referenced information on the City’s website.

The analysis concludes that the City complies with the requirements. In addition, a new program has been added to Chapter 6 to reorganize this information, including a dedicated landing page on ADUs.

SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process: The element must clarify whether there are written procedures for the SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process and add a program to address these requirements, if necessary City Response: Text added. See Page 5-22 (tracked change version). The newly added Section 5.2.9 now also addresses the requirement to have written procedures for SB 35 projects. The revised Element now includes a program to prepare written procedures for SB 35 projects and include them on the City’s website.

B6. Nongovernmental Constraints (Element Chapter 5)
Approval Time: The element must analyze the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.

City Response: We have added a new section 5.3.4 to the Element that addresses this issue. See Page 5-

24. This constraint is beyond the City’s control, but we acknowledge that inflated construction costs, shortages of labor and materials, rising interest rates, and factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have caused several property owners to postpone their plans, re-evaluate or redesign their projects, or sell their properties. Please note that we have also expanded Program 6 to add a new Action relating to follow-up communication with ADU permit recipients.

C. Programs (Element Chapter 6)
C1. Schedule of Actions
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and address the goals of the housing element, programs must be revised with discrete timelines and specific commitment. Several programs included various actions but still must include a timeline for implementing each action including, Program 8 – Assist Senior and Disabled Households, Program 9 – Assist Extremely Low-Income Households, Program 12 – Facilitate Communication with Affordable Housing Service Providers…Program 14 – Sewer Feasibility Studies and Phase One Construction, Program 20 – Fair Housing Services Program Administration, Program 22 – Fair Housing Training for Staff.

City Response: The comment references Programs 8, 9, 12, 14, 20, and 22. The following edits have been made to Chapter 6 in response:
23 24
25 26
494
Revisions Made in Response to HCD Comments on Rolling Hills Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Page 10 • Program 8 currently includes a commitment to update the City’s website to add a dedicated page with “senior resources” by June 2023. We have added a second timeline and commitment, which is to convene a City Council study session before December, 2023 to discuss the needs of seniors, in collaboration with the RHCA Needs of Seniors Committee and non-profit senior organizations (such as Peninsula Seniors).
• Program 9 currently includes a commitment to establish a roster of ADUs offered to Extremely Low Income (ELI) households by 2024. A new quantified objective and timeline has been added to the Program, which is to facilitate assistance to 3 ELI homeowners by 2025. • Program 12 currently includes a commitment to facilitate a meeting with affordable housing service providers by December 2022. The Program has been modified to facilitate such a meeting at least once a year during the planning period. • Program 14 has a discrete timeline and specific commitment, which is to complete the Phase 1 project by 2024. The feasibility of future phases depends in the availability of grants. Additional timeline and commitment data has been added to the program. • Program 20 has been modified, as the City seeks to determine the costs and benefits of different fair housing outreach and enforcement strategies. The program commits to a Fair Housing outreach and enforcement strategy by the end of 2022, thus providing a discrete timeline and specific commitment.
• Program 22 previously indicated a measurable objective of one staff training per year, starting in 2022. This has been reiterated through an edit to the text.

C2. Programs relating to Sites
As noted in Finding B4, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning was not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element must be revised, as follows:

City Response: See responses to HCD comments numbered 10 through 17, as labeled in the left-hand margins of this document. The City has provided additional analysis demonstrating that the identified sites, which include the 31-acre RDMO site, vacant sites zoned for single family homes, and potential ADUs, are adequate to meet the RHNA of 45 housing units. In response to HCD’s comments and the supplemental analysis, we have also added Programs 6.10 and 6.11 to further improve the production of ADUs and Program 23 to support SB 35 applications (see responses to comments 15, 24, and 25 above).

Program 2 – Rancho Del Mar Opportunity Site Monitoring: The element identifies one site to accommodate a portion of its lower-income RHNA. While the program includes several actions such as subdividing the site, coordination with the school district, technical assistance and incentives, the program does not commit to these actions nor provide a date for when these actions will occur.

Specifically, the element should include timelines for various actions and include commitments to outreaching, coordination, and establishing incentives that facilitate development on this site, as mentioned in the program.

City Response: Text modified, see Chapter 6, Program 2 (P. 6-4 and 6-5 of tracked change version). We have edited the program to provide a timeline for subdivision, coordinate with the school district and prepare a fact sheet for the site, all of which will facilitate its development. 27 28
495
Revisions Made in Response to HCD Comments on Rolling Hills Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Page 11 Program 6 – Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Production, Monitoring, and Incentives: The element heavily relies on ADUs to accommodate most of the City’s RHNA for all income levels. Given the City’s assumptions for ADUs exceed recent trends, the element should include a program to monitor permitted ADUs and affordability every other year and take appropriate action such as adjusting assumptions or rezoning within a specified time period (e.g., six months).

City Response: The Element is presuming five ADUs per year, which is a lower number of ADUs than were permitted in 2021. The City has expanded Program 6.2 to add provisions for monitoring ADU production, including taking action within six months in the event the number of ADUs approved is falling short of the projected need during any calendar year. We have also added Program 6.11 to monitor permitted ADUs to support their construction after they are approved.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: The element identifies Program 4 and 5 committing to provide a variety of housing types (e.g., SROs, transitional and supportive housing, employee housing, etc.,) and address constraints for people with disabilities. These actions were also identified in the last planning period but have not been completed. HCD encourages the City to utilize HCD’s technical assistance resources and model ordinances to ensure effective and efficient implementation. Please see the Housing Hub Site: Housing Planning Hub Site (arcgis.com) City Response: Staff appreciates HCD’s references to the technical assistance and model ordinances and will follow up on available resources. The City’s Fifth Cycle Element was certified in July 2021, and there has been insufficient time to adopt all of the program recommendations in its first year while concurrently completing the Sixth Cycle Element. As noted in the revised Program 4, the City intends to adopt provisions for transitional and supportive housing, large and small residential care facilities, and employee housing in its Municipal Code by July 2022. Program 5 addresses density bonuses and is proposed for implementation by the end of 2022.

C3. Programs Relating to Constraints
As noted in Finding(s) B5 and B6, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental (sic). Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

City Response: See responses to HCD’s numbered comments 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, as labeled in the left-hand margins of this document. The City has now provided a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints, as requested by HCD. Please note that as a result of the additional analysis, we have expanded Programs 4 and 6 (see Chapter 6 in the tracked change version), including the addition of new programs supporting ADU monitoring and development. We have also added programs 23 and 24 related to SB 35 and AB 1483.
29 31
30 496
Revisions Made in Response to HCD Comments on Rolling Hills Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Page 12 C4. Programs Relating to AFFH
As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete analysis of affirmatively furthering fair housing. Based on the outcome of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs.

City Response: See responses to HCD’s numbered comments 2 through 6, as referenced in the left-hand margins of this document. The City has now provided a complete analysis of AFFH, as requested by HCD.

Please note that as a result of the additional analysis, pages A-44 to A-47 have been added to link the AFFH priorities and contributing factors to the specific programs listed in Chapter 6.

D. Quantified Objectives
While the element does include quantified objectives (p. 6-20), it must be revised to include quantified objectives for number of housing units that will be rehabilitated for low, moderate, and above moderate households.

City Response: In an email from HCD’s Housing Policy Analyst Gianna Marasovich sent on April 27 (4:37 PM), we were advised that “we determined that Rolling Hills can disregard the Quantified Objectives finding”. Accordingly, no edits have been proposed in response to this comment.

E. Public Participation
While the element described various efforts to achieve public participation in the preparation of the housing element update, it should also describe how comments were considered and incorporated into the element.

City Response: Text has been added to Page 1-8 indicating how comments were considered and incorporated into the element. Several examples are provided, including the selection of the Rancho Del Mar site for rezoning, the focus on accessory dwelling units as a strategy to meet the RHNA, and the importance of programs to help seniors age in place, given the large number of older adults in the community.
34 33
32 497

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2021-2029

HOUSING ELEMENT
Adoption Draft
Published May 9, 2022

TRACKED CHANGES VERSION
498
As required by State law, an initial draft of this document (referred to as the “HCD Draft”) was circulated for public comment and review for 30 days, beginning on December 3, 2021. More than 30 local agencies and organizations providing housing and related supportive services were notified and invited to comment on the Draft. The Draft was also discussed at a Planning Commission public hearing in December 2021 and a City Council hearing that occurred on January 10, 2022. On January 10, the City Council authorized submittal of the Draft to the California Department of Housing and Community Developlment (HCD) for review. Under State law, HCD had 90 days to issue its findings.

Comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) were received on April 11, 2022. City staff/ consultants met with HCD to review the comments on April 22, 2022. This “Adoption Draft” incorporates revisions that directly respond to and address the HCD comments, A revised document was issued on May 9, 2022. This document was made available for two weeks prior to Council action on the document (seven days is required).

Once adopted, this document will be re-submitted to HCD, inclusive of any changes made during Planning Commission and Council hearings (including changes responding to public comments). HCD will then have 60 days to issue its findings.
499

ROLLING HILLS

HOUSING ELEMENT
2021-2029
Adoption Draft:

Tracked Change Version
CONTACT:

City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Contact: John Signo, AICP
[email protected]
Published May 9, 2022
All changes between the January 2022 version and the May 2022 version of this document are highlighted in redlined (tracked changes) font 500

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Rolling Hills City Council
James Black, M.D., Mayor
Bea Dieringer, Councilmember
Leah Mirsch, Councilmember
Jeff Pieper, Councilmember
Patrick Wilson, Councilmember
Rolling Hills Planning Commission
Brad Chelf, Chair
Greg Kirkpatrick, Vice-Chair
Sean Cardenas, Commissioner
Jana Cooley, Commissioner
Abby Douglass, Commissioner
City Staff
Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager
John Signo, Planning and Community Services Director
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney
Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney
Consultants
Barry Miller, Barry Miller Consulting
501
i

FOREWORD
This document has been prepared to comply with the requirements of California Government Code Sections 65580-65589, which mandate that all California cities and counties adopt a Housing Element to address local and regional housing needs. The Housing Element is part of the Rolling Hills General Plan and covers the time period 2021-2029. State law requires that the Housing Element is updated every eight years and submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for certification.

Certification of the Housing Element is based on a determination that the City has complied with a variety of State laws addressing regional issues such as affordability, fair housing, density, housing type, overcrowding, and homelessness. These laws apply universally to all cities, including those with limited services and land capacity.

As a community within the Greater Los Angeles region, the City of Rolling Hills is obligated to provide for its “fair share” of regional housing needs as determined by the Southern California Association of Governments. Cities without certified Housing Elements are subject to legal and financial penalties, the loss of eligibility for grants which help fund City operations, and even the potential loss of local control over building and land use decisions.

For these reasons, it is in the City’s best interest to strive for a compliant element.

In adopting this Element, the City has endeavored to balance State mandates with the overarching goal of preserving the semi-rural, equestrian character of Rolling Hills. The Housing Element responds to local as well as regional needs, including the need to preserve the community’s environment, minimize further exposure to wildfire and landslide hazards, and recognize infrastructure and public facility constraints. 502
ii
Rolling Hills Housing Element
2021-2029

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
FOREWORD.................................................................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. ii

1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Community Overview............................................................................................ 1-2

1.3 Legislative Requirements...................................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements.................................................... 1-5

1.5 Relationship to Private Land Use Restrictions ................................................... 1-6

1.6 Public Participation and Project Timeline........................................................... 1-6

1.7 Data Sources ........................................................................................................ 1-98

2. EVALUATION OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT...............................................2-1

2.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 2014-2021 RHNA and Actual Housing Production ........................................... 2-1

2.3 Review of Prior Housing Element Goals and Policies....................................... 2-2

2.4 Implementation Status of Prior Housing Element Programs ......................... 2-54

3. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ...................................................................3-1

3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Population Characteristics.................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Household Characteristics ................................................................................... 3-9

3.4 Populations with Special Needs......................................................................... 3-17

3.5 Housing Stock Characteristics........................................................................... 3-26

3.6 Future Housing Needs ......................................................................................3-332 503
iii
Section Page

4. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCESSITES...................................4-1

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Approved or Pending Development.................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Vacant Sites............................................................................................................ 4-2

4.4 Lot Splits ................................................................................................................. 4-6

4.5 Non-Vacant Sites ................................................................................................... 4-6

4.6 Accessory Dwellings ........................................................................................... 4-12

4.7 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA..................................................................4-154

4.8 Opportunities for Energy Conservation..........................................................4-165

4.9 Financial Resources ..........................................................................................4-187 5 CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING PRODUCTION ................................................5-1

5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Governmental Constraints.................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Non-Governmental Constraints .....................................................................5-2319 6 HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, OBJECTIVES, AND PROGRAMS ...................6-1

6.1 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Housing Implementation Plan, 2021-2029 ......................................................... 6-4

6.3 Summary of 2021-2029 Quantified Objectives ............................................... 6-21 APPENDIX A:

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Analysis........................................................A-1 Overview........................................................................................................................A-1 Duty of All Agencies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing ....................................A-3 Integration and Segregation .....................................................................................A-54 Access to Opportunity .......................................................................................... A-2214 Disproportionate Housing Needs .......................................................................... A-290 Other Relevant Factors..............................................................................................A-41 Local Data and Knowledge .................................................................................. A-4227 Distribution of Proposed Housing Sites ..................................................................A-43 Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors................................... A-4428 Summary of Fair Housing Issues and Additional Fair Housing Concerns..... A-4930 APPENDIX B:

Analysis of Palos Verdes Unified School District (PVUSD) Site .........................................B-1 APPENDIX C:

Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey Findings .............................................................................C-1 504
iv
Figures Page

1.1 Vicinity Map................................................................................................................. 1-21

4.1 Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites............................................................................... 4-5

4.2 Non-Vacant Sites Evaluated ..................................................................................... 4-87

5.1 Slope Setbacks on PVUSD Site................................................................................. 5-9

5.2 Landslide Hazard Areas in Rolling Hills...............................................................5-3127

5.3 Earthquake Faults in the Rolling Hills Vicinity.....................................................5-3228

5.4 CalFIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone...................................................5-3329 A-1 AFFH Percentage of Residents who are Non-White .............................................A-86 A-2 AFFH Diversity Index .................................................................................................A-97 A-3 AFFH Percentage of Residents with a Disability ................................................. A-108 A-4 Familial Status.............................................................................................................A-15 A-54 Low Moderate Income (LMI) Areas ...................................................................... A-160 A-65 Median Income by Census Tract Block Group ................................................... A-171 A-7 Regional Income by Census Tract in Greater Los Angeles .................................A-18 A-86 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP)................... A-192 A-97 Environmental Outcomes..................................................................................... A-2516 A-108 Economic Outcomes............................................................................................. A-2617 A-119 Education Outcomes............................................................................................. A-2718 A-120 Composite Opportunity Map................................................................................ A-2819 A-131 Cost-Burdened Homeowners .............................................................................. A-3422 A-124 Cost-Burdened Renters........................................................................................ A-3523 A-153 Incidence of Overcrowding.................................................................................. A-3624 A-146 Percent of Households with One or More Severe Housing Problems .......... A-3725 A-157 Sensitive Communities ......................................................................................... A-3826 A-18 Density of Homeless Population in 2020 in Los Angeles County........................A-40 505
v
Tables

2.1 Implementation Status of 2014-2021 Housing Element Programs ........................ 2-54

3.1 Rolling Hills Population, 1970-2021 .............................................................................. 3-2

3.2 Comparison of Rolling Hills Growth with Nearby Cities and Region ........................ 3-3

3.3 Race and Ethnicity in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, LA County, and State .......... 3-5

3.4 Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Occupation ....................................................... 3-8

3.5 Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Industry.............................................................. 3-8

3.6 Income Limits for Los Angeles County, 2021............................................................ 3-13

3.7 Affordable Monthly Housing Costs Based on 2021 Income Limits ........................ 3-13

3.8 Rolling Hills Households by HUD Income Category ................................................. 3-14

3.9 Household Income in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and LA County .................... 3-15

3.10 Percent of Income Spent on Housing in Rolling Hills and LA County.................... 3-16

3.11 Overpayment among Lower Income Households in Rolling Hills........................... 3-17

3.112 Older Adults in Rolling Hills and Nearby Jurisdictions ......................................3-187

3.123 Percent of Rolling Hills Residents with a Disability ................................................... 3-20

3.143 Number of Persons in Family and Non-Family Household...................................... 3-23

3.154 Homes for Sale in Rolling Hills, July 2021................................................................3-321

3.165 RHNA by City and Comparison to Fifth Cycle.........................................................3-332

3.167 Comparison of 6th Cycle RHNA by Income Category.............................................3-343

4.1 Committed Development for the 2021-2029 RHNA Period....................................... 4-1

4.2 Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites .................................................................................. 4-3

4.3 Summary of Housing Opportunities, 2021-2029 ....................................................4-154

5.1 Summary of Rolling Hills Zoning Standards ................................................................ 5-4

5.2 City of Rolling Hills Major Development Fees..........................................................5-197

6.1 Quantified Objectives by Income Group for Rolling Hills, 2021-2029..................6-210

6.2 Housing Element Action Plan Summary...................................................................6-220 A-1 Population Share by Race and Ethnicity, Rolling Hills and LA County ....................A-6 A-2 Percentage of Residents with a Disability, Rolling Hills and LA County ..................A-7 A-3 Population by Familial Status, Rolling Hills and LA County .....................................A-11 A-4 Household Share by Income, Rolling Hills and LA County......................................A-13 A-5 Housing Units by Type, Rolling Hills and LA County................................................A-20 A-6 Housing Tenure in Rolling Hills and LA County ........................................................A-29 A-7 Percentage of Cost-Burdened Households, Rolling Hills and LA County .............A-31 A-8 Overcrowded Households, Rolling Hills and LA County..........................................A-32 A-9 Rolling Hills Home Ownership Rates by Race and Ethnicity ...................................A-41 A-10 Fair Housing Priorities, Issues, Contributing Factors and Strategies.....................A-47 Charts

3.1 Age Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020....................................... 3-4

3.2 Racial Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020................................... 3-4

3.3 Household Type in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County, 2021............................ 3-10

3.4 Household Size in Rolling Hills and Other Jurisdictions, 2010 and 2021.............. 3-11

3.5 Total Number of Housing Units in Rolling Hills, 1990-2020..................................... 3-26

3.6 Year of Construction for Rolling Hills Homes ............................................................ 3-27

3.7 Percent of Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Rolling Hills and LA County3-298

3.8 Home Prices in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and LA County.............................3-310 A-1 Summary of AB 686 Requirements ............................................................................A-21 506
vi
507

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Introduction Page 1-1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose
The purpose of the Housing Element is to ensure that a safe, decent supply of housing is provided for current and future Rolling Hills residents. The Element strives to conserve existing housing while providing opportunities for new housing serving a variety of income levels.

State law mandates that all municipal governments prepare and maintain a Housing Element as a component of their General Plans. The following five sections are required:

1. Evaluation of the previous Housing Element

2. Assessment of local housing needs based on demographics, economic, and housing conditions

3. Inventory of potential sites for housing development

4. Analysis of City regulatory framework related to housing development

5. Goals and policies for housing, coupled with specific action programs to be implemented in the coming years.

In addition, the Element must demonstrate the steps the City is taking to promote fair housing practices, and to proactively develop housing for all income groups. The Housing Element describes how the City will provide for its fair share of the region’s housing needs over the eightyear planning period (2021 to 2029). It identifies new programs to be implemented, along with on-going programs that create housing opportunities in Rolling Hills.

The Housing Element is the only part of the General Plan that is subject to review and certification by a State agency. Adopted Elements must be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD determines if the Element meets the requirements of the California Government Code, which apply equally to all cities and counties of the state regardless of the community’s size, physical constraints, or resources. A compliance determination is important to maintain eligibility for State grants, avoid costly lawsuits, and maintain local control over local land use and building decisions. 508

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Introduction Page 1-2
Figure 1.1: Vicinity Map

1.2 Community Overview
The city of Rolling Hills is a rural, equestrian residential community, consisting entirely of large lot residential parcels of one acre or more. The community encompasses 2.99 square miles of land (approximately 1,910 acres) on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the County of Los Angeles (Refer to Figure 1.1, Vicinity Map). The 2020 Census indicates a citywide population of 1,739 residents, making Rolling Hills the fifth smallest of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County.

The land use pattern in Rolling Hills was established in 1936 with the original subdivision and sale of parcels. American landscape architect A.E. Hanson designed the community in the 1930s, establishing an historic Southern California design aesthetic that remains today, 85 years later. Well-known architects like Cliff May and Wallace Neff designed some of the early homes, contributing to the community’s historic context.

The entire city is characterized by single-story California ranch-style homes on large lots with three-rail fences and equestrian facilities. There are three points of ingress and egress to the city, each of which has a controlled entry gate. Rolling Hills was planned and conceived to balance development with nature and respect the area’s rugged topography. The community was laid out on hilly terrain, with narrow, winding roads traversing steep, wooded canyons.

Minimum lot size requirements were established to recognize the area’s many natural constraints, including geologic hazards, wildfire, and sensitive biological resources.

Source: Google Maps, 2021
509

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Introduction Page 1-3
The natural landscape is characterized by steep slopes of 25 to 50 percent. Underlying this terrain are ancient landslides, occasionally causing damage or even destroying property, roads, and infrastructure. The City carefully regulates grading and earth movement to protect public safety and minimize the potential for property damage. Geologic studies and grading requirements also add to housing costs.

The entire city lies within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. This is the most constrained designation used by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) and requires restrictive construction standards such as the boxing in of eave projections and use of construction materials approved by the California Fire Marshal. Professionally designed landscaping meeting Fire Department fuel reduction standards (i.e., fire-resistant plants around structures) also is required. Fire hazards are complicated by an aging water distribution system, and the high cost of water system improvements on steep terrain.

Rolling Hills is also home to a number of sensitive plant and animal species, several of which are listed or being considered for listing by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These species include the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly, the California Gnatcatcher, the Pacific Pocket Mouse, the San Diego Horned Lizard, and Brackishwater Snail. The community is also underlain with blue-line streams that are under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers.

The City’s infrastructure is scaled to meet the needs of a mature, rural community with severe natural hazards. Its water distribution system is designed for very low-density residential land uses. Wastewater treatment generally occurs through private septic tanks. Only a few parcels on the western periphery of the city have access to sanitary sewer. All roads in the community are private and many were built 60 to 80 years ago before modern emergency vehicle standards were in place.

Housing policies and programs in Rolling Hills reflect the city’s natural hazards, lack of developable land, and infrastructure limitations. In the past, the City has complied with Government Code housing requirements in ways that respond to these inherent physical constraints. For example, Rolling Hills has adopted provisions for accessory dwelling units in all of its zoning districts, permitted manufactured housing units, and created an affordable housing overlay zone on its most developable land. Its policies also emphasize conservation and maintenance of the existing housing stock, much of which is over 60 years old.

1.3 Legislative Requirements
The provision of adequate housing for families and individuals of all economic levels is an important public goal and has been a focus for state and local governments for more than five decades. Local governments have been required to prepare Housing Elements since 1969. The required contents of the Element have expanded significantly over this time, in response to rising housing costs, increasing competition for resources, and a growing population of individuals with special needs that cannot be met by the private sector alone. 510

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Introduction Page 1-4

1.3.1 Government Code Requirements
State law requires each municipality to perform the
following tasks:
• Identify and analyze the current and projected
housing needs of all economic segments of the
community.
• Evaluate current and potential constraints to
meeting those needs, including constraints due
to the marketplace and those imposed by the
government.
• Promote and affirmatively further fair
housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community for all persons
regardless of race, religion, sex, marital
status, ancestry, national origin, color,
familial status, or disability.
• Inventory and assess the availability of land
suitable for residential use.
• Establish goals, objectives, policies and programs aimed at responding to identified housing needs, market and governmental constraints, and housing opportunities.

1.3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
As part of the Housing Element process, the State of California determines the total need for housing in each region of California. For the 2021-2029 period, the State determined that the need for the six county Southern California region was 1,341,827 housing units. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for allocating this total to each of the six counties and 191 cities in the SCAG area. This process is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and occurs every eight years.

SCAG calculates each city and county’s “fair share” of the regional need using a computer model that weighs factors such as existing population and employment, growth potential, proximity to transit, and social equity. For each jurisdiction, SCAG distributes the RHNA among four different income groups. This ensures that each city or county is planning for housing that meet the needs of all economic segments of the community, including lower income households.

Each city in California is required to plan for its RHNA. This does not mean the cities must acquire land or construct housing. Rather, it means that they must identify sites where the RHNA can be accommodated and adopt policies and regulations which facilitate housing construction on those sites. Ultimately, the responsibility for constructing housing falls to the private market and non-profit housing developers. Cities are expected to assist by adopting “The availability of housing is of
vital statewide importance, and
the early attainment of decent
housing and a suitable living
environment for every
Californian, including
farmworkers, is a priority of the
highest order. The early
attainment of this goal requires
the cooperative participation of
government and the private
sector in an effort to expand
housing opportunities and
accommodate the housing needs
of Californians of all economic
levels.”
California Government Code,
Section 65580
511

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Introduction Page 1-5
development standards that support housing at a variety of densities, providing technical assistance and infrastructure, and adopting policies that encourage housing production, conservation, and assistance to persons with special needs.

In Rolling Hills, the RHNA for 2021-2029 is 45 units. This includes 20 very low income units, 9 low income units, 11 moderate income units, and 5 above moderate income units.1 The 2021- 2029 Housing Element demonstrates that the City has the capacity to accommodate this assignment.

1.3.3 HCD Review Authority and Compliance Requirements
Once the Housing Element is adopted, it is submitted to HCD to determine whether, in HCD’s view, the Housing Element “substantially complies” with state Housing Element Law. HCD’s compliance determination is based in part on a detailed checklist corresponding to specific requirements set forth by the Government Code. Once certified, HCD still has the authority to find a city out of compliance if it finds that city is taking actions that are inconsistent with its Housing Element or failing to implement the programs listed in its Element.

Localities without an HCD-certified Housing Element are subject to a growing number of penalties and potential risks. This includes litigation from housing organizations, developers, and HCD itself. In addition to legal costs, potential consequences include suspension of local control of building matters and court approval of housing development. Courts can also levy costly fines on local governments and mandate streamlined and less rigorous approvals. Cities also become ineligible for numerous state local funding programs, including those supporting infrastructure and roads, as well as housing and planning.

1.4 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
The Government Code requires internal consistency among the various elements of a General Plan. Section 65300.5 of the Government Code states that “the General Planand the parts and elements thereof shall comprise an integrated and an internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.”
The Rolling Hills General Plan contains the following six elements: 1) Land Use; 2) Housing; 3) Circulation; 4) Open Space and Conservation; 5) Safety; and 6) Noise. The General Plan is internally consistent, meaning that the policies in different elements complement and support one another. The Housing Element reflects the policy direction provided by the other General Plan elements. For example, it references the residential densities established in the Land Use Element and the natural constraints identified in the Safety Element. The City amended its Land Use Element in early 2021 to maintain consistency with its new Housing Plan. It is also adopted a revised revising its Safety Element in March 2022 to comply with new provisions of the Government Code that are triggered by amendments to the General Plan, including adoption of a new Housing Element.
1 See Section 3.2.5 of this document for a definition of these income categories 512

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Introduction Page 1-6
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65400, the City will annually review its progress in implementing this Housing Element. This review will help ensure consistency between this Element and the other General Plan Elements.

1.5 Relationship to Private Land Use Restrictions
Most of the developable property in Rolling Hills is subject to covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) adopted by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), a non-profit California Corporation and homeowners association. RHCA is governed by elected Rolling Hills residents and oversees and enforces implementation of the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs run with each property in perpetuity and cover all properties in the City except those listed below:

1. City Hall Complex

2. Tennis Court Facility

3. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District property

4. Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center
CC&Rs represent private contractual obligations between homeowners and are usually established at the time a subdivision or community is built. Development in Rolling Hills has been governed by CC&Rs since the community was planned in the 1930s. The RHCA and the CC&Rs were in force prior to the City’s incorporation, which occurred in 1957. The City of Rolling Hills has no jurisdiction over the RHCA or the content or implementation of the CC&Rs.

The CC&Rs limit the density on most parcels in Rolling Hills to one residence per one-acre or two-acre lot. In addition, any construction, remodel, or grading for a building, fence or structure is required under the CC&Rs to adhere to traditional or California ranch and equestrian architectural styles and aesthetics. The uses and purposes of all perimeter easements around each property are required to be dedicated to the RHCA and maintained for the purposes of ingress, egress, construction, and maintenance of all infrastructure constructed as roadways, bridle trials, storm drains, utility access and drainage.

In some instances, State law may supersede the authority of CC&Rs. For example, AB 670 (Cal Civil Code 4751—effective January 1, 2020) limits CC&Rs from placing unreasonable limitations on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). To the greatest extent feasible, the programs in this Housing Element reflect the requirements of State law while maintaining the integrity of the CC&Rs. CC&Rs that directly conflict with State or Federal law are not enforceable.

1.6 Public Participation and Project Timeline
The City of Rolling Hills has made a diligent effort to engage the community in the Housing Element update. The process was structured as a continuation of the previous (2014-2021) Housing Element update, which included an initial phase in 2013-14 when the Element was adopted and a second phase in 2020-2021 when the adopted Element was amended and resubmitted to the State for a compliance determination. The 2020-2021 amendments coincided with the Sixth Cycle engagement processes that were underway throughout Southern 513

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Introduction Page 1-7
California cities at that time. Although the focus of the 2020-2021 effort was on Fifth Cycle compliance, the process provided an opportunity to engage the community in a broader conversation about housing, the RHNA process, and new State requirements.

SCAG began the RHNA process for the Sixth Cycle in Fall 2019, exploring different methodologies for allocating the regional need to individual cities and counties. As other cities began work on their Sixth Cycle Elements, Rolling Hills was required to first amend its Fifth Cycle Element to accommodate both the current (Fifth) cycle and the prior (Fourth) cycle RHNA allocations due to its non-compliant status. The combined RHNA for the two cycles was 28 units. Accommodating this need meant that Rolling Hills was also required to amend its General Plan and zoning to create additional housing capacity.

The City held a public hearing on the Housing Element on November 25, 2019. The meeting focused on potential sites for rezoning and related development impacts. The meeting was widely noticed through advertisements in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, an announcement in the City newsletter, posting at City Hall, and an email to the City’s interested parties list.

The Draft RHNA numbers were published in March 2020. Rolling Hills did not appeal its allocation, instead focusing its efforts on continued outreach and engagement to certify the Fifth Cycle Element and lay the groundwork for the Sixth Cycle. This outreach included nine public hearings related to the Housing Element on the following dates:
• October 20, 2020 (Planning Commission)
• November 9, 2020 (City Council)
• December 22, 2020 (Planning Commission)
• January 25, 2021 (City Council)
• February 5, 2021 (Planning Commission)
• February 8, 2021 (City Council)
• February 22, 2021 (City Council)
• March 8, 2021 (City Council)
• March 16, 2021 (Planning Commission)
The outcome of these meetings included adoption of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, new provisions for by-right affordable multi-family housing and emergency shelter, amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and various changes to the Municipal Code to facilitate housing production. On June 1, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the amended Fifth Cycle Housing Element. The Council took action on June 14, 2021. The Element was submitted to HCD and found to be in compliance on July 7, 2021. As a result of the compliance determination, the City does not have to carry over its prior allocation and may plan only for the 45 units identified in the Sixth Cycle RHNA.

In addition to the public hearings described above, staff conducted direct outreach to Rolling Hills residents in 2020 and 2021 through newsletters, including a survey on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) administered to every household in the city. More than 30 percent of the city’s households completed the survey, and a report on the findings was prepared (it is included as Appendix C to this Element).

The City continued its public outreach efforts after adoption of the revised Element in July 2021. 514

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Introduction Page 1-8
A special session of the Planning Commission was convened on October 19, 2021 to provide an overview of the Sixth Cycle Element and solicit input from the entire community. In addition, public hearings on the HCD Draft Element were convened by the Planning Commission on December 16, 2021 and by the City Council on January 10, 2022. In March 2022, the City convened a public meeting on the Annual Progress Report, providing another opportunity for public input on housing issues as well as an opportunity to evaluate progress in Housing Element implementation. Additional public hearings were will be held on May 17 (Planning Commission) and May 23 (City Council) after the document was is revised and presented for adoption.

The City has endeavored to solicit input from all economic segments of the community, including local renters as well as homeowners. It has also incorporated this input in the Housing Element. In surveys and public hearings, the community generally supported the Rancho Del Mar site as the preferred location for accommodating denser housing, and also supported meeting the RHNA primarily through accessory dwelling units (ADU). Both of these concepts are reflected in this document. Housing advocacy groups also provided letters to the City encouraging ADU development, which helped shape Housing Element programs. In addition, the community was especially concerned about the housing needs of older adults. Thus, policies relating to special needs populations and lower income households focus on the needs of seniors, particularly those who may need assistance with the maintenance of their homes and properties, or adaptive changes to facilitate aging in place.

City staff has also engaged service providers, the development community, and partner agencies such as the School District in the process. As a small community, most residents rely on the City newsletter for information on local government affairs. The City has featured the Housing Element in newsletter articles and encouraged residents to share their views on proposed housing policies. Publication of the “HCD Review Draft” was announced in the City’s newsletter during the first week of December 2021. More than 30 stakeholder organizations on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and in the South Bay, Los Angeles, and Long Beach regions were notified of the document’s availability for 30-day review and comment. These agencies were also notified when the document was brought back to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption.

In addition, as required by SB 1087, the City sent an electronic copy of its Housing Element to the appropriate water and sewer providers immediately after adoption. The document was accompanied by a letter reminding these agencies they must have adopted written policies and procedures that grant a priority for service hook-ups to developments that help meet the community’s share of the regional need for lower-income housing. 515

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Introduction Page 1-9

1.7 Data Sources
The Housing Element is a data-driven document, with policies and programs that are based on analyses of demographics, housing conditions, resource constraints, and forecasts. The primary data sources consulted were:
• Rolling Hills General Plan, as amended
• Rolling Hills Municipal Code
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, adopted March 4, 2021
• SCAG “pre-approved” Housing Element data set for Rolling Hills, 2020 • City of Rolling Hills Planning Department records (building permits, etc.) • American Community Survey, 2015-2019
• US Census (1990, 2000, 2010)
• US Census August 12, 2021 data release from the 2020 Census • Department of Finance Table E-5, population and housing estimates, 2010-2021 • California Economic Development Department (EDD) Labor Force Data • Rolling Hills Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
• County of Los Angeles (data on homelessness)
516

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Introduction Page 1-10
517

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-1

2.0 Evaluation of Prior Housing Element

2.1 Purpose
Government Code Section 65588 requires each local government to periodically review its housing element to:
(1) Evaluate the appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal, which is to provide decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian.
(2) Evaluate the effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's housing goals and objectives.
(3) Discuss the progress of the city or county in implementation of the housing element.

2.2 2014-2021 RHNA and Actual Housing Production
The City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the prior (2014-2021) period was six units. This included two very low income units, one low income unit, one moderate income unit, and two above moderate income units. Rolling Hills also had a “carry-over” requirement of 22 units from the prior (2006-2013) planning period, including six very low, four low, four moderate, and eight above moderate income units. The 2014-2021 Housing Element identified the capacity to meet the combined two-cycle (2006-2021) need.

Actual housing construction during 2014-2021 was five units. There were four new market rate (e.g., “above-moderate income”) single-family homes completed on previously vacant lots over the 2014-2021 period.
1 Another three single family homes were approved on vacant lots but have not yet been constructed. There was one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) completed. It is estimated to be a moderate-income unit based on its size (720 square feet). Another six ADUs were approved between September 2020 and September 2021. 2 Three more were pending as of
October 15, 2021. All of these units will become available for occupancy during the Sixth Cycle.

There were no new low or very low-income units recorded during the Fifth Cycle, although lower income households may have secured housing in the city through room rentals, on-site employment (caregivers, etc,), or housing provided at nominal or no charge (family members, domestic staff, etc.). Production of deed-restricted lower-income housing units during the 2014- 2021 planning period was constrained by the high cost of land and construction, limited opportunities for multi-family housing, and limits to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development during the first half of the planning period. The latter two constraints were removed over the course of the planning period, placing the City in a better position to meet its targets during the upcoming 2021-2029 period.
1 There were also 12 new homes built on sites that previously included single family homes, with no net gain in units (e.g., “tear downs”)
2 The six ADUs approved in 2020-2021 were in various states of completion in October 2021 and are all counted toward the Sixth Cycle RHNA rather than the Fifth Cycle.
518

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-2

2.3 Review of Prior Housing Element Goals and Policies
The next section of this chapter systematically evaluates the policies and actions of the previous Housing Element and reports on implementation progress. The 2014-2021 Element included four goals, each of which included related policies. The goals and policies are evaluated below.

2.3.1 Progress on Goal 1: Housing that Meets the Needs of Rolling Hills Residents This goal expresses one of the main purposes of the Housing Element. It remains relevant and should be carried forward. The City worked to accomplish this goal throughout the 2014-2021 planning period through its planning, zoning, building, code enforcement, and fire safety programs.

Policy 1.1 called for evaluating ways to assist special needs populations. The largest population with special needs in Rolling Hills consists of seniors, including those with disabilities. The City continues to implement programs to assist seniors with housing, transportation, emergency preparedness, and access to social services. The policy should be carried forward. Policy 1.2 called for working with other governmental entities to explore providing affordable housing in the South Bay region. This occurs on an ongoing basis through the city’s participation in SCAG, communication and liaison with developers, and meetings with planners and housing organizations on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and throughout Los Angeles County. Policy 1.3 called for encouraging energy conservation and weatherization. The City implements this policy through its planning and building regulations, including Title 24. It also works with residents interested in solar installation and weatherization.

Policy 1.4 expresses the City’s commitment to facilitating a variety of housing types. The City made significant progress through its creation of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay zone, permitting of accessory dwelling units by right, and allowance of emergency shelter and single room occupancy dwellings. Given community context, constraints, and development costs, ADUs and home sharing provide the best solution for meeting the needs of all income groups. Policy 1.5 recommends effective community participation. The City produces a twice-monthly newsletter which is delivered to all households and uses its website to keep the community informed. It has used a variety of methods, such as surveys and workshops, to involve the public. Given the community’s small size and engaged population, there is a very high level of awareness of housing issues and requirements. Policy 1.6 calls for the City to participate in countywide programs to meet the needs of unsheltered residents. This continues on an ongoing basis.

2.3.2 Progress on Goal 2: Maintain and Enhance the Quality of Residential Neighborhoods
Maintaining the city’s neighborhoods as great places to live is the fundamental purpose of the City’s General Plan. As a built out community with extreme natural hazards and constraints, this goal is primarily covered by the Land Use and Safety Elements. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to include policies in the Housing Element addressing conservation of the existing housing stock, as well as management of home alterations and additions. There are five policies in the 2013- 2021 Element, and they all remain relevant.
519

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-3
Policy 2.1 is to encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of existing homes.

The City does this through its planning and building processes, and works closely with homeowners to support home improvements. Policy 2.2 requires housing that complies with building code requirements. This could be restated in the updated Element, since compliance with the building code is required under State law. Policy 2.3 requires “compatible design” that minimizes impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. This remains valid, but should reference the zoning ordinance as the source of objective design standards that clarify the meaning of “compatible design.”
Policy 2.4 calls for code enforcement to maintain housing, which is still relevant. Policy 2.5 allows for ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) in all residential zones. Consistent with State law, the City implemented regulations allowing ADUs in all zones in 2018 and amended those regulations in 2020. The policy should be retained, as it provides the foundation for related regulations in the Municipal Code.

2.3.3 Progress on Goal 3: Provide Housing Services to Address the Needs of the City’s Seniors
Seniors/older adults are the predominant special needs group in Rolling Hills. The Housing Element Needs Assessment confirms that a significant number of the city’s seniors have disabilities, are living alone, and may have difficulty covering their housing expenses.

Policy 3.1 calls for housing reference and referral services for seniors, which is still relevant and implemented on an ongoing basis. The Rolling Hills Community Association formed a committee in 2014 to specifically focus on the needs of seniors. Policy 3.2 calls for more information on shared housing, which remains valid. Policy 3.3 recommends reverse mortgage loans for seniors with limited incomes. Given the mixed success of reverse mortgage programs, the City should consider replacing this policy with others relating to the needs of seniors. For instance, it could indicate that affordable senior housing be considered on the Rancho Del Mar site. Policy 3.4 promotes opportunities for live-in care or family members who can assist mobility-impaired or elderly residents. This remains relevant and should be carried forward.

Other policies addressing the housing needs of seniors could be considered.

2.3.4 Progress on Goal 4: Fair Housing
Goal 4 directs the city to “Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, disability status, or national origin.” The importance of this goal has been elevated by AB 686, and it should be retained. There are four policies listed in the Fifth Cycle Element to implement this goal.

Policy 4.1 indicates the City should “affirm a positive action posture” and enforce all applicable laws and policies. This policy could potentially be simplified to focus on enforcement. Policy 4.2 specifically covers the needs of persons with disabilities. It should be carried forward. Policy 4.3 relates to making information on housing laws available to the community at City Hall. It is implemented on an ongoing basis but should be clarified to include information on the City’s website as well as City Hall. Policy 4.4 expresses a commitment to investigate alleged violations of fair housing laws. This should be carried forward, with reference to the partner entities the 520

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-4
City works with on such investigations. Additional policies on fair housing related to economic inclusion and opportunities for lower income households should be considered.

2.3.5 Cumulative Evaluation of Effectiveness of Prior Element in Addressing Special Housing Needs
The State Department of Housing and Community Development has requested that the City include an “a cumulative evaluation of the effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness).”
As a small city with only 640 households and a staff of six full-time employees, the City’s capacity for providing services to special needs populations is limited. The greatest emphasis has been on seniors, who are present in 56 percent of the city’s households and represent onethird of the population. The City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element included a goal addressing the needs of seniors but it did not include a more generalized goal addressing special needs populations. This has been addressed in the 6th Cycle Element by broadening the goal to address other special needs categories.

As noted on P. 2-3, Rolling Hills has worked effectively to meet the needs of seniors through its partnerships with the Rolling Hills Community Association (and their Senior Committee), its support for shared housing and ADU programs, and its code provisions allowing live-in care providers throughout the city. Many older Rolling Hills residents have been able to age in place, retrofit their homes, and continue living in the city as a result of these policies and programs.

The 2014-2021 Element also included a policy related to unhoused residents (Policy 1.6) and a policy related to persons with disabilities (Policy 6.2). As noted in Chapter 3, there are no unhoused residents in the city according to the annual “point in time” count, but Rolling Hills continues to participate in intergovernmental meetings, forums, and councils of government activities that recognize the regional nature of homelessness and the importance of regional solutions. The City has also amended its codes to allow emergency shelter by right in at least one zoning district. The City also has adopted a Reasonable Accommodation ordinance for persons with disabilities and supports home improvements to facilitate aging in place and access for residents with disabilities. On a cumulative basis, these measures have contributed to the health, safety, and welfare of all Rolling Hills residents and to the quality of life and condition of housing in the city.

Both the 2014-2021 Needs Assessment and the 2021-2029 Needs Assessment determined that there were not significant housing needs associated with large households, female-headed households, or farmworkers in the city.
521

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-5

2.4 Implementation Status of Prior Housing Element Programs The 2014-2021 Housing Element included 24 implementation programs. Table 2-1 below indicates the status of each program as of October 2021. The table indicates whether the program has been accomplished or should be carried forward, revised, or deleted.

Table 2-1: Implementation Status of 2014-2021 Housing Element Programs Prog. Description Status
1 Prepare an annual housing progress
report
CARRY FORWARD. The City filed its annual Housing
Progress Report for 2021 on March 29, 2022 in 2020
and should continue to do so in future years.
2 Amend the Land Use Element to
permit a variety of housing types
ACCOMPLISHED. This program may be removed from
the Housing Element, as it was accomplished in March
2021. The City amended its General Plan to permit by
right multi-family development, emergency shelter, and
single room occupancy housing in the Rancho Del Mar
Overlay Zone.
3 Create an Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone (AHOZ)
ACCOMPLISHED. This program may be removed from
the Housing Element or merged with the program to
periodically evaluate the Overlay Zone and determine if changes are needed (See Program 13). The City
adopted a 31-acre Overlay in February 2021 (known as
the Rancho Del Mar Overlay zone), allowing for by-right development of up to 16 units of affordable multi-family housing (20 units per acre) on the Rancho Del Mar site
on Crest Road West.
4 Determine next steps for PVUSD
housing opportunity
CARRY FORWARD. The City Manager meets with the
PVUSD Superintendent regularly to discuss issues of
concern, including the future of the PVUSD property.

Other aspects of Program 4, including meeting with
developers and providing input to parties interested in this site, should be retained and implemented on an
ongoing basis.
5 Adopt zoning for emergency
shelter.

ACCOMPLISHED. This action was completed in
February 2021. The City permits emergency shelter up
to 12 beds by right in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay
Zoning district. A replacement program should be
included, identifying ongoing measures the City will
take to address the needs of unhoused residents.
522

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-6
Prog. Description Status
6 Adopt zoning for single room
occupancy (SRO) units.

ACCOMPLISHED. This action was completed in
February 2021. The City permits SROs of 6-8 units as a
conditional use in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zoning
district, subject to objective operational and
performance standards.
7 Adopt a Reasonable
Accommodation Policy
ACCOMPLISHED. The City of Rolling Hills adopted a
Reasonable Accommodation policy in October 2020.

The policy establishes a formal procedure through a
which a person with disabilities may request reasonable accommodation in order to have equal access to
housing. This program may be replaced with other
actions to assist residents with disabilities.
8 Add definitions of Transitional/
Supportive Housing and Employee
Housing to Municipal Code
CARRY FORWARD. This program has not yet been
implemented. The 2014-2021 Housing Element
clarifies that supportive and transitional housing may
not be subject to requirements or standards other than
those that apply to similar dwelling unit types in the
same zones. However, the program must still be
codified through a Municipal Code amendment.
9 Adopt density bonus requirements CARRY FORWARD. This program has not yet been implemented. Any project including units eligible for a density bonus would be subject to State density bonus
rules. The City should amend its Municipal Code for
consistency with these rules, and expressly identify
opportunities and rules for density bonuses.
10 Adopt and periodically update
accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
regulations
REVISE. The City adopted ADU regulations in 2018
and amended these regulations in January 2020 to
incorporate new State laws. This action should be
replaced with one or more new actions related to ADUs,
including incentives to promote their use as affordable housing.
11 Implement ADU education,
outreach, and community
engagement measures
REVISE. The City has provided information on ADUs to
the community since 2018 and should continue to do so
in the future. Newsletter articles and web-based
information have been provided and a citywide survey
on ADUs was administered in 2020. Potential outreach
measures are listed in the 2014-2021 Element and
should be carried forward. Staff time should be
allocated to these activities to ensure they are
implemented. This includes coordination with Rolling
Hills Community Association to ensure that design
review practices do not constrain ADU production or
add to their cost. Future activities could include prototype floor plans and designs, FAQs, community workshops, and tenant matching services.
523

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-7
Prog. Description Status
12 Develop incentives to encourage
ADU production
REVISE. This program suggested reaching out to at
least five cities and two non-profits to develop a suite of best practices for incentivizing ADUs. Based on the
findings, the program recommended incentives such as
fee reductions, streamlined permitting, and funding for septic system expansion to make it easier and more
affordable to add ADUs. The City has begun
implementing this program by participating in a South
Bay Cities Council of Governments collaborative that
helps residents calculate the cost and revenue for
adding an ADU (see https://southbaycities.aducalculator.org/).

Additional measures will be considered in the future.
has not yet been implemented due to lack of staff but it remains relevant.
13 Monitor the effectiveness of the
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
(AHOZ) and consider future multifamily housing opportunities REVISE. There are two parts to this program. The first
is monitoring the effectiveness of the Rancho Del Mar
Overlay Zone to determine if it is achieving its intended purpose. This should be retained. The second part of
the program is to evaluate other multi-family housing
opportunities. This is occurring through preparation of the Sixth Cycle Element and should continue through
2029.
14 Assist Extremely Low Income (ELI)
households
CARRY FORWARD. This program is implemented by
facilitating housing for family members, caregivers and domestic employees, and by assisting elder Rolling Hills homeowners on fixed incomes with home maintenance,
home sharing, ADU construction, and other actions that
reduce housing cost burdens. The program should be
carried forward.
15 Facilitate communication with
affordable housing service
providers, developers, and
advocates
CARRY FORWARD. The program recommends
coordinating with affordable housing organizations to
facilitate housing assistance and production for lower
income households. The City implements this program
on an on-going basis and should continue to do so in
the future.
16 Provide public information on home
sharing programs
CARRY FORWARD. This program references a number
of home sharing programs in Los Angeles County and
suggests that Rolling Hills provide information about
these programs on its website and at City Hall. This is a relatively low-cost measure that can help seniors, young adults, and local employees find housing options in the city. It should be retained.
524

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-8
Prog. Description Status
17 Provide information about reverse
mortgages
DELETE. While reverse mortgages may be helpful for
some households, there may also be downsides
associated with high closing costs, fees, and
unfavorable repayment terms. There is also a risk of
fraud. The City may not wish to take an advocacy
position promoting reverse mortgages due to the risks
involved. Local homeowners may still consider this
option should they choose to do so. The program could
also be revised to focus on consumer protection issues
related to reverse mortgages.
18 Undertake sewer feasibility and
design studies
REVISE. This program should be updated to reflect the
current status of sewer feasibility and design studies. A feasibility study was initiated in 2020 and design plans are nearing completion. The updated Housing Element
program should reflect the findings of these studies, as well as Council direction.
19 Implement Best Management
Practices to improve stormwater
REVISE. The City has continued to implement
municipal storm water management measures to
reduce urban runoff pollution. It will continue to do so in the future as conditions and requirements change.

This program could potentially be deleted or combined
with Program 18.
20 Maintain code enforcement
procedures
REVISE. This program called for hiring a full-time Code Enforcement Officer, which was accomplished in 2019.

There is an ongoing need for enforcement of planning
and building codes in order to conserve housing quality and correct structural deficiencies. Violations have
been consistently abated in order to maintain public
safety and community standards. The program should
be updated and retained.
21 Encourage energy conservation CARRY FORWARD. This program continues to be relevant and informs City actions relating to
weatherization, solar installations, and other steps to reduce home energy costs and promote clean energy.

The program references various links on the City’s
website to energy conservation programs, and financial
assistance for home energy costs. It should be carried
forward.
22 Facilitate new construction and
remodels
CARRY FORWARD. This is a general program that
encourages the City to work with applicants, builders,
property owners, and others to produce new market
rate housing and to facilitate permits for home
improvements. It supports permit streamlining and
efficiency, and transparency in the planning and
building processes. It should be carried forward.
525

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-9
Prog. Description Status
23 Explore solutions to ground stability
and landslide problems
CARRY FORWARD. The City implements this program
on an ongoing basis through requirements for soils and
geology reports, as well as grading standards and
grading permit requirements. It continues to allow and
support repair work on landslide damaged homes and
unstable hillsides. Given past damage caused by
landslides and the vulnerability of parts of the city to future damage, this program should be retained.

Reference could also be made to programs that reduce
wildfire risk and promote defensible space.
24 Make Fair Housing information
available to the public
REVISE. This program reflects the City’s ongoing
commitment to making fair housing information
available to the public. Given HCD’s guidelines for
implementing AB 686 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing), additional fair housing programs should be
developed.
526

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-10
527

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-1

3.0 Housing Needs Assessment

3.1 Introduction
Each community’s housing plan must be based on an analysis of local housing needs. This analysis is expressly required by the State Government Code (Section 65583(a)), and includes a comprehensive evaluation of local demographics, housing conditions, and market conditions.

The analysis includes an assessment of household characteristics in the city, including household type, tenure (rent vs own), overcrowding, and percent of income spent on housing. It also evaluates the special housing needs of older adults, persons with disabilities, large families, and persons in need of emergency shelter.

The needs assessment helps ensure that the city is not only planning for its “fair share” of the region’s housing needs, but also responding to its own local needs. Where appropriate, local conditions are compared to regional conditions or conditions in nearby cities to provide appropriate context. Rolling Hills is a very unique community and it is important to recognize that when planning for housing conservation and production.

Most of the data presented in this chapter is from the American Community Survey (ACS), an ongoing survey performed by the US Census to gauge population and housing conditions in between the decennial censuses. Because most 2020 Census data was not available at the time this report was prepared, the ACS data provides the most accurate information on local demographics. ACS data for Rolling Hills in 2021 is based a five-year average covering 2015- 2019. However, the ACS is based on a sample of the population, so there is a margin of error in some of the tables. Other data sources include the California Department of Finance, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Rolling Hills. In addition, SCAG provided a “pre-HCD certified” data profile for each city in the Los Angeles region in 2019. This is referenced as appropriate throughout this chapter.

The Needs Assessment is broken into five sections as follows:
• Section 3.2 covers population characteristics, such as age, race, and total rate of growth • Section 3.3 covers household characteristics, such as presence of children and home ownership
• Section 3.4 addresses special housing needs
• Section 3.5 covers housing stock characteristics
• Section 3.6 covers growth forecasts and the RHNA for the 2021-2029 period The Needs Assessment is supplemented by Appendix “A”, which looks specifically at the recent State mandate to “affirmatively further fair housing” through the Housing Element. Appendix A focuses on regional patterns of segregation and inequity in order to inform local fair housing policies.
528

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-2

3.2 Population Characteristics

3.2.1 Total Population
Table 3.1 shows population data for Rolling Hills over a 50-year period. The City’s population was 2,050 in 1970 and has declined by more than 300 residents since then. Between 1980 and 1990, Rolling Hills lost nearly 9 percent of its population. The decline was the result of several factors, including smaller households, fewer children, and the loss of homes due to wildfire and landslides. Change between 1990 and 2010 was minimal. There were 1,871 residents in 1990 and 1,860 residents in 2010. The August 12, 2021 US Census data release reported a population of 1,739 residents, a 6.5 percent drop relative to 2010. The Census figure is substantially lower than the Department of Finance estimate of 1,866, which was made on January 1, 2021.

Table 3.1: Rolling Hills Population, 1970-2021
1 Population Percent Change
1970 2,050 --
1980 2,049 0
1990 1,871 -8.7%
2000 1,871 0
2010 1,860 -0.6%
2021 (DOF) 1,866 0.3%
2020 (Census) 1,739 -6.5%
Sources: US Decennial Census, 1970-2010. California Dept. of Finance, 1/1/21 estimate, 2020 Census (8/12/21 release) Table 3.2 compares population change in Rolling Hills with the region, the County, and the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula using data from the California Department of Finance. The six-county Los Angeles region grew 14.4 percent between 2000 and 2021, from 16.5 million residents to nearly 19 million residents. Los Angeles County grew by 5.2 percent, reflecting its more urbanized character and larger population base. By contrast, the rate of growth on the Palos Verdes Peninsula during this 21-year period was just 1.1 percent. While Rolling Hills Estates grew by 5.5 percent, the other three cities have roughly the same number of residents today as they did 20 years ago. The Peninsula communities are mature, with limited vacant and re-developable land, high land costs, and environmental constraints that limit population growth. 1 The ACS data sets for Rolling Hills for 2015-2019 show a citywide population of 1,513 residents. This is 15 percent below the actual population, which was reported to be 1,739 residents in the 2020 Census data released on August 12, 2021. In addition, SCAG reported the population at 1,939 residents (in 2018), while the State Department of Finance reported 1,866 residents. These discrepancies are due to sampling errors resulting from the small size of Rolling Hills’ population. As a result, charts are used (rather than tables) for some of the variables discussed below. This allows the analysis to focus on change over time rather than total values.
529

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-3
Table 3.2: Comparison of Rolling Hills Growth with Nearby Cities and Region, 2000-2021 Population Percent Change 2000 2021
Rolling Hills 1,871 1,866(*) -0.3
Rolling Hills Estates 7,676 8,098 5.5
Rancho Palos Verdes 41,145 41,541 0.9
Palos Verdes Estates 13,340 13,286 -0.4
Los Angeles County 9,542,000 10,044,458 5.3
SCAG Region 16,547,000 18,954,083 14.4
Sources: US Decennial Census, 2000. California Dept. of Finance, 1/1/21 estimate (*) August 12, 2021 Census data release shows 1,739 residents, which is a 7.1 decrease since 2000

3.2.2 Age
The age structure of the population has a strong influence on housing needs. For example, if a city is experiencing an outmigration of young adults (ages 25-34), it often indicates a shortage of rental housing or entry-level housing opportunities. If a city has a high percentage of residents over 75, it often indicates a need for special housing types, such as assisted living or singlestory homes---or programs to assist with home rehabilitation.

Chart 3.1 shows the age distribution of Rolling Hills residents in 2000 and 2020. The chart illustrates significant shifts, including a decrease in the number of children (from 28% of the population in 2000 to 20% in 2020) and an increase in the number of persons over 65 (from 22% of the population in 2000 to 33% in 2020). The percentage of residents aged 20-34 nearly doubled over the 20-year period, likely as a result of adult children moving back home or delaying entry into the housing market due to high housing costs. The percent of residents 35- 44 dropped significantly, likely because of limited local housing options for young families and mid-career adults.

The median age in Rolling Hills has steadily increased over the last 40 years. In 1980, it was

38.2. It increased to 45.5 in 1990, 48 in 2000, and in 52 in 2010. By 2020, the median age was

55.3, meaning that half of all residents are older than 55 and half are 55 or younger. By contrast, the median age in Los Angeles County is 36.5. Rolling Hills also has a higher median age than the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Rolling Hills Estates: 50.1; Palos Verdes Estates: 52.2; Rancho Palos Verdes: 50.0).

Census data indicates that one-third of Rolling Hills’ residents over 65 are 80 or older. This cohort represents more than 10 percent of the City’s population, a substantially higher share than in most communities in California.
530

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-4
Chart 3.1: Age Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020 Source: US Census, 2000. ACS, 2021 (for 2015-2019 sample period) Chart 3.2: Racial Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020 Source: US Census, 2000 and ACS, 2021 (for 2015-2019 sample period) 0-19
20%
20-34
9%
35-44
45-54 4%
16%
55-64
18%
65+
33%
0-19
28%
20-34
5% 35-44
12%
45-54
18%
55-64
15%
65+
22%
Hispanic
(any race)
6%
White
NonHispanic
70%
Multiracial
6%
Black
2%
Asian
15%
Other
1%
2020
2000 2020
Hispanic
(any race)
3%
White
NonHispanic
80%
Multiracial
2%
Black
2%
Asian
13%
2000
531

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-5

3.2.3 Race and Ethnicity
Racial and ethnic composition may affect housing needs due to the cultural preferences of certain groups (including extended families, multi-generational families, etc). In addition, certain groups have historically faced discrimination due to the lending policies of financial institutions, former covenants and ownership restrictions, and past racial bias.

Chart 3.2 shows the racial distribution of Rolling Hills residents in 2000 and 2020. The city has become more diverse over time, with the Non-Hispanic White population declining from 80 percent to 70 percent of the total. The Hispanic population (any race) roughly doubled over the 20-year period, although relative to the total population, the numbers are still small.

Approximately 6 percent of the City’s residents are Hispanic.

The percentage of African-American residents remained at about 2 percent of the population between 2000 and 2020. During this same period, the number of residents of Asian or Pacific Island descent increased from 13 percent to 16 percent of the city’s total. According to the Census, the largest Asian ethnic groups in the city are Chinese (6.5 percent) and Korean (5.1 percent). The number of residents indicating they were more than one race more than doubled between 2000 and 2020, with multi-racial residents representing about 6 percent of the 2020 population.

Relative to the County of Los Angeles and the State of California, Rolling Hills and the four cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula have a substantially higher White Non-Hispanic population.

Table 3.3 compares race and ethnicity in Rolling Hills, the Peninsula cities, Los Angeles County, and the State as a whole. Nearly half of the County’s residents, and more than one-third of the State’s residents, are Hispanic. By contrast, less than 10 percent of the residents in the Peninsula cities are Hispanic. The Peninsula cities tend to have higher percentages of Asian and Pacific Islander residents, and more multi-racial residents.

Table 3.3: Race and Ethnicity in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, Los Angeles County, and State, 2020
Percent of Total
Rolling Hills Palos Verdes
Peninsula*
Los Angeles
County
State of
California
Non-Hispanic White 71.3% 54.4% 26.2% 37.2%
Hispanic (all races) 5.8% 9.7% 48.5% 39.0%
Black/ African American 1.5% 1.6% 7.8% 5.5%
Native American/Alaskan N/A 0.1% 0.2% 0.4%
Asian 15.6% 28.8% 14.4% 14.3%
Pacific Islander/Hawaiian N/A 0.6% 0.2% 0.4%
Other N/A 0.1% 0.3% 0.3%
Multi-Racial 5.8% 4.7% 2.3% 3.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sources: US Decennial Census, 2020.
(*) Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates 532

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-6
The August 2021 release of 2020 Census data shows that the ACS may have underestimated the diversity of Rolling Hills’ population. The 2020 Census indicated that 66 percent of the city’s residents are White, 20.5 percent are Asian, 10.4 percent are more than one race, 1.3 percent are Black, and 1.9 percent are Other. The Census further indicated that 7.0 percent of the city’s residents were Hispanic (includes all races).

3.2.4 Language
Based on ACS data for 2015-2019, 79 percent of the City’s residents speak only English at home.
2 Of the roughly 300 Rolling Hills residents speaking a language other than English at home, 18 percent speak Spanish, 56 percent speak an Asian language, and 26 percent speak another Indo-European language. Most of these residents are bilingual and are fluent in English.

About 66 percent of those speaking a foreign language at home indicated they also spoke English “very well.” Of the remaining 34 percent, about half spoke an Asian language. Korean and Chinese were the most commonly spoken languages in those households.

Relative to other cities in Los Angeles County and the region, the percentage of “linguistically isolated” persons (i.e., those with limited English) is very low in Rolling Hills. Whereas about 6 percent of Rolling Hills’ population is linguistically isolated, the percentage in Los Angeles County is about 24 percent.

3.2.5 Educational Attainment
Rolling Hills residents are highly educated. Among residents 25 or older, 97.6 percent have a high school degree. More than 70 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 39 percent have a graduate or professional degree. These percentages are substantially higher than in the County as a whole.

3.2.6 Health Indicators
Health can impact housing needs both by limiting the income earning potential of residents and by creating the need for supportive services or special housing design. Based on data provided to the City by the Southern California Association of Governments, Rolling Hills health indicators are consistently better than the County as a whole. The City’s obesity rate is 16.5 percent, compared to a countywide average of 28.2 percent. Its asthma rate is 10.1 percent, compared to the countywide average of 15.1 percent and its diabetes rate is 8.3 percent, compared to 12.1 percent countywide. On the other hand, Rolling Hills has a higher rate of heart disease than the County as a whole, with 9.7 percent of the population diagnosed with a heart ailment compared to 6.6 percent countywide. This is likely due to the higher percentage of older residents in the city.
2 American Community Survey 2015-2019, based on residents 5 years of age or older. 533

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-7

3.2.7 Employment
Employment affects the demand for housing and the dynamics of the housing market. In most cities, the types of jobs that are present affect the wages paid and the ability of the local workforce to pay for housing in the city. Rolling Hills is unique in this regard, as it has no major employers or land zoned for employment uses. In 2018, the Southern California Association of Governments estimated that there were only 110 jobs in the city.3 Employers include the City, the School District, Rolling Hills Community Association, the County Fire Department, and the Palos Verdes Transit Authority. The figure excludes construction workers, landscapers, housekeepers, child care providers, care givers, delivery workers, and others who travel to the city intermittently for work.

Data from SCAG collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic indicates that a majority of employed residents in Rolling Hills commuted to jobs elsewhere in Los Angeles County. The largest percentages of residents commuted to Los Angeles (28.2%), Torrance (8.3%), and Long Beach (5.0%). Beyond Los Angeles County, the next largest commute destination was Orange County, including Anaheim (1.5%) and Huntington Beach (1.5%).

A relatively large percentage of Rolling Hills residents work from home. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, census data reported that about 18 percent of the city’s employed residents worked from their homes. While data after March 2020 is not available, the percentage likely increased dramatically during the second quarter of 2020 and remained high for the rest of the year. The long-term effects of the pandemic on commute patterns are still unknown. However, the relatively large home sizes in Rolling Hills and the high percentage of the workforce in professional-sector jobs suggests that a substantial number of workers will continue to work remotely in the future.

Recent data from the California Employment Development Department (EDD) indicates there are 600 Rolling Hills residents in the labor force. EDD indicates an unemployment rate of 9.3 percent in June 2021, compared to a countywide average of 10.5 percent. The average annual unemployment rate in Rolling Hills was reported as 4.0 percent in 2019, when the countywide average was 4.4 percent. 4
Tables 3.4 and 3.5 provides an overview of the Rolling Hills labor force, based on census data.

The first table identifies the occupation of residents in the city by category, and the second classifies employed residents by industry.

A majority of the city’s residents are in higher-wage professional and management occupations.

Approximately 18 percent work in health care. About 13 percent work in education, legal services, arts, and media. Only a small percentage work in the service sector, and even smaller percentages work in the construction, maintenance, and transportation sectors. The largest economic sectors associated with the Rolling Hills workforce are finance, insurance, real estate, health care, and professional, scientific, and management services. The percentage of residents employed in retail sales, wholesaling, and manufacturing is much smaller than in the county as a whole.
3 Based on data from the California Employment Development Department 4 California EDD “Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places” accessed July 2021 534

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-8
Table 3.4: Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Occupation Number of
Residents
Employed
Percent of
Total
Management, business, and financial services occupations 185 32.9% Computer, engineering, and science occupations 39 6.9%
Education, legal, community service, arts, and media occupations 72 12.8% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 104 18.5% Service occupations 24 4.3%
Sales and office occupations 115 20.4%
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 22 3.9% Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 2 0.4% TOTAL 563 100.0%
Sources: American Community Survey, 2021 (2015-2019 characteristics) Table 3.5: Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Industry Number of
Residents
Employed
Percent of
Total
Construction 24 4.3%
Manufacturing 29 5.2%
Wholesale trade 43 7.6%
Retail trade 30 5.3%
Transport/ warehousing/ utilities 4 0.7%
Information 12 2.1%
Finance/ insurance/ real estate 132 23.4%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 85 15.1%
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 146 25.9% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 39 6.9%
Other services, except public administration 12 2.1%
Public Administration 7 1.2%
TOTAL 563 100.0%
Sources: American Community Survey, 2021 (2015-2019 characteristics) 535

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-9
There are approximately six times more employed residents in Rolling Hills than jobs in Rolling Hills. The City is not expected to become an employment center in the future. Rolling Hills is currently a housing “reservoir” in that it provides far more housing than employment relative to other cities in Los Angeles County. Nearby communities with large employment bases rely on Rolling Hills to some extent to meet their housing needs, particularly at the upper range of the housing market.

3.3 Household Characteristics
The Bureau of the Census defines a "household" as “all persons who occupy a housing unit.

This may include persons living alone, families related through marriage or blood, and unrelated individuals living together. Persons living in retirement or convalescent homes, dormitories, or other group living situations are classified as living in “group quarters” and are not considered households. On the other hand, a property with an occupied accessory dwelling unit may be considered to consist of two households.

Household characteristics provide important indicators of housing needs. These characteristics include household structure (families with and without children, single persons, persons sharing homes, etc.), household size (number of persons per household), tenure (renter vs owner), and household income and poverty status. Again, the US Census 2021 American Community Survey (providing sample data for 2015-2019) is regarded as the definitive source for household data and is referenced in the tables and narrative below. At the time this report was prepared, 2020 Census data for households (other than total number of households) was not yet available.

3.3.1 Household Type
Census data for Rolling Hills indicates that there is no group quarters population in the city and that all residents reside in households. Data from the California Department of Finance for January 1, 2021 indicates that there were 667 households in Rolling Hills, an increase of four households from the 2010 Census. The August 2021 release of US 2020 Census data indicates that there are 639 households in the city, which is a decrease of 24 households from 2010. The US Census data is considered more accurate, as it is based on an actual count and not an estimate.

Just over 81 percent of all households in Rolling Hills are classified as families. This percentage remained constant between 2010 and 2020. Non-family households include persons living alone and unrelated persons living in shared homes.

Chart 3.3 shows the distribution of households by category for Rolling Hills and the County of Los Angeles. Relative to the County, Rolling Hills has a much higher percentage of married couple families (74% of all households compared to 45% countywide). The City has smaller percentages of single parent households and non-married couple households than the County and the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. A much smaller share of Rolling Hills’ residents live alone than in the County as a whole.
536

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-10
Chart 3.3: Household Type in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County, 2021 Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (2015-2019 data) The data for Rolling Hills reflects the community’s single family housing stock. For decades, the city has attracted families with children. Couples tend to keep their homes when their children are grown, resulting in a significant number of homes (more than half) occupied by older couples with adult children and empty nesters. In fact, the Census indicates that 60 percent of the married couple households in Rolling Hills include at one person over 60 years old, compared to 38 percent in the county as a whole.

Household type in Rolling Hills has changed over the last 20 years. The percentage of people living alone has been increasing, growing from 12 percent of the population in 2000 to 16 percent in 2020. The percentage of households with children living at home has been decreasing. It was 33 percent in 2000 and 23 percent in 2020.

3.3.2 Household Size
In 2020, the State Department of Finance reported the average household size in Rolling Hills as

2.80 persons. This is almost the same as it was in 2010, when average household size was reported at 2.81 persons. In general, average household size has been falling over time. It was

2.90 in 2000 and was reported as being 3.2 in the Rolling Hills General Plan (1989). Preliminary releases from the US Census (August 2021) show actual household size has fallen even further, and is now 2.72.

ACS data indicates that 16 percent of all households in the City are comprised of one person, 52 percent have two people, 10 percent have three people, and 21 percent have four or more people. By contrast, in Los Angeles County as a whole, 26 percent are comprised of one person, 28 percent of two persons, 17 percent of three persons, and 29 percent of four or more Married w/
children
under 18 at
home
22%
Married, no children
<18 at home
52%
Single
parent, w/
children < 18
at home
1%
Nonmarried
couples
2%
Living
alone
16%
Other
7%
Married w/
children
under 18 at
home
19%
Married, no children
<18 at home
26%
Single parent, w/
children < 18 at home
6%
Nonmarried
couples
7%
Living
alone
26%
Other
16%
City of Rolling Hills County of Los Angeles
537

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-11
persons. Rolling Hills has a much higher share of two-person households and smaller shares of one-person households and large households.

Chart 3.4 compares average household size in Rolling Hills, the County, the State and the other three cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Data is shown for 2010 and 2021 for each city, based on California Department of Finance statistics.

Chart 3.4: Household Size in Rolling Hills and Other Jurisdictions, 2010 and 2021 Source: California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2021

3.3.3 Overcrowding
Overcrowding may result when high housing costs prevent households from buying or renting homes that provide sufficient space for their needs. The Census defines overcrowded households as those with more than 1.01 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, hallways, and porches. Households are considered to be “severely” overcrowded if they have more than 1.51 persons per room.

Although Rolling Hills has a higher number of persons per household than the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, it does not experience overcrowding. ACS data for 2015-2019 indicate that 98.9 percent of the homes in the city have 1.0 persons per room of less. There are no households with more than 1.51 persons per room. By contrast, in the county at large, 11.3 percent of the households have more than 1.01 persons per room and 4.7 percent have more than 1.51 persons per room. Homes in Rolling Hills are generally large and owner-occupied, reducing the likelihood of future overcrowding.

2.4 2.5

2.6 2.7

2.8 2.9
3 3.1
Rolling Hills LA County California Rolling Hills
Estates
Rancho Palos
Verdes
Palos Verdes
Estates
2010 2021
538

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-12

3.3.4 Tenure
Tenure refers to a household’s status as an owner or renter. ACS data for 2015-2019 indicate that 95.3 percent of Rolling Hills’ households are homeowners and 4.7 percent are renters. This percentage has remained relatively constant over the last two decades. The 2010 Census indicated that 95.7 percent of the city’s households were homeowners and that 4.3 percent were renters. This equated to 28 renter households in the entire city. Because there are no multi-family units at this time, these households are presumed to be renting single family homes.

Renter households in the city are slightly larger than owner-occupied households. The ACS data for 2015-2019 indicates an average household size of 3.07 for renters and 2.60 for owners.

3.3.5 Household Income
Income is the single most important factor in determining housing affordability. While upper income households have more discretionary income to spend on housing, lower income households are more constrained in what they can afford. The State and federal government have developed metrics for classifying households into income categories. These metrics are used to quantify what is considered an “affordable” housing unit and to determine eligibility for housing subsidies and assistance programs. All metrics are benchmarked against the areawide median income, or AMI.

State-Defined Income Categories
The commonly used income categories are as follows:
• Extremely low income 0-30% of AMI
• Very low income 30% to 50% of AMI
• Low income 50% to 80% of AMI
• Moderate income 80% to 120% of AMI
• Above Moderate income More than 120% of AMI
“Affordable housing cost” is defined by State law as being not more than 30 percent of gross household income. “Housing cost” in this context includes rent or mortgage payments, utilities, property taxes, and homeowners (or renters) insurance. The income limits are updated annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

For each income category, a sliding scale is used based on the number of persons per household. This recognizes that larger households must dedicate greater shares of their income for food, health care, transportation, and other expenses. The income categories are calculated by county, resulting in different median incomes from place to place within California.

Table 3.6 shows income categories for Los Angeles County that became effective in April 2021.

A two-person household earning less than $75,700 a year would be considered low income.

The same household would be considered very low income if it earned less than $47,300 a year.

For a household of four people, the threshold is $94,600 for low income and $59,100 for very low income.
539

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-13
Table 3.6: Income Limits for Los Angeles County, 20215
Income Category
Household Size
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low Income $24,850 $28,400 $31,950 $35,450 $38,300 $41,150 $44,000 $46800 Very Low Income $41,400 $47,300 $53,200 $59,100 $63,850 $68,600 $73,300 $78,050 Low Income $66,250 $75,700 $85,150 $94,600 $102,200 $109,750 $117,350 $124,900 Moderate Income $67,200 $76,800 $86,400 $96,000 $103,700 $111,350 $119,050 $126,700 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021 Table 3.7 indicates the monthly housing cost that would be considered “affordable” for households of different sizes in each income category. Using the state’s definition of affordability, a low income household of four would be able to afford a monthly housing cost of $2,365. A very low income household of four could afford a monthly housing cost of $1,478. If these households are pay in excess of this amount, they are considered to be “cost-burdened.” In a high-priced market like the Palos Verdes Peninsula, many low income households pay significantly more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent or mortgages. Those employed in low-wage professions in the area may commute long distances from areas with more affordable housing.

Table 3.7: Affordable Monthly Housing Costs Based on 2021 Income Limits Income Category
Household Size
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low Income $621 $710 $799 $886 $958 $1,029 $1,100 $1,170 Very Low Income $1,035 $1,183 $1,330 $1,478 $1,596 $1,715 $1,833 $1,951 Low Income $1,656 $1,893 $2,129 $2,365 $2,555 $2,744 $2,934 $3,123 Moderate Income $1,680 $1,920 $2,160 $2,400 $2,593 $2,784 $2,976 $3,168 Source: Barry Miller Consulting, 2021. Based on 30% of monthly income for each household Market-rate ownership housing in the Los Angeles area is generally not affordable to households who are moderate income or below. With an income of $100,000, a household of four could potentially spend $2,500 a month on their housing cost without experiencing a costburden. Assuming a 10 percent down-payment and 3 percent interest rate, an “affordable” home would be about $360,000. While there are a few condominiums at this price point in the region’s larger cities (Long Beach, Los Angeles, etc.), there is no housing on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in this range. Consequently, “below market” housing programs typically focus on rental housing for low and very low income households, and a mix of subsidized ownership housing and rental housing for moderate income households. 5 Income limits for low, very low, and extremely low income are set by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.

However, income limits for moderate income households are set by HCD based on mathematical averages of County income.

Consequently, the moderate income numbers are only marginally different from the low income numbers in Los Angeles County.

This is not the case in all counties.
540

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-14
Some market-rate rental units are “affordable by design”—meaning they are not subsidized but have rental prices that fall within the affordability ranges of low and moderate income households. For example, a one-bedroom apartment renting for $1,700 a month would be considered affordable to a two-person low-income household. While the supply of such units is limited on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, there are opportunities for market-rate accessory dwellings and small apartments to fill some of this need.

Household Income in Rolling Hills
The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) receives custom tabulations of Census data each year to evaluate housing needs for lower income households. The data is referred to as “CHAS” (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data and includes documentation of the current number of owner and renter households in each HUD income category for each jurisdiction. At the time the 2021-2029 Housing Element was prepared the CHAS data set was based on 2013-2017 conditions. Table 3.8 provides CHAS data for the City of Rolling Hills.

Table 3.8: Rolling Hills Households by HUD Income Category Income Category Owners Renters Total (*)
Extremely Low 25 0 25
Very Low 35 10 45
Low 45 0 45
Moderate 25 0 25
Above Moderate 465 15 480
Total 595 25 620
Source: HUD User Portal CHAS data, based on 2013-2017 ACS. Accessed July 2021 (*) Total number of households does not match Census and DOF totals due to sampling methods. CHAS data is also rounded to the nearest “five” by HUD.

Table 3.8 indicates that 77 percent of the households in Rolling Hills are “above moderate” income (more than 120% of Areawide Median Income). There are 25 “extremely low” income households and 45 “very low” income households in the city, representing four percent and seven percent of total households respectively. Another seven percent meet “low” income criteria.

Table 3.9 provides additional data on income in Rolling Hills, using 2015-2019 American Community Survey data rather than CHAS data. Rolling Hills is among the most affluent cities in California, with a median income exceeding $250,000 a year, and a mean household income of $434,685. The Census indicates that 57.5 percent of the city’s households have annual incomes exceeding $200,000, compared to 37.8 percent for all of the Palos Verdes Peninsula cities and

10.2 percent for Los Angeles County.
541

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-15
Table 3.9: Household Income in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and Los Angeles County Income Category
Percent of Households in Income Category
Rolling Hills
Palos Verdes
Peninsula Cities Los Angeles County
Less than $10,000 1.2% 3.0% 5.6%
$10,000-$14,999 2.6% 1.6% 4.8%
$15,000-$24,999 2.6% 3.4% 8.4%
$25,000-$34,999 1.2% 3.4% 8.1%
$35,000-$49,999 6.1% 4.7% 11.2%
$50,000-$74,999 3.8% 9.2% 15.9%
$75,000-$99,999 4.2% 9.0% 12.3%
$100,000-$149,999 12.7% 15.5% 15.8%
$150,000-$199,999 8.1% 12.6% 7.8%
$200,000 or more 57.5% 37.8% 10.2%
Median Income $250,000+ $154,165 $68,044
Mean Income $434,685 $210,231 $99,133
Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019) Data for Palos Verdes Peninsula cities represents weighted average of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Palos Verdes Estates
While a majority of households are “above moderate” income, the ACS data indicates that 6.4 percent of Rolling Hills’ households (or approximately 42 households) have annual incomes of less than $25,000 a year. This compares to 8.0 percent for the Palos Verdes Peninsula and 18.8 percent for Los Angeles County. Approximately 7.3 percent of Rolling Hills’ households have incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 a year, compared to 8.1 percent on the Peninsula and

19.3 percent countywide.

The Census also disaggregates household income data by family households, married couples, and non-family households. Non-family households include persons living alone and unrelated individuals in shared homes. Family and married couple household incomes in Rolling Hills are higher than non-family households. Census data indicate that 27 percent of the non-family households in the city (or about 30 households) have annual incomes below $35,000 compared to just 3.1 percent for families and married couples.

An important qualifier about the Census income data is that it does not account for accumulated wealth or savings and is based only on annual income. Given the high cost of housing in Rolling Hills, the very high rate of owner-occupancy (95 percent), and the large number of retired adults in the city, it is likely that most of the lower income households in the city are seniors on fixed incomes. In fact, 68 of the 108 non-family households in the city are comprised of persons over 65 living alone. Many of these households have no mortgage and their housing costs are primarily associated with property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and utilities. Despite accumulated wealth and home equity, a subset of the population on fixed incomes may lack the resources to meet these expenses without financial hardship. 542

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-16

3.3.6 Overpayment
Overpayment refers to the incidence of households spending more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing costs. As noted earlier, this includes monthly utility bills, taxes, HOA dues, and insurance as well as mortgage or rent payments. Overpayment occurs in all income categories but is more challenging for lower income households given the limited resources to pay for other household expenses. As previously indicated, such households are defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development as being “cost-burdened.” ACS data indicates that 30.6 percent of all homeowners in Rolling Hills and 32 percent of all renters are paying more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. About 18 percent of Rolling Hills homeowners are paying more than 50 percent of their incomes on housing. This compares to 16 percent in the county as a whole. Table 3.10 compares rates of overpayment in Rolling Hills with those of Los Angeles County as a whole. At the countywide level, the rate of overpayment is somewhat higher for homeowners and substantially higher for renters. In Los Angeles County, approximately 35.7 percent of all homeowners and 57.6 percent of all renters pay more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing.

Table 3.10: Percent of Income Spent on Housing in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County Percent of
Income Spent
on Housing
Homeowners with no
Mortgage
Homeowners with a
Mortgage Renters
Rolling
Hills
LA
County
Rolling
Hills
LA
County
Rolling
Hills
LA
County
Less than 20 % 64.3% 73.4% 37.1% 30.0% 54.5% 19.7%
20-24.9 % 10.5% 6.4% 10.1% 14.5% 0 11.5%
25-29.9% 5.0% 4.2% 14.0% 12.1% 13.6% 11.2%
30-34.9% 0.8% 3.0% 7.8% 9.1% 0 9.5%
More than 35% 19.3% 12.9% 30.9% 34.4% 31.8% 48.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019) Not surprisingly, the incidence of overpayment is much greater for homeowners with a mortgage than for those without a mortgage. In Rolling Hills, approximately 44 percent of all homeowners have paid off their mortgages, while 56 percent have a mortgage. For those without mortgages, 20.1 percent pay more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. For those with mortgages, the figure is 38.6 percent.

Even homeowners without mortgages may still face a cost burden associated with taxes, maintenance, and other home expenses. The ACS reports that 93 percent of Rolling Hills’ homeowners with no mortgage payments still have monthly housing costs exceeding $1,000 a month. The median monthly cost for homeowners without mortgages in the city is over $1,500 a month. The comparable figures for Los Angeles County are just 20.3 percent and $608 a month. The data suggests that Rolling Hills seniors on fixed incomes may be particularly costburdened due to limited income, monthly HOA fees, and the high cost of maintaining a home in the city.
543

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-17
For homeowners with mortgages, monthly costs are substantially higher. ACS data shows that

89.9 percent of the city’s homeowners with mortgages spend over $3,000 a month on housing, with a median well above $4,000 a month (the maximum reported by the Census). This compares to 34.2 percent in Los Angeles County, with monthly median of $2,498.

Data on the City’s renter households indicates that a majority are above moderate income households spending more than $3,000 a month on housing. However, the ACS indicates seven renter households paying $1,000 to $1,499 a month, which indicates that at least a few renters in the city occupy guest houses or unregistered accessory dwelling units.

Table 3.11 shows the incidence of overpayment among owners and renters in Rolling Hills who are lower income. Among lower income homeowners, 78 out of 90 are considered costburdened, while among the city’s 10 lower income renters, eight are considered cost-burdened.

About two-thirds of the city’s lower income owners are severely cost-burdened, paying more than half of their incomes on housing. While the income data does not fully account for savings and accrued wealth, it does suggest that some of these households might benefit from assistance with home maintenance and monthly housing expenses (for example, through home sharing and ADUs).

Table 3.11: Overpayment among Lower Income Households in Rolling Hills Total
Households
Number Paying More than
30% of Income on Housing
Number Paying More than
50% of Income on Housing
Homeowners
Income Under 80%
of Areawide Median
90 78 60
Income Under 30%
of Areawide Median
25 19 15
Renters
Income Under 80%
of Areawide Median
10 8 4
Income Under 30%
of Areawide Median
0 0 0
Source: HUD User CHAS data, 2014-2018

3.4 Populations with Special Needs
The California Government Code recognizes that some segments of the population have more difficulty finding decent, affordable housing than others due to their circumstances. Populations with special needs include older adults, persons with disabilities, large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and persons experiencing (or at risk of) homelessness. These groups are more likely than the population at large to spend a disproportionate amount of their incomes on housing. They are also more likely to face discrimination based on their specific needs or circumstances. 544

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-18

3.4.1 Older Adults
The special needs of older households result from limited income, higher rates of physical disability and health care costs, and changing life circumstances which may require assistance from others. This is the single largest special needs group in Rolling Hills, and it is growing rapidly as the population ages. Table 3.121 compares the number of older adults in Rolling Hills with the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, along with Los Angeles County.

Table 3.112: Older Adults in Rolling Hills and Nearby Jurisdictions Jurisdiction
Percent of all
Residents over 65
Percent of all
Residents over 75
Percent of households
with at least one
member over 65
Rolling Hills 32.9% 18.4% 56.0%
Rolling Hills Estates 25.2% 13.9% 46.5%
Palos Verdes Estates 27.0% 13.3% 46.8%
Rancho Palos Verdes 15.5% 13.6% 44.7%
Los Angeles County 13.3% 5.7% 29.7%
California 14.0% 5.9% 30.8%
Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019) The percentage of residents over 65 in Rolling Hills was 22 percent in 2000, 28 percent in 2010, and 33 percent in 2020. Moreover, 56 percent of the households in Rolling Hills include at least one person who is 65 years or older. This is almost double the rate for Los Angeles County as a whole. The percentage of Rolling Hills residents over 85 has doubled in the last 20 years, with this cohort representing 4.7 percent of the population in 2020.

The percentage of older residents is likely to continue increasing in the next decade. Nearly one in five Rolling Hills residents is in the 55-64 age cohort (compared to one in nine countywide), and most of this cohort will reach retirement age during the timeframe of this Housing Element.

Some of these residents, as well as those already over 65, may seek to “downsize” or adapt their homes to meet changing mobility needs and financial resources.

Older adults in Rolling Hills are more likely to live alone, have one or more disabilities, and be cost-burned by housing than the population at large. Census data indicates that there are 68 households, representing roughly 10 percent of all households in Rolling Hills, comprised of a person over 65 living alone. About 70 percent are female-headed households and 30 percent are male-headed. There may be opportunities among these households for home sharing and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development. This can provide financial benefits, social benefits, and an added sense of security, as well as housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income workers or other retirees in the community.

At the same time, the City should anticipate an increase in homeowners seeking to adapt their homes to facilitate aging in place. This would include addition of ramps, handrails, kitchen and bath retrofits, and interior changes that improve access for wheelchairs and walkers. The Rolling Hills housing stock is well suited for these improvements, as it is limited to single story 545

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-19
construction. Demand for on-site caregiver quarters, and living space for other domestic employees, will likely increase. At the same time, the substantial cost and demand associated with maintaining a large home and property may compel some residents to seek living arrangements that are not currently available in Rolling Hills, such as condominiums and townhomes. Some of these residents will relocate out of Rolling Hills due to diminished mobility (capacity to drive) or the need for higher levels of care.

Because of resource limitations and the city’s small size, the City of Rolling Hills does not provide direct services to seniors. It works with other agencies, non-profits, and the private sector to address the housing needs of local seniors, and to connect residents with service providers. This includes maintaining a comprehensive list of facilities and service providers at City Hall, and a dedicated page on the City’s website listing available services for seniors.

Rolling Hills has partnered with other Peninsula cities and local non-profits to produce a Senior Resources Guide for the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

Nearby local services include:
• Palos Verdes Peninsula Village, located in Rolling Hills Estates, provides social and educational activities, transportation, and advocacy for seniors in the vicinity. They provide trained volunteers to assist with routine home maintenance activities, computer troubleshooting and set-up, and other day to day activities. • PV Peninsula Transit Authority Dial-A-Ride, which provides services for persons 62 or older on the Peninsula, and free taxis for medical appointments in the South Bay area. • Peninsula Seniors, a non-profit 501(c)(3) that has served the four cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (including Rolling Hills) since 1982. They primarily provide social activities, health and wellness programs, special events, and educational programs. • Volunteer block captains within Rolling Hills, providing wellness checks for seniors as well as emergency preparedness and response.
• Homeshare South Bay matches seniors and others in the community with local housing opportunities. Homeshare South Bay is a project of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, which includes Rolling Hills.
• HELP (Health Care and Elder Law Programs) is a Torrance-based organization that provides counseling to area seniors on elder care, finance, law, and consumer protection. The organization is dedicated to empowering older adults and their families. • Palos Verdes Peninsula Library District and the Peninsula Center Library (in Rolling Hills Estates) provides programs and resources for seniors.
• There are senior centers in the nearby communities of Torrance, Carson, Wilmington, Harbor City, San Pedro, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hawthorne, and El Segundo.
546

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-20
In addition, the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) created a “Needs of Seniors” Committee in 2014 to address the needs of aging Rolling Hills residents. The Committee collects information and makes recommendations to the RHCA Board. Their recent efforts have focused on transportation, health and wellness, home improvement and maintenance, and social events.

3.4.2 Persons with Disabilities
The number of disabled residents is increasing nationwide due to increased longevity and the aging of the population. Physical and mental disabilities can hinder access to housing as well as the income needed to pay for housing. Those with disabilities often have special housing needs related to their limited earning capacity, higher health care costs, mobility or self-care limitations, or need for supportive services.

The Census recognizes six disability types in its data tabulation: hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living. These categories are not mutually exclusive and disabled residents may have more than one of these conditions. Current ACS data (2015-2019) for Rolling Hills indicates that 10.6 percent of the City’s population has one or more disabilities.

This compares to 8.1 percent in the 2000 Census, with the increase attributable to the greater number of older adults. Rolling Hills has a slightly higher percentage of disabled residents than the county as a whole, with the ACS reporting that 9.9 percent of Los Angeles County’s residents were disabled in 2020.

The city’s older residents are more likely to be disabled than its younger residents. ACS data shows 23 percent of all residents over 65 have one or more disabilities, whereas only 5.5 percent of those aged 18-64 have one or more disabilities and only 1.4 percent of those under 18 have disabilities. The “over 75” population has the greatest incidence of disability, with 33.8 percent affected.

Table 3.132 shows the incidence of disabilities among persons in different age groups in Rolling Hills. The most common disabilities are ambulatory (movement), with older adults most impacted. There were 103 residents reporting an ambulatory difficulty, 66 of whom were over

75. There were 56 residents reporting a hearing difficulty, 46 of whom were over 75. Cognitive difficulties were more likely to affect the younger population (particularly 18-34). This was the only category where rates among older adults were lower than among younger age cohorts.

Table 3.123: Percent of Rolling Hills’ Residents with a Disability Disability Type Under 18 18-64 Over 65 Total
Hearing Difficulty 0 1.0% 10.0% 3.7%
Vision Difficulty 0 1.0% 2.6% 1.3%
Cognitive Difficulty 1.5% 2.3% 2.0% 2.1%
Ambulatory Difficulty 0 2.9% 16.5% 6.9%
Self-care Difficulty 0 0.5% 6.0% 2.3%
Independent Living Difficulty N/A 2.3% 8.8% 5.0%
Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019) 547

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-21
There were 61 residents, including 34 residents over 75 and another 11 aged 65-74, who indicated an independent living difficulty. This represents roughly 5 percent of the City’s population and is comparable to the countywide average of 5.4 percent. These residents may require daily assistance from caregivers or family members.

There is an ongoing need to adapt housing to meet the needs of those with disabilities, and to design new homes so they are accessible for all people. This may require widened doorways and hallways, access ramps, larger bathrooms, lowered countertops, grab bars, walk-in baths and showers, and other design changes. It is important that planning and building codes support such changes, and accommodate the needs of those who are disabled or become disabled while living in the homes they currently occupy. Barrier free design is particularly important in any multi-family housing that may be constructed in the future.

In 2020, the City of Rolling Hills amended its municipal code to provide “reasonable accommodation” for persons with disabilities. This complies with state and federal laws and enables those with disabilities to request modifications from standard practices or codes to meet their housing needs.

3.4.3 Persons with Developmental Disabilities
SB 812 requires that each jurisdiction’s housing element include an analysis of housing needs for persons with developmental disabilities. This is defined by federal law as a “severe, chronic disability” that:
• Is attributable to a mental of physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments
• Is manifested before the individual attains age 18
• Is likely to continue indefinitely
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity:
o Self-care
o Receptive and expressive language
o Learning
o Mobility
o Self-direction
o Capacity of independent living
o Economic self-sufficiency
• Reflects the need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, of generic services, individualized support, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.

Examples of developmental disabilities include cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently. More severely disabled individuals may require a group living environment with training and supportive services. The most severely disabled individuals may require an institutional environment where medical services and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist in childhood, the transition from living with one’s family to living independently is an important consideration in meeting local housing needs.
548

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-22
Data on the number of persons with developmental disabilities is maintained by the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS). DDS coordinates the efforts of a network of 21 non-profit regional centers around the state and provides funding for a variety of programs and services. Rolling Hills is served by the Harbor Regional Center, which is located in Torrance.

The Harbor Center serves over 15,000 people with developmental disabilities, with a service area that includes Long Beach, the South Bay, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and other parts of southern Los Angeles County. About half are children and half are adults.

Data from the DDS is provided by ZIP code. Rolling Hills city represents 7.4 percent of the 25,061 residents in ZIP code 90274. The last available report posted by DDS on their website (June 2017) indicates 154 clients served in 90274, including 65 under age 18 and 89 over age

18. If Rolling Hills’ share of the total is pro-rated, this would be equivalent to 12 clients, including five children and seven adults. ZIP code data is also disaggregated by the type of housing occupied by clients. The data indicates that 149 clients in ZIP Code 90274 live with their families or guardians and “fewer than 11” clients live in supported living, care facility, or foster home environments. Overall, about 87 percent of the Harbor Center’s clients live with their families.

The Harbor Regional Center is an important resource for those with developmental disabilities, and their families. It provides health assessments, advocacy, family support and training, individual case management and support, early intervention and prevention services, and assistance in finding stable and secure independent living arrangements. Additional resources in the area include the Disability Community Resource Center in Torrance and Southern California Resources Services for Independent Living.

3.4.4 Female-Headed Households with Children
Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of their greater needs for day care, health care, and other facilities. In particular, female-headed households with children tend to have lower incomes, thus limiting housing affordability for this group. In most communities, female-headed households are considered to be at greater risk of displacement, poverty, and housing overpayment.

The 2019 ACS indicates that there were five single parent female households with children in Rolling Hills, representing less than one percent of the City’s households. The comparable figure for Los Angeles County was 5.1 percent, as the composition of households is substantially more diverse at the countywide level.

ACS data for the small number of female-headed households with children in Rolling Hills may not be entirely reliable due to the small sample size. Nonetheless, the data indicate that these households were above the poverty level, and did not receive supplemental security income, SNAP/food stamps, or other public assistance income in the past 12 months.

Because the very small number of female-headed households in Rolling Hills, as well as their income characteristics, they are not expected to have special housing needs that require City programs.
549

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-23

3.4.5 Large Households
Large households are defined as those with five or more members. Such households are identified in State housing law as a group with special housing needs based on the limited availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units. In instances where large households have lower incomes, they may be more likely to live in overcrowded dwelling units or in units that are substandard. The problem is more acute for large households who are renters, who may face the added risk of eviction or displacement.

Table 3.143 shows data on household size in Rolling Hills. The data is broken down for family and non-family households. About 12.3 percent of all households in Rolling Hills have five or more members, including 2.6 percent with seven or more members. All of these households are families. Countywide, 14.3 precent of all households have five or more members and 2.8 percent have seven or more members.

The average number of rooms per unit in a Rolling Hills home is 8.3, compared to 4.6 for Los Angeles County. ACS data indicates the median annual income for large households in Rolling Hills exceeds $250,000. Given the large home sizes in Rolling Hills, the low incidence of overcrowding, and the relatively small percentage of large households, this is not a priority special needs group within the city. Larger households will continue to be housed in the city’s larger single family homes.

Table 3.143: Number of Persons in Family and Non-Family Households Household
Size Family Percentage
NonFamily Percentage Total Percentage
1 N/A N/A 94 87.0% 94 16.3%
2 287 61.2% 14 13.0% 301 52.2%
3 59 12.6% 0 0 59 10.2%
4 52 11.1% 0 0 52 9.0%
5 51 10.9% 0 0 51 8.8%
6 8 1.7% 0 0 8 1.4%
7 or more 12 2.6% 0 0 12 2.1%
Total 469 100.0% 108 100.0% 577 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019) 550

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-24

3.4.6 Residents Living in Poverty or With Extremely Low Incomes Census data indicates that 1.7 percent of Rolling Hills’ population—or about 25 residents—are below the federal poverty line. This compares to 14.9 percent for the county as a whole.

According to the 2015-2019 ACS, Rolling Hills residents living below the poverty include 14 people aged 18-59 and 11 people over 60. There are no children under 18 below the poverty line in the city. The data further indicates that the 25 residents include 12 white non-Hispanic persons, four Asian persons, and nine Latino persons.6
Census data indicates that only five of the residents below the poverty line are in the labor force, suggesting that some of those tallied by the Census have other sources of income not reported here. Census data indicates that a majority of the adults below the poverty level in Rolling Hills are 18-34 year olds—this likely represents adult children not in the labor force who are living at home. This is further supported by the even lower poverty rate for family households in Rolling Hills—reported at 0.4 percent by the ACS, which is equivalent to three households.

Although Rolling Hills has a very small number of households in poverty, and some of its extremely low income residents have supplemental sources of income, the city is located in a region with significant very low income housing needs. In February 2021, the City amended its zoning regulations to create the Rancho Del Mar Overlay District. Affordable housing and emergency shelter are both permitted by right in this district, subject to specific development standards. Single room occupancy hotels are conditionally permitted. The City also permits home sharing, room rentals, and accessory dwelling units, all of which are beneficial to meeting extremely low income housing needs.

3.4.7 Farmworkers
The special housing needs of farmworkers are a result of low wages and the seasonal nature of agricultural employment. Migrant farmworkers face particular challenges, including severe overcrowding. Farmworker needs are difficult to quantify due to fear of job loss, language barriers, and the documentation status of the farmworker labor force.

The 2015-2019 ACS data indicates that there are no Rolling Hills residents employed in “Farming, Fishing, and Forestry” occupations. This data further indicates that there are no residents in the city employed in the “Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, and Mining” sector.

There are also no farmworker jobs in the city, as there is no agricultural land. As a result, the City does not have active programs or policies to address farmworker housing needs. 6 As noted earlier, the ACS is based on a sample of the population (roughly 15% for the five-year period). In a small city such as Rolling Hills, the margin of error is high, particularly for the breakdown of poverty status by age, race and ethnicity. 551

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-25

3.4.8 Homelessness
Homelessness has become an increasing problem throughout California and the entire United States. In Southern California, factors contributing to the rise in homelessness include the lack of housing affordable to low- and very low-income persons, loss of employment and benefits— particularly for low wage workers, health care costs and related personal disabilities, reductions in public subsidies, increasing rates of addiction and substance abuse, and a lack of mental health services.

State law requires that cities address the special needs of unhoused residents within their jurisdictional boundaries. For this purpose, homelessness is defined as including individuals who lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, as well as individuals living in shelters and in places not designed for sleeping. The definition does not include those living in substandard or overcrowded housing or persons who are temporarily staying with family and friends. Such individuals are considered to be “at risk” of homelessness.

A “point in time” count of homeless residents in Greater Los Angeles is conducted annually by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA). In January 2020, the count identified 54,291 persons experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County. This is an increase of about 10 percent from 2019, when the count was 49,521. It is an increase of 37 percent from 2016, when the count was 39,587. The 2020 figures precede the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on homelessness.

Data provided by the LAHSA indicates the 2020 count for the city of Rolling Hills was zero. The count for all prior years in the survey (2016-2019) also counted no unsheltered residents in the city. The nature of homelessness and the method of data reporting make it difficult to evaluate the full extent of the challenge of adequately housing the entire population. While there are no unsheltered residents in Rolling Hills, there may be residents who are temporarily staying with friends or relatives because they lack the resources or have underlying conditions which make it difficult to find permanent housing.

There are no emergency shelters in Rolling Hills. The closest facilities are in San Pedro and Wilmington and are less than five miles away. Harbor Rose Lodge (San Pedro) provides homeless support services for individuals and families in Los Angeles County, with no geographic restrictions. It assists with temporary housing and provides support services and referrals. Harbor Interfaith (San Pedro) provides a 90-day emergency shelter and an 18-month transitional housing program. Also in San Pedro, Shawl House and House of Hope provide shelter, transitional housing, counseling specifically for women. The Doors of Hope Shelter in Wilmington also serves single women. The Beacon Light Mission in Wilmington provides a 10- bed men’s shelter, as well as food, clothing, and supportive services to men, women, and children.

In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to allow emergency shelter “by right” in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone. The 31-acre site overlay zone includes multiple areas of underutilized land that provide opportunities for emergency shelter or supportive service facilities.
552

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-26
The City is committed to coordinating with supportive service providers and meeting the needs of local unhoused residents. A list of nearby social service agencies and shelters is maintained by the City Clerk.

3.5 Housing Stock Characteristics
Government Code Section 65583(a) requires the Housing Element to describe the characteristics of the local housing stock, including structural condition. This section of the Element provides an overview of Rolling Hills’ housing stock, including the age of structures, the types of structures, the number of bedrooms, and vacancy characteristics. It also includes information on home values and rents.

3.5.1 Housing Unit Count
The US Census reported 674 housing units in the city in 1990, 675 units in 2000, and 693 units in 2010 (see Chart 3.5). The California Department of Finance estimated 719 units in the city as of 2021. However, the August 12, 2021 data release from the 2020 Census indicates the total unit count is 702, which is more consistent with City records. The net number of housing units in the city has increased at a rate of about one unit a year for the last 30 years.

While the increase in units has been nominal, additional residential development has been occurring through the replacement and expansion of existing single family homes. Much of Rolling Hills was developed in the 1950s and was typified by 2,000 to 4,000 square-foot ranch style homes. As in many desirable older communities, the original housing stock is gradually being replaced with much larger units. These units average 6,000 to 9,000 square feet in size, according to City building permit records. This trend of residential recycling can be expected to continue and potentially increase as less vacant land is available for development.

Chart 3.5: Total Number of Housing Units in Rolling Hills, 1990-2020 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
674 675 693 702
1990 2000 2010 2020
Source: Census 1990,
2000, 2010, 2020
553

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-27
Chart 3.6: Year of Construction for Rolling Hills Homes

3.5.2 Age and Condition of Housing Stock
Chart 3.6 shows the age of the housing stock in Rolling Hills. About half of the housing stock in the community is more than 60 years old. About 35 percent was built in the 1960s and 70s and the remainder has been built in the last 40 years. About 8 percent of the city’s housing stock is less than 20 years old—however, most of these homes are “replacements” and were built on previously developed lots.

The older housing stock in the city is in excellent condition. Census data indicates there are no units in the city without plumbing or kitchen facilities. The City strongly encourages reinvestment in the existing housing stock, and homeowners take pride in their homes and properties. Common repairs include new roofs, new siding, plaster and stucco repair, upgraded electrical systems, and plumbing improvements. Home additions, kitchen and bathroom upgrades, and solar energy installations are also common.

No significant code enforcement or housing problems have been observed in the city. The city has a Code Enforcement Officer who makes complaint-based site visits. In the event a violation is identified, the City works with the property owner to resolve the issue.

The City estimates that five units, or 0.8 percent of its housing stock, is in need of rehabilitation or replacement. These properties include:7
• A home that has been red tagged and in need of foundation repair • A home in a landslide area with a stop work order due to work being done without permits
7 Addresses can be provided to HCD upon request but are not disclosed here.

Before 1950
11%
1950s
36%
1960s
21%
1970s
14%
1980s
7%
1990s
3% Post 2000
8%
Source: American Community Survey 2021
554

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-28
• An older home where the owner is seeking approval to demolish and rebuild • A home with an approved application to demolish and rebuild • A home with an approval for a major remodel and addition In any given year, the City also receives “tear down and rebuild” applications for one to two older homes as well as dozens of applications to modernize, expand and update older homes.

In almost all cases, these homes are habitable, but they are outdated and do not provide the amenities expected in high-end construction.

3.5.3 Housing Type
Rolling Hills is comprised entirely of single family homes. The 2021 ACS indicates there are no multi-family units in the city. ACS data further indicates seven units that are “single family attached” which presumably are accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or other separate living quarters that are ancillary to a primary residence.

Census data does not typically classify “guest houses” as dwelling units unless they have been legally permitted as separate residences. Rolling Hills classifies guest houses differently than ADUs; the latter are permitted by right to be independent dwellings provided they meet certain adopted zoning standards. By contrast, occupancy of guest houses is limited to persons employed on the premises, the family of the occupants of the main residence, or the temporary guests of the occupants of the main residence. Guest houses may not be used as rental housing, but an owner may apply for a permit to convert a guest house to an ADU, which can then be rented.

3.5.4 House Size
Homes in Rolling Hills are large. Chart 3.7 below shows the distribution by number of bedrooms. About 74 percent of the homes in the city have four or more bedrooms. Another 21 percent have three bedrooms and only five percent have two bedrooms or fewer. By contrast, among homes in Los Angeles County as a whole, 16 percent of all housing units have four or more bedrooms and 56 percent have two bedrooms or fewer.

Data for total house size shows a similar difference between Rolling Hills and the County as a whole. Countywide, the median number of rooms per home is 4.5. It Rolling Hills, it is 8.3. Only

4.7 percent of the homes in Los Angeles County have nine or more rooms. In Rolling Hills, 46 percent of the homes have nine or more rooms.
555

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-29
Chart 3.7: Percent of Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County
Source: American Community Survey 2021 (for 2015-2019)

0.0% 0.8%

4.4%

20.7%

39.8%

34.3%

7.1%

19.7%

29.4% 28.3%

12.3%

3.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%
No bedrooms 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5 or more bedrooms
Rolling Hills Los Angeles County
556

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-30

3.5.5 Vacancy Characteristics
The August 12, 2021 data release from the US Census indicates that 63 of the city’s 702 homes were vacant at the time of the 2020 Census. This is a nine percent vacancy rate. By contrast, 2020 Census data indicates that the vacancy rate for the Palos Verdes Peninsula as a whole was about five percent. Countywide, ACS data indicates that six percent of the housing stock in Los Angeles County is vacant.

ACS data provides an indication of the characteristics of vacant units in Rolling Hills. The ACS reports that 30 percent of the vacant units in the city were for sale, 26 percent were used seasonally (and were not occupied at the time of the census), and five percent were for rent.

The remainder were classified as “other.” ACS data further indicates that the vacancy rate among for-rent units was three times higher than the vacancy rate among for-sale units, although the sample size is very small.

In 2010, the Census reported that 5 percent of the homes in the city were vacant, indicating a significant increase between 2010 and 2020. The higher vacancy may be a result of changes in the housing market, including significantly higher home prices, and an increase in the number of homes that are used seasonally. The city’s housing market serves a unique market niche.

3.5.6 Home Values and Prices
A variety of sources were used to analyze housing market prices and trends in Rolling Hills, including on-line real estate data vendors, current real estate listings, and the US Census.

According to on-line real estate service Zillow.com, the median value of a home in Rolling Hills is $3,733,468. Rolling Hills home values have gone up 19.7% over the past year. Chart 3.8 compares the local median home value with values in the three other Palos Verdes Peninsula cities and with Los Angeles County as a whole. Homes in Rolling Hills are valued at 50 percent higher than those in Palos Verdes Estates ($2.45 M), 126 percent higher than those in Rancho Palos Verdes ($1.65M), and over four times higher than the countywide median ($790,000).

The ACS 2021 data indicates that 95 percent of all homes in Rolling Hills have a value of over $1,000,000. The Census-reported median is over $2 million, which is the highest interval on the Census scale. The ACS shows the median in Los Angeles County at $583,200. This is substantially lower than the Zillow data, which is only based on homes recently sold.

The website realtor.com indicates that the average time on the market for a home in Rolling Hills in July 2021 was 120 days. However, the sample size is small, and similar data for earlier in the year indicates a median sale time of 45 days (December 2020 and January 2021). Realtor.com indicates that homes in the city sold for 4.98 percent below asking price in July 2021. This figure is highly variable depending on market listings at any given time. 557

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-31
In July 2021, there were 14 homes for sale in Rolling Hills (including properties with pending offers). These ranged in size from a 1,467 square foot home to a 13,000 square foot home.

Prices ranged from $2,499,000 to $15,975,000. The median price was $5.02 million and the mean was $6.15 million. This is substantially higher than the average for surrounding cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and in Los Angeles County. The higher priced homes were typically new construction, while the two lowest priced homes were built in 1954 and 1957.

Data on rentals in the city is more difficult to characterize because the number of available properties is so small. In July 2021, there was only one home being advertised for rent in the city. The asking monthly rent was $16,000. The property has five bedrooms, seven bathrooms, and is 5,035 square feet. Zillow also reported a 2-bedroom, 1-bath detached 1,000 square foot accessory dwelling unit for rent for $3,950. In addition, two ADUs were being advertised on Craigslist (listed as Rolling Hills but likely in Rolling Hills Estates or Rancho Palos Verdes). One was a 500 square foot studio for $1,250 and the other was a 400 square foot guest house for $1,800. The Census indicates that seven of the renter households in the City pay less than $1,500 a month in rent, and the remainder pay more than $3,000 a month.

Chart 3.8: Home Prices in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and Los Angeles County, 2012-2021 Source: Zillow.com, 2021
558

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-32
Table 3.154: Homes for Sale in Rolling Hills, July 2021 Asking Price Square Footage
Cost per
Square Foot
Year
Constructed
$15,975,000 7,136 $ 2,239 2016
$11,100,000 13,000 $ 854 2007
$8,765,000 5,100 $ 1,719 1951
$7,750,000 4,000 $ 1,938 1968
$7,499,000 8,000 $ 937 2002
$5,800,000 4,453 $ 1,302 1986
$5,795,000 5,884 $ 985 1956
$4,250,000 4,101 $ 1,036 1941
$4,200,000 3,527 $ 1,191 1940
$3,950,000 5,560 $ 710 1989
$3,495,000 3,414 $ 1,024 1947
$2,630,000 3,444 $ 764 1974
$2,500,000 1,467 $ 1,704 1957
$2,499,000 1,752 $ 1,426 1954
MEAN: $6,150,000 $1,273
MEDIAN: $5,020,000 $1,030
Source: Realtor.com, Trulia, Zillow, 2021
Table 3.154 indicates the cost per square foot of those homes currently for sale in Rolling Hills, along with the asking price, square footage and year of construction. The median cost per square foot is $1,030, which is substantially higher than the statewide median of $438 per square foot. Cost per square foot ranged from $710 to $2,239.

3.5.7 Units at Risk of Conversion from Affordable to Market Rate State law requires the City to identify, analyze and propose programs to preserve any deedrestricted lower-income housing that could be lost as these deed restrictions expire. However, there are presently no low-income or income-restricted units in Rolling Hills. As a result, there is no housing at risk of losing its subsidized status.
559

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-33

3.6 Future Housing Needs

3.6.1 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The eight-year housing need for the six-county Southern California region is calculated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This need was determined to be 1,341,827 units for the 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle planning period. The total regional need represents a 225 percent increase over the need calculated for the 2013-2021 Fifth Cycle.

The total regional need is disaggregated to the six counties and 191 cities in the region by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) through a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). About 60 percent of the regional need was assigned to Los Angeles County, which had 53 percent of the region’s population in 2020.

Concentrating the RHNA in Los Angeles County is a response to the greater availability of transit, urban services, and housing need within the core of the region. If the 1.3 million unit need was fully constructed, it would represent a 20 percent increase in the region’s housing unit count in eight years.

The City of Rolling Hills was allocated 45 units of the countywide total, or about .006 percent.

Allocations for nearby cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula were 191 for Rolling Hills Estates, 199 for Palos Verdes Estates, and 639 for Rancho Palos Verdes. As shown in Table 3.165, these allocations are significantly higher than they were in the Fifth Cycle, particularly when compared to the county and region. This represents a shift in the methodology used to allocate units, with less consideration given to growth potential as defined by local governments and more consideration given to population, proximity to job centers, and equity factors. Despite the large increases compared to the last cycle, the RHNA targets for the four Peninsula cities combined represent one-tenth of one percent of the countywide allocation. The RHNA for each of the four cities is equal to between four and six percent of each city’s existing housing stock, compared to 20 percent for the region.

Table 3.165: RHNA by City and Comparison to Fifth Cycle Jurisdiction
5 th Cycle
RHNA
6 th Cycle
RHNA
Percent
Increase,
5 th to 6th
Cycle
Existing
(2021)
Housing
Units
6 th cycle RHNA
as percentage
of existing
inventory
Rolling Hills 6(*) 45 650% 702 6%
Rolling Hills Estates 5 191 3720% 3,157 6%
Palos Verdes Estates 16 199 1144% 5,303 4%
Rancho Palos Verdes 31 639 1961% 16,340 4%
Los Angeles County 179,881 812,060 351% 3,614,809 22%
SCAG Region 412,137 1,341,827 226% 6,679,283 20%
Source: SCAG 2012 and 2021, plus DOF Table E-5 and US Census 2020 (*) In addition to planning for its 5th Cycle allocation, the 2015-2023 Rolling Hills Housing Element includes the 4th Cycle allocation of 22 units, which was carried over. The 45- unit assignment is a 60 percent increase over the prior 28 unit two-cycle total. 560

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-34
The 6th Cycle allocation by income group is shown in Table 3.167. In Rolling Hills, about 64 percent of the RHNA is for low and very low income households. The figure is comparable to the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (ranging from 62 to 65 percent). In Los Angeles County, only 42 percent of the assigned need is for low and very low income households, and regionally, it is 41 percent. The greater allocation of lower income housing to the Peninsula cities reflects the statewide and regional focus on encouraging fair housing and discouraging economic segregation.

Table 3.167: Comparison of 6
th Cycle RHNA by Income Category
Jurisdiction
Very Low %
of total
Low % of
total
Moderate %
of total
Above
Moderate %
of total
Rolling Hills 44% 20% 24% 11%
Rolling Hills Estates 43% 22% 20% 15%
Palos Verdes Estates 41% 22% 24% 13%
Rancho Palos Verdes 40% 22% 20% 19%
Los Angeles County 27% 15% 16% 42%
SCAG Region 26% 15% 17% 42%
Source: SCAG, 2020
The City’s “very low” income housing allocation for 2021-2029 is 20 units. The State Government Code requires that this total be further allocated between “extremely low” income households (earning less than 30% of areawide median income) and other “very low” income households (earning 30-50% of areawide median income). This distribution may be based on Census income data showing the current percentages of households in these two categories.

According to the most recent HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data, there are 65 very low income households in Rolling Hills. CHAS indicates 25 are extremely low income and 40 are very low income. Applied to the 20 unit RHNA, these proportions equal roughly 7 extremely low income units and 13 other very low income units.

3.6.2 Growth Forecasts
As the regional planning agency for the Los Angeles region, SCAG is responsible for preparing jurisdiction-level forecasts for each city and county in the region. The latest forecasts were adopted in September 2020 and describe conditions in a base year (2016) and forecast year (2045). The six-county region as a whole is expected to grow from 6.012 million households (2016) to 7.633 million households (2045), an increase of over 1.3 million households in the 29- year period. Average household size is projected to decline from 3.1 to 2.9 during this period.

SCAG forecasts indicate that Rolling Hills growth will be flat during through 2045. The latest published forecasts (Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast, September 2020) show 700 households in 2016 and 700 households in 2045. However, the numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and it is likely that some marginal change will occur. Population over the equivalent period is shown as increasing from 1,900 to 2,000, a growth rate of about 5 percent 561

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-35
over 29 years. As noted on page 3.1, the 2020 Census indicates the City lost over 100 residents between 2010 and 2020, so the SCAG forecasts will need to be adjusted in the future. An increase of 100 residents would bring the City closer to its 2010 total of 1,860 residents.

3.6.3 Locally Identified Needs
While Rolling Hills is obligated by the Government Code to identify capacity for 29 low and very low income units and to develop programs to meet this need, the City also has an opportunity to tailor its housing programs to meet local needs. Based on the Assessment in this chapter, some of the key findings regarding local needs are:
• The City has a large and growing population of seniors. Some of these residents are on fixed or limited incomes and face relative high housing costs, including home maintenance, property taxes, HOA dues, utilities, etc. These residents could benefit from more senior housing options, ranging from fully independent to assisted living. • Although there are very few people who list Rolling Hills as their permanent place of employment, the City supports a relatively large population of service workers, including caregivers, domestic employees, child care workers and au pairs, landscapers and gardeners, and others in construction and home maintenance. In addition, there are public sector workers, firefighters, and teachers/counselors (at Rancho Del Mar) employed within the city, with incomes that are far below what would be required to buy a home in Rolling Hills. A limited number of affordable rental units serving these workers could reduce commute lengths and vehicle miles traveled. • Adult children of Rolling Hills residents (particularly those in the 18-30 age range) have limited housing options in the city, other than remaining at home. ADUs could provide additional options.
• The City’s housing stock is well suited to ADUs and home sharing. More than two-thirds of the non-vacant housing units in the city have only one or two occupants, despite homes that are substantially larger than the regional average. There are also 300 fewer residents in Rolling Hills today than there were 50 years ago, despite larger homes and more square feet of living space. Additional residents would have a lower impact on infrastructure, services, and the environment if accommodated in the footprint of existing homes as opposed to new construction.
• Creating an ADU or deciding to share one’s home is a personal choice and is entirely at the discretion of the homeowner. However, the City can create incentives that make it easier and more affordable for homeowners to consider this option. 562

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-36
563

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-1

4.0 Housing Opportunities and Resources

4.1 Introduction
This section of the Housing Element evaluates potential opportunities to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). It includes an inventory of potential housing sites in the city and an evaluation of Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Junior ADU potential. The analysis in this section demonstrates that Rolling Hills has the capacity to accommodate its RHNA assignment of 45 additional housing units, including 29 units that are affordable to low and very income households.

Two other topic areas are covered in this chapter. As required by State law, this chapter discusses opportunities for energy conservation in the city. Reducing energy costs can reduce overall housing costs, contributing to affordability. This chapter also identifies potential financial resources to support the provision of affordable housing and the maintenance of existing housing in the city.

4.2 Approved or Pending Development
There are 12 housing units in the city that are approved or pending and not yet constructed. All of these units are expected to become available for occupancy during the 2021-2029 period and therefore count toward meeting the RHNA. These units include three market-rate single family homes and nine ADUs. These units are listed in Table 4.1 below, including an assignment of each unit by income category.

Table 4.1: Committed Development for the 2021-2029 RHNA period ID Assessor’s Parcel
Number (APN)
Address Description Income Category
A 7567-011-020 23 Crest Road E New SF home on vacant lot Above Moderate B 7567-001-018 1 Poppy Trail New SF home on vacant lot Above Moderate C 7569-020-004 8 Middleridge Ln S. New SF home on vacant lot Above Moderate D 7567-011-020 23 Crest Road E ADU (1000 SF) Above Moderate E 7569-001-031 2950 Palos Verdes N ADU (1000 SF) Above Moderate F 7569-026-008 13 Buggy Whip Dr. ADU (997 SF) Above Moderate G 7569-023-006 33 Crest Road W ADU (946 SF) Above Moderate H 7569-026-012 27 Buggy Whip Dr. ADU (800 SF) Moderate
I 7567-006-036 23 Chuckwagon ADU (800 SF) Moderate
J 7567-005-028 79 Eastfield Dr. ADU (799 SF) Moderate
K 7567-014-022 23 Georgeff Road ADU (620 SF) Low
L 7567-008-009 63 Crest Rd E ADU (580 SF) Low
Sources: US Decennial Census, 1970-2010. California Dept. of Finance, 1/1/21 estimate, 2020 Census (8/12/21 release) 564

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-2
The assignment of the ADUs by income category is based on the size of the unit. Units larger than 800 SF are presumed to be “above moderate”; units 650-800 SF are presumed to be “moderate”; units 500-650 SF are presumed to be “low”; and units smaller than 500 SF are presumed to be “very low.” This is based on local rental data for comparably sized ADUs (see Section 4.6 and the footnote below).
1 4.3 Vacant Sites
Table 4.2 identifies vacant residentially zoned sites in Rolling Hills. These sites are shown graphically on Figure 4.1. For each site, the table indicates the theoretical number of units permitted by zoning (based on acreage and minimum lot size requirements) and the “realistic” number of units based on lot configuration, access, and terrain.2 Some of the vacant parcels are characterized by physical constraints that preclude their development, including steep or unstable slopes or landslide hazards. A few are landlocked and have no access. The acreage data for each site is based on assessor parcel maps and subtracts out unbuildable easements such as flood hazard areas and roads.

There are 34 parcels identified totaling, 124.8 acres. All of these parcels are in private ownership. Twenty are estimated to be developable and 14 are severely constrained and presumed undevelopable for the 2021-2029 planning period. The constrained parcels include five lots that are landlocked with no street frontage and nine that are in the Flying Triangle Landslide Hazard Overlay area. Several of the lots in the landslide area had homes that were destroyed by earth movement in the 1980s and early 1990s.

For the 20 remaining vacant lots, Table 4.2 indicates the “realistic” potential for 20 single family homes. This excludes accessory dwelling units, which are addressed later in this chapter. 1 In this case, the assignment of two smaller units as “low” income is further supported by the fact that they are both conversions of existing structures rather than new construction. This facilitates greater affordability.The City is presuming that the two smallest ADUs listed in Table 4-1 will be affordable “by design” to lower income households.

ADU permits were issued for these two units on October 27, 2020 and May 20, 2021 respectively. Both of these projects involve converting existing two-story stables (located on two separate parcels about a mile apart) into ADUs of approximately 600 square feet each. Neither of these units has a finaled building permit yet. Given the eight year timeframe of the Housing Element, both units are expected to be completed before 2029.

These are market rate units. The assumption that they will be affordable to low-income households is based on the size of the units and the fact that they are being created by repurposing existing space rather than building new space, which presumably would cost more. Current HCD income limits for Los Angeles County indicate that the upper end of the low-income range for a two-person household is $75,700. At 30 percent of household income, monthly housing costs would need to be $1,892 to be considered affordable. The City’s survey of comparable properties in 2021 found that ADUs of 400 to 600 square feet in the Palos Verdes Peninsula sub-market were renting for $1,800 per month or less. The two new ADUs are presumed to rent at comparable rates. Moreover, SCAG’s ADU survey for Los Angeles County found that 60% of all ADUs in the region could be presumed affordable to lower income households. As these two ADUs are the smallest of the nine that are listed in the Housing Element (see Table 4-1), it is reasonable to presume they would fall in this range. 2 Excludes additional units that could be permitted under SB 9. 565

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-3
Table 4.2: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites (sorted by APN)(see note at end of table) Site APN Address or Location Zoning General
Plan
Acres
(*)
Theoretical
Unit Yield
Realistic
Yield, excl.

ADUs
Comments
1 7567-006-001 15 Chuckwagon Road RAS-1 LDR 2.27 2 1
2 7567-006-014 Behind 6 Chesterfield RAS-1 LDR 1.22 1 0 Landlocked (no road access) 3 7567-009-007 5 Southfield Drive RAS-1 LDR 1.61 1 1
4 7567-010-013 East of 3 Packsaddle Rd W RAS-1 LDR 1.24 1 1 5 7567-010-015 North of 3 Packsaddle Rd W RAS-1 LDR 1.49 1 0 Landlocked (no road access) 6 7567-011-017 54 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 2.67 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 7 7567-012-019 SW of 56 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 VLDR 0.96 1 0 In landslide hazard area 8 7567-012-020 53 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.46 1 0 In landslide hazard area 9 7567-012-026 4 Wrangler Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.82 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 10 7567-012-035 66 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.64 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 11 7567-012-036 64 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.71 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 12 7567-012-038 62 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.84 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 13 7567-013-005 End of Portuguese Bend Rd RAS-2 VLDR 19.81 1 0 Flying Triangle Landslide 14 7567-013-007 2 Running Brand RAS-2 VLDR 7.09 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 15 7567-014-005 West of 5 El Concho Ln RAS-1 LDR 2.12 2 0 Landlocked (no road access)/ canyon 16 7567-014-011 West of 24 Georgeff Rd RAS-1 LDR 1.66 1 0 Landlocked (no road access)/ canyon 17 7567-014-013 North of 27 Georgeff Rd RAS-2 VLDR 3.79 1 0 Landlocked (no road access)/ canyon 18 7567-014-031 Access b/w 1 and 3 Poppy Tr. RAS-2 VLDR 6.85 3 1 Rear of 8 Reata Lane 19 7567-015-036 North of 1 Georgeff RAS-2 VLDR 4.56 2 1 20 7567-017-017 Between 4 and 5 Ranchero RAS-2 VLDR 3.52 2 1 Access at end of Ranchero cul-de-sac 566

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-4
Table 4.2, continued
Site APN Address or Location Zoning General
Plan
Acres
(*)
Theoretical
Unit Yield
Realistic
Yield, excl.

ADUs
Comments
21 7567-017-045 17 Cinchring Rd RAS-1 VLDR 1.52 1 1 Driveway access b/w 15 and 20 Cinchring 22 7569-001-020 B/w 2954 and 2958 PV Dr N RAS-1 LDR 1.03 1 1 23 7569-001-036 B/w 6 and 14 Roadrunner RAS-1 LDR 1.00 1 1 24 7569-004-026 B/w 35 and 45 Saddleback RAS-1 LDR 3.39 3 1 25 7569-005-008 80 Saddleback RAS-1 LDR 6.52 6 1 This parcel is currently for sale 26 7569-012-022 W of 25 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 VLDR 2.30 1 1 27 7569-012-025 N of 25 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 VLDR 3.51 1 1 28 7569-013-017 North of 10 Pine Tree Lane RAS-2 VLDR 2.41 1 1 One of three adj. vacant lots 29 7569-013-018 South of 18 Pine Tree Lane RAS-2 VLDR 2.20 1 1 One of three adj. vacant lots 30 7569-013-020 18 Pine Tree Lane RAS-2 VLDR 2.13 1 1 One of three adj. vacant lots 31 7570-024-019 Storm Hill Lane, Parcel 1 RAS-2 VLDR 6.04 3 1 7.6 ac parcel with 1.6 acres of easements 32 7570-024-020 Storm Hill Lane, Parcel 2 RAS-2 VLDR 11.64 5 1 34.7 ac parcel with 23 acres of easements 33 7570-024-021 Storm Hill Lane, Parcel 3 RAS-2 VLDR 10.10 5 1 17.3 ac parcel with 7.2 acres of easements 34 7570-025-022 N/ end of Johns Canyon Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.68 1 1 TOTAL 124.8 57 20
Sources: Barry Miller Consulting, 2021; LA County GIS Portal, 2021 (*) Acreages generally exclude unbuildable easements
Note: This is a roster of existing vacant residentially zoned land in Rolling Hills. No changes to the zoning of these parcels is proposed, and no specific projects are proposed on these sites. Future development applications on these properties would be subject to environmental review or applicable exemptions, consistent with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act.
567

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-5
Figure 4.1: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites
568

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-6
Several of the sites, such as those on Storm Hill Lane, are quite large and could potentially be subdivided. However, the “realistic” estimates are intended to be conservative and do not presume subdivision of any of the sites. These estimates also reflect the absence of sewer services on these sites, their very steep topography, and the severe risk of wildfire.

The vacant lots have the potential to completely meet the regional need for above moderate income units assigned to Rolling Hills. As noted, this need is five units for the 6th Cycle. Since three new single family homes are already in the pipeline (see Sec 4.2), the remaining need is two units. Several of the vacant sites are currently for sale, making it likely that the City will exceed its above moderate income allocation for 2021-2029.

Table 4.2 indicates the General Plan and zoning designations for each vacant site. Of the developable parcels, eight are in the RAS-1 zone (one acre minimum) and 12 are in the RAS-2 zone (two-acre minimum). No zoning changes are proposed or required to meet the above moderate income or moderate income allocations.

4.4 Lot Splits
There are a number of parcels in Rolling Hills with lot sizes that are more than double the minimum acreage required by zoning. Some of these parcels could theoretically be subdivided into two or more lots. Moreover, SB 9 (effective January 1, 2022) includes provisions to allow single family lots to be divided to allow new homes.

The potential for lot splits in Rolling Hills is very limited due to the configuration of the lots as well as environmental hazards, evacuation constraints, and the lack of a sewer system. Many of the city’s larger lots have limited street frontage and irregular dimensions that would make it difficult to divide them. Moreover, the platting pattern responds to topography, and the larger lots are often steep and geologically constrained, making them difficult to subdivide. Their division could result in lots with no buildable area, street frontage, or access.

Although a limited number of new homes could conceivably occur as a result of future lot splits, a capacity estimate has not been made due to the constraints inherent in the community’s topography and hazards. In addition, the reliance on septic tanks makes subdivision infeasible from a public health perspective, even on many larger lots. The supply of vacant lots is sufficient to meet the above moderate income RHNA without relying on lot splits.

4.5 Non-Vacant Sites
While Rolling Hills’ above moderate income (or “market rate”) RHNA can be met on vacant residentially-zoned land, the City’s moderate, low, and very low income RHNA will need to be accommodated through a combination of development on non-vacant sites and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The text below addresses non-vacant sites. ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) are discussed in Section 4.6.

The sites described below provide the potential for 16 units of low- and very low-income housing. This potential is associated with the 31-acre Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School 569

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-7
District (PVPUSD) site, where an overlay zone was created in 2021 to facilitate affordable housing. Other non-vacant properties addressed here are the City Hall complex, the Tennis Court Facilities, the Los Angeles County Fire Station, and the Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center parking lot. These properties have been determined to not be viable as potential housing sites. Non-vacant housing sites are shown in Figure 4.2.

4.5.1 PVPUSD Site/ Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone (APN 7569-022-900) In March 2021, the City of Rolling Hills adopted the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone on the 31- acre Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) property located at 38 Crest Road. Although the site is technically non-vacant, roughly three-quarters of the property (23 acres) is open space. The remaining areas are underutilized and could be repurposed.

Appendix B of this Housing Element provides a detailed evaluation of the site, demonstrating that it is the most suitable location for multi-family housing in Rolling Hills. The site also provides the City’s best opportunity to meet its requirements for low- and very low-income units. It is located outside the jurisdiction of the Rolling Hills Community Association, outside the Rolling Hills security gates, and is one of the largest properties in the city. It includes multiple areas that are vacant and underutilized, relatively flat, and well buffered from adjacent uses. The site is also one of the only properties in Rolling Hills that is served by a public sewer system. This substantially reduces multi-family development costs and addresses an infrastructure constraint that makes affordable housing cost-prohibitive in almost all of the city. The site is also ½ mile from the corner of Crenshaw and Crest Roads in Palos Verdes Estates, which is served by four bus lines.

Existing uses on the PVPUSD site include Rancho Del Mar Continuation High School and a maintenance facility leased to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA). Each of these activities is discussed below.

Rancho Del Mar School was initially developed as an elementary school in 1960. The school closed in 1980 and was repurposed as a continuation school in 1986. The continuation school was initially intended as a temporary use but has been in place for 35 years. The possibility of residential development on the site has been considered in the past. Enrollment at Rancho Del Mar has been steadily declining and was just 32 students in the 2020-2021 school year (California Department of Education, DataQuest). Enrollment has declined every year since 2014 and is now less than half of what it was just five years ago.3 The Beach Cities Learning (BCL) Center uses four classrooms in the school building. BCL serves students aged 11-22 with emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities that cannot be addressed in public school settings. Students participate in individual and group counseling run by licensed therapists on-site. Total enrollment in 2019-20 was 17 students, with two teachers on-site (School Accountability Report Card, 2021).
3 California Department of Education indicates the following enrollment figures: 2020-21 (32 students); 2019-20 (46 students); 2018-19 (47 students); 2017-18 (58 students); 2016-17 (69 students); 2015-16 (72 students); 2014-15 (79 students)
570

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-8
Figure 4.2: Non-Vacant Sites Evaluated
571

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-9
The school building is adjoined by a lawn, playing fields, and school parking lot. The complex serves only a fraction of the number of students for which it was designed. Moreover it occupies just 1.9 percent of the 31-acre site. Sale of the school property could generate significant revenue for the School District.

The only other active use on the property is the PVPTA maintenance facility, which occupies 4.5 acres. The PVPTA facilities include maintenance buildings and administrative offices and are self-contained in the west central part of the site. While PVPTA has no immediate plans to relocate, the site could be sold in the future or repurposed by the School District. In any event, the facilities occupy only 15 percent of the 31-acre site and have co-existed with the nearby school and adjacent residential uses for many years.

Roughly 75 percent of the PVUSD site is vacant, and at least five developable areas have been identified on the campus. These include the school itself (in the event it is closed), the ballfield east of the school, the large lawn adjacent to the school, a vacant area between the school and the PVPTA facility, and the undeveloped area west of the PVPTA facility. Each of these areas is at least one acre in size. The area west of the PVTPA facility is the largest of the five areas and the one deemed most viable as a multi-family housing site. It is the closest location to Crest Road and could easily be developed without affecting activities at either the school or the transit facility. Accordingly, the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone identifies this area as the location for future affordable housing.

The entire Rancho Del Mar site has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and an underlying zoning designation of RAS-2. The designation permits 16 units on the site, based on the site area of 31 acres and the density of one unit per two acres (31/2 = 15.5, rounded up to 16). However, the General Plan (as amended in 2021) requires that the allowable density for this site be transferred to a single location on the property where a density standard of 20-24 units per acre applies. This is reinforced and codified by the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone (RDMO). The RDMO effectively takes the 16 units of housing and transfers it to a single location on the west side of the parcel. The RDMO further mandates that any housing built on the site be 100% affordable to very low and/or low income households. Such development is permitted by right, provided that the development complies with the objective development and design standards contained in the RDMO.

The RDMO also provides opportunities for emergency shelter and single room occupancy (SRO) hotels. Emergency shelter is permitted by right, subject to objective development standards that have been adopted by the City. SROs require a conditional use permit and are also subject to objective design standards. These provisions create opportunities for extremely low income households as well as low and very low income households.

Creation of the RDMO occurred collaboratively with the School District. District staff confirmed that there are no prohibitions on the application of this zoning overlay or the use of the property for affordable housing. Moreover, the District has expressed interest in developing housing for teachers in the past; such units would likely meet income criteria for lower income housing.

Programs in this Housing Element support active communication with the School District regarding the disposition of the area west of the PVPTA for affordable housing. 572

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-10
The PVUSD site also meets the “carry-over” criteria established by the State for sites that were counted in the prior cycle Element. It is zoned with a minimum density of 20 units per acre and permits “by right” development of affordable housing, subject to objective design and development standards. The current zoning was put in place just six months before the end of the Fifth Cycle planning period and was principally intended to provide a housing opportunity for the Sixth Cycle.

For the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the capacity figure of 16 lower income units is being used for the site. Under State Density Bonus law, a 100% affordable project would be eligible for an 80 percent density bonus. This could potentially result in 29 units of lower income housing, which is equal to the total number of units assigned to the City under the Sixth Cycle RHNA.

However, State law precludes the City from counting potential density bonus units when determining its RHNA capacity. As explained in Section 4.6, the remaining 13 units will be met through Accessory Dwelling Units.

As indicated in Appendix B, the PVUSD site is large enough to accommodate multi-family housing, emergency shelter, and an SRO on the same property, either in the same sub-area or independently in different parts of the site. Neither the shelter beds nor the SRO rooms would be counted as independent “dwelling units” so they could be accommodated under existing General Plan densities. Moreover, all three of these uses are permitted by right, provided they meet the Municipal Code objective standards (which were previously reviewed by HCD in 2020).

As noted above, the preferred location for the multi-family housing is in the western part of the property, near the access drive and closest to public transit and other urban services (see Figure 4 on Page B-8 in the Housing Element Appendix—this is labeled Area 5). This area is four acres. Only about one acre would be required for multi-family housing, leaving three vacant acres for the SRO and/or emergency shelter if all three uses are located in this area.

An SRO or emergency shelter could also locate in areas 1, 2, 3, or 4, as shown in Figure 4 in Appendix B, page B-8. As the map and text indicate, Area 1 is a 1.6-acre site that is flat and vacant. Area 2 is a 1.0-acre site that is flat and vacant. Area 3 is a 1.75-acre former school building that is mostly vacant and underutilized. Portions of this building could be easily be converted to group residential uses. Area 4 includes a ballfield and parking lot which collectively occupy 2.5 acres. There are no limitations in the housing overlay ordinance that limit where shelters or SROs can locate within the 31 acres. Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 all have adequate space for these uses.

4.5.2 Rolling Hills City Hall (APN 7569-003-904)
This site is located at the southeast corner of Palos Verdes Drive North and Portuguese Bend Road. Palos Verdes Drive North is a major thoroughfare and provides access from Rolling Hills to surrounding communities and the regional roadway network. Portuguese Bend Drive is a local street but the primary north-south route through the city, connecting to Crest Drive. This is one of the only sites in Rolling Hills that is located outside the security gates, and adjacent to a transit line. An elementary school and park are nearby in the City of Rolling Hills Estates.

The property is 1.22 acres and is roughly rectangular in shape. It has a General Plan designation of Civic Center and a zoning designation of Public Facilities (PF). Neither of these 573

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-11
designations permits housing, so a General Plan amendment would be required to enable its development. The site is owned by the City of Rolling Hills.

The parcel currently contains three structures: City Hall, the Rolling Hills Community Association Administration Building, and an accessory structure that houses an emergency generator. The site is relatively flat, although it is adjoined by a steep canyon to the east. There is a single family residence located to the south. To the west, there is a guardhouse in the median of Portuguese Bend Road, and a public tennis court on the west side of the road. Site ingress and egress is from Portuguese Bend Road. Direct access to Palos Verdes Drive North is not feasible due to high speeds and volumes and the existing traffic signal at the corner of Portuguese Bend.

Given the existing uses on the site and its function as the only civic building in Rolling Hills, the site is not a practical location for multi-family housing. Its rezoning is not recommended at this time.

4.5.3 Rolling Hills Tennis Court Facility (APN 7569-015-900) This site is located immediately west of City Hall on the southwest corner of Palos Verdes Drive North and Portuguese Bend Road. It is adjoined by a residence and horse stables on the west and south and by street frontage on the north and east. The site is 0.86 acres and is one of the few properties located outside the City security gates. It is currently in use as a community tennis facility, with three tennis courts in total.

Like City Hall, the property has a General Plan designation of Civic Center and a zoning designation of Public Facilities (PF). Neither of these designations permits housing, so a General Plan amendment would be required to facilitate residential development. The site is owned by the City of Rolling Hills. Parking for the tennis courts is provided on the City Hall property to the east.

The site could potentially be converted to housing. At a density of 20 units per acre, it would yield 17 units. However, the community would lose parkland, which is already in short supply, as well as a well-used recreational amenity and gathering place. As a result, no rezoning is recommended.

4.5.4 Los Angeles County Fire Station (APN 7567-017-900) This is a 2.2-acre site owned by the County of Los Angeles located at 12 Crest Road East. It is currently developed with Battalion 14 Fire Station 56, which provides fire and rescue services for Rolling Hills and nearby communities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. While much of the parcel is open space, it occupies a steep downslope and would require costly grading and construction. Moreover, the Fire Station is an essential community asset and long-term use.

This site is also located in an area that is far from services and amenities, not served by transit, and under the oversight of the Rolling Hills Community Association. Rezoning to allow housing is not recommended.
574

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-12

4.5.5 Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center (APN 7569-022-006) The parcel is located on the western edge of the City, immediately west of the Rancho Del Mar (PVPUSD) site. It is outside the western City gatehouse at 5300 Crest Road and forms part of the 8-acre Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center, which straddles the border between Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes. The Retreat Center consists of two parcels—a 5.95-acre parcel located entirely in Rancho Palos Verdes that contains the buildings, gardens, and a portion of the parking lot, and a 1.96-acre parcel located entirely in Rolling Hills that contains parking, landscaping, and unimproved property.

The parcel has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and is zoned RAS-2.

These designations would allow a single dwelling unit on the site. A General Plan Amendment and rezoning could be considered to allow multi-family housing on the property, or on a portion of the property. The unimproved portion of the site is about 0.67 acres, which could hypothetically support 13 units if developed at a density of 20 units per acre. This area has a 15-30 percent slope and would require grading to support multi-family construction. The flatter portion of the site (i.e., the parking lot) is larger and would be easier to develop but is currently in active use.

The City has had prior conversations with the Retreat owners regarding the possibility of housing on this site. While there are no plans to redevelop the property, it remains a potential long-term opportunity.

4.5.6 Conclusions
Based on the analysis above, only the Rancho Del Mar site is considered a viable housing site at this time. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning amendments completed in 2021, the site is viable for 16 units of low/very income housing.

4.6 Accessory Dwellings
The City of Rolling Hills has estimated the potential for 40 ADUs and JADUs over the eight-year planning period, or approximately five (5) ADUs per year. This projection is based on the permitting of nine ADUs in 2021 alone, and the implementation of Housing Element program that encourage ADUs in the coming years. It is further based on a citywide survey conducted in October 2020 (with a 30 percent response rate) indicating that:
• 25 percent of the survey respondents indicated they had a secondary building on their property with a kitchen, bath, and sleeping area. Another 25 percent indicated their home had two kitchens or an area that could be “easily converted” into an ADU. • 24 percent of the survey respondents indicated they would consider developing an ADU on their property now, with another 15 percent indicating they would consider this at some point in the future.
• 8 percent of the survey respondents indicated they would rent their ADU to a tenant while 24 percent said they would use it for a caregiver or employee and 31 percent said they would use it for a family member.
575

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-13
Extrapolating these results to the citywide total of 639 households, the results suggest that:4 • An estimated 153 households might be interested in developing an ADU on their properties, with another 95 potentially interested at some future date. • An estimated 51 households would rent their ADU to a tenant, 153 would be interested in using their ADUs for a caregiver or domestic employee, and 198 would consider using an ADU for a family member.

The survey, combined with physical characteristics of the City’s large lots and building stock, indicate significant potential for ADU development. ADUs could be created through new construction, conversion of existing guest houses and barns, and reconfiguration of interior spaces in primary residences. The latter category includes Junior ADUs (JADUs), which are often affordable to very low income tenants “by design” given their small size.

A majority of the 2020 survey respondents indicated they would use their ADU for a family member, caregiver, or other domestic employee. A substantial number of these households would likely pay reduced rent, or no rent at all. Some would likely meet HCD criteria for extremely low income households.

In order to demonstrate the suitability of ADUs and JADUs to satisfy the RHNA, the City must estimate the affordability of ADUs by income category. This requires data on occupancy and rents. The 2020 ADU survey conducted by the City identified 12 ADU tenants, including two extremely low income, two very low income, one low income, and seven who were moderate or above moderate income (see Appendix C). This is based on data provided by survey respondents and the HUD income categories by household size for Los Angeles County. The City’s 2020 ADU survey produced only two data points for rents—one unit renting for $950 and another for $1,500. Both of these were market-rate units with no deed restrictions.

In addition, weekly scans of Craigslist ads in 2021 identified two ADUs in Rolling Hills and two in Rolling Hills Estates, with rents of $895 for a “basement apartment”, $1,200 (for a JADU at an unidentified address), $1,800 (for a one-bedroom one bath “guest house”), and $3,950 for a two-bedroom one bath, 1,000 square foot guest house. Assuming a household size of two, the rents for these six units correspond to two very low-income units, three low income units, and one above moderate income unit. This is a limited sample size, however, and it excludes units that may be occupied “rent free” or without advertising.

In 2020, the Southern California Association of Governments conducted a survey of ADU rents in multiple jurisdictions across the region. The stated purpose of the survey was to “provide local governments with assumptions for ADU affordability that can be used to assign ADUs to income categories for the purpose of Sixth Cycle Housing Elements.”5 The SCAG study was organized by geographic sub-area, including one sub-area corresponding to Coastal Los Angeles County. The survey included an estimate of the percentage of ADUs that would be affordable to “Extremely Low Income” households, which included units that were available for 4 The numbers in the three bullets below this sentence have been developed by applying the percentages from the survey to the total citywide housing stock. This assumes that the 192 households who responded are representative of the 639 households that live in Rolling Hills.
5 SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, published by SCAG in 2020 576

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-14
little or no rent and were not advertised (for instance, a detached in-law unit occupied by the elder parents of the homeowner).

The distribution identified in the SCAG survey (for Coastal LA County) was as follows:

Extremely Low: 15%
Very Low: 2%
Low: 43%
Moderate: 6%
Above Moderate: 34%
This distribution is roughly consistent with the sample taken by the City of Rolling Hills and the survey data collected in 2020. Applied to the City’s projection of 40 units, the allocation using SCAG’s methodology would be:

Extremely Low: 6 units
Very Low: 1 unit
Low: 17 units
Moderate: 2 units
Above Moderate: 14 units
This is equivalent to 24 lower income units and 16 moderate and above moderate units.

All of the ADUs permitted to date have been “full” ADUs, meaning they are at least 500 square feet in size. Among the City’s Housing Element programs is an initiative to create at least five JADUs. Given the small size of these units and the fact that they are created by repurposing existing space, they are more likely to be affordable to very low income households, thus shifting the distribution shown above so that more “very low” income units are produced.

In addition, based on actual production of ADUs in 2021, the City anticipates a smaller share of “Low” income units and a larger share of “Moderate” income units. Moderate income units represented one-third of the production in 2021, which suggests something closer to the following distribution for 2022-2029:

Extremely Low: 7 units (occupied rent-free or at minimal charge) Very Low: 5 units
Low: 6 units
Moderate: 8 units
Above Moderate: 14 units
Housing Element programs have been developed to ensure that the City reaches its very low/ extremely low income ADU targets.
577

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-15

4.7 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA
As shown in Table 4.3 below, the combination of recently approved housing units (expected to be occupied in 2022), future affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs can accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories. The table illustrates a surplus capacity of seven lower income units based on projected ADU production over the planning period.

Table 4.3: Summary of Housing Opportunities, 2021-2029
Income Category TOTAL
Extremely Low/
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Approved Development -- 2 3 7(*) 12
Vacant Residential Lots -- -- -- 20 20
Rancho Del Mar site (**) 8 8 -- -- 16
Accessory Dwelling Units 12 6 8 14 40
TOTALS 20 16 11 41 88
RHNA 20 9 11 5 45
Surplus/ Deficit 0 +7 0 +36 +43
Adequate Sites? YES YES YES YES YES
Source: Barry Miller Consulting, 2021
(*) includes 3 new homes and 4 large ADUs, see Table 4.1. 578

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-16

4.8 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Home energy costs, including electric and natural gas utility bills, are considered part of monthly housing expenses. The large floor area of many Rolling Hills homes suggests that this may be an important consideration in the city. Home energy bills can be substantial, particularly for senior households on fixed incomes. Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of opportunities for residential energy conservation and reduced energy costs.

The US Department of Health and Human Services provides funding for a program known as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). In California, the program is administered by the Department of Community Services and Development. LIHEAP is aimed at assisting low-income households that pay a high portion of their incomes to meet their energy needs. This is achieved through one-time financial assistance grants covering the utility bills of eligible households, an energy crisis intervention program to help low-income households in danger of having their utilities turned off, free weatherization and energy efficiency upgrades to qualifying households, and energy education and budget counseling. Low income customers are also eligible for reduced rates through the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) and Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) programs.

Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company offer energy conservation and assistance programs. These include home energy audits, rebates on energyefficient appliances, and weatherization assistance to qualified low-income companies. SCE has an energy management assistance program for qualifying households.

While the measures above are aimed at meeting day to day utility bills, there are also more systemic long-term ways to reduce home energy costs. Nearly half of the homes in Rolling Hills were built before 1960, many without consideration given to the cost and availability of energy.

Weatherization and insulation can provide significant reductions in home energy use and reduce monthly utility bills. Replacement of older appliances can likewise provide significant long-term savings. A variety of rebates and other financial incentives are available for homeowners.

In addition, all new construction in California is subject to State building code and energy standards, including Title 24. These requirements apply to most remodeling projects, creating opportunities to retrofit older homes. The standards are periodically updated to reflect new technology and targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The latest standards incorporate the California Green Building Code, including energy-saving design standards for walls, ceilings, and floor installations, as well as heating and cooling equipment and systems, gas cooling devices, window glazing, and the use of renewable energy sources such as solar energy. These standards are incorporated in Title 15 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (the Building Code).

The City also encourages the use of solar panels to maximize energy efficiency, as well as the application of passive solar design principles that reduce heating and cooling costs. These measures include home orientation and siting, landscaping to reduce direct sunlight, placement of windows to support home heating and cooling, the use of skylights, and incorporation of overhangs and shade structures. In addition, home energy costs can be reduced by incorporating some or all of the measures listed below:
579

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-17
• Solar heating for swimming pools
• Flow restrictors on hot water faucets and showerheads (to reduce natural gas use) • Tankless water heaters
• Attic ventilation systems that reduce attic temperatures during summer months. • Insulation, caulking, and weatherstripping to guard against heat gain in the summer and prevent heat loss in the winter. These measures can reduce energy use for air-conditioning up to 55 percent and for heating as much as 40 percent. • Proper maintenance and use of stoves, ovens, clothes dryers, washing machines, dishwashers, and refrigerators.
• Purchase of air-conditioning units and refrigerators on the basis of efficiency ratings (the State prepares a list of air-conditioning and refrigerator models that detail the energy efficiency ratings of the product)
Indoor and outdoor lighting also impacts home energy costs. The City has adopted standards for outdoor lighting through its Municipal Code (Section 17.16.190(E)). Energy efficient lighting is required in most cases, and outdoor lighting is prohibited in many instances to retain dark skies and the community’s rural character. For interior spaces, the costs of lighting can be reduced through purchase of light bulbs which produce the most lumens per watt, avoidance of multi-bulb mixtures, and use of long-life bulbs and clock timers.

As a member of SCAG, the City also participates in the Regional Comprehensive Plan to achieve a sustainable future. The City also has joined ICLEI, which is a membership association of local governments committed to advancing climate protection and sustainable development.

Rolling Hills also is a participant in the South Bay Cities Council of Governments Environmental Services Center. The Center serves as a clearinghouse for information on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainability. It assists residents, businesses, and public agencies with incorporating energy-saving practices in their daily lives and operations.

Water conservation provides another opportunity to reduce home utility costs. The City has adopted a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 13.18 of the Municipal Code), and encourages the use of low-flow plumbing fixtures and products to reduce water use. 580

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-18

4.9 Financial Resources
This section of the Housing Element summarizes financial resources for affordable housing in Rolling Hills. An overview of federal and State programs, as well as tax credit programs, is provided below.

4.9.1 Federal Programs
A major source of housing assistance in many communities is the Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) program (including the Los Angeles County Urban County CDBG program, which provides federal funds to about 50 participating small cities). Rolling Hills no longer participates in this program, as the cost of its administration made it infeasible. When the City did participate, it received approximately $6,000 per year. The City transferred these funds to Rancho Palos Verdes, an adjacent city which has a population roughly 25 times larger than Rolling Hills.

Opportunities for funding through other federal programs is limited. For example, the federal Home Investment Partnership (HOME) program is designed to increase home ownership and affordable housing opportunities for low and very low-income Americans. The funds are distributed to jurisdictions based on need. They support programs such as loans to assist lowincome families with down payments to purchase homes, tenant-based rental assistance, rehabilitation of affordable housing, and relocation assistance for low-income tenants. The high cost of land and construction, limited opportunities for home ownership, absence of a sewer system, and very high incomes in Rolling Hills, make the City non-competitive for these applications.

Likewise, HUD’s Section 202 program provides funding for construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of structures for supportive housing for very low-income seniors. It offers interestfree capital advances, as well as rental assistance funds. The funds are provided to private and non-profit organizations and consumer cooperatives and are highly competitive. Use of these funds in Rolling Hills is constrained by the community’s natural hazards, lack of infrastructure, and high land costs. The use of project-based federal Section 8 funding for new affordable housing and substantial rehabilitation of existing housing is infeasible in Rolling Hills for these same reasons.

The federal government also operates the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. This program assists very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled in securing housing in the private market. Participants may choose any housing that meet the requirements of the program. A housing subsidy is paid directly to the property owner, and the tenant pays the difference between the actual rent charged and the amount subsidized by the program.

Housing choice vouchers could potentially be used on ADUs, but this is rarely done in practice.

HUD also operates the Section 203(k) program, which facilitates the rehabilitation and repair of single-family residential properties by insuring homeowner loans for purchase or refinancing. It can enable homebuyers to purchase homes that need significant repairs and can also be used for a variety of other improvements. These funds can also be used to enhance accessibility for people with disabilities, and to eliminate health and safety hazards. Eligibility for this program in Rolling Hills is limited due to the factors cited earlier. 581

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-19
Other HUD programs include Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (interest-free capital advances, operating subsidies, and/or project rental assistance for eligible projects developing affordable housing for persons with disabilities) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Affordable Housing Program (AHP). These programs are most viable in areas with lower land and development costs, as well as available infrastructure and services.

4.9.2 State Programs
The State of California provides resources for affordable housing construction, rehabilitation, and assistance. Many of these programs are oriented toward populations in need of assistance or housing stock requiring repair or rehabilitation. The absence of these populations, coupled with the cost of land and construction in Rolling Hills and the excellent quality of the City’s housing stock, render the City ineligible for many types of assistance. The only site where State financial resources could likely be feasible is the PVUSD site, given that it is publicly owned and has infrastructure and public street access.

In 2017, the State approved SB 2, which established a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable homes in California. The State subsequently established the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant program which provides funding for local planning activities aimed at supporting housing production. In 2020, the City of Rolling Hills received a $65,000 LEAP grant, which was used to fund preparation of the Housing Element. The City may be eligible for future planning grants and other SB 2 funds that facilitate housing affordability and promote projects and programs to implement the Housing Element.

The California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) provides loans for construction of affordable housing projects and could be a source of revenue for future affordable housing development in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone. The State provides a pre-development loan program for lowincome housing projects, and low-interest long-term deferred payment loans through the MultiFamily Housing Program. These sources could potentially be used on the PVPUSD site. CHFA also provides financing for rehabilitation of housing by low- and moderate-income households, which would generally not be viable in Rolling Hills due to housing conditions, costs, and local income levels.

The State Department of Housing and Community Development provides funding for a variety of programs to prevent homelessness and assist those who are unhoused. These programs can fund construction of shelters and provide direct subsidies to individuals. HCD programs also help support supportive and transitional housing.

4.9.3 Resources for the Private and Non-Profit Sectors
The primary affordable housing financing resources for the private and non-profit sectors are tax credits and mortgage revenue bonds. Developers can also take advantage of various state regulatory tools, such as density bonuses and reduced parking requirements for projects incorporating affordable units.

The federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to provide an alternate method of funding affordable housing. Each state receives 582

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-20
a tax credit based on its population—that credit is then used to leverage private capital into new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation projects. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) competitively administers credits to projects based on priorities they set each year. Once constructed, a specific percentage of the units must remain rent-restricted, and occupancy of those units is limited to people meeting specific income criteria.

The California Public Finance Agency administers an Affordable Housing Bond program, which provides developers with access to tax-exempt bonds to finance lower-income multifamily and senior projects. A qualified developer can finance a project at a lower interest rate because the interest paid to bond holders is exempt from federal income tax. This program is often done in tandem with tax credits.

Individual home buyers may also be eligible for Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC), working through a lender and the Los Angeles County Development Authority. This program provides a federal tax credit for income-qualified homebuyers equivalent to 15 percent of annual mortgage interest. Generally, the tax savings are calculated as income to help buyers qualify to purchase a home. Buyers in Rolling Hills would generally be ineligible due to the very high income required to purchase a home in the city.

4.9.4 Summary of Prospective Financing Sources
Due to the City’s small population, low density, very high fire hazards, and lack of infrastructure, government resources for housing are extremely limited. The City’s residents are generally ineligible for State and federal housing assistance based on income and home ownership status.

The City does not have a housing department, and has no regular local, state, or federal revenue source for housing. The use of traditional approaches to financing affordable housing are also limited by the relatively small number of units that would be contained in an individual development project in the city.

Despite these constraints, the City is amenable to exploring future funding sources and supporting applications that would facilitate housing rehabilitation and development. Given the absence of a sewer system in the city, one of the most important financial resources potentially available to the City is State and federal funding for sanitary sewer and storm drainage improvements. The City is continuing to pursue grants to extend sewer service and improve water quality; this could potentially create future housing opportunities on sites that are not viable today.

Low-income housing tax credits could be considered to facilitate housing on the PVPUSD site.

Eligible projects on this site could also use State density bonus provisions, thereby increasing the potential number of units. Other programs that could be considered include those that assist lower income seniors with energy conservation, septic system improvements, and minor home repair.
583

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-1

5.0 Constraints to Housing Production

5.1 Introduction
Government Code Sections 65583(a)(5) and (6) require the Housing Element to contain an analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels. Governmental constraints include land use controls, building codes and code enforcement practices, site improvement requirements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.

Non-governmental constraints include the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, requests to develop at densities below what is allowed by zoning, community opposition, and similar factors.

In each case, the Housing Element is required to demonstrate local efforts to remove constraints that are identified, thus improving the City’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The extent to which these constraints are affecting the supply and affordability of housing in Rolling Hills is discussed below, along with past (or proposed future) efforts to eliminate those constraints.

5.2 Governmental Constraints
Governmental constraints include activities imposed by local government on the development of housing. These activities may impact the price and availability of housing, the ability to build particular types of housing, and the time it takes to get housing approved and constructed.

While these requirements are intended to improve housing quality and protect public safety, they may have unintended consequences.

5.2.1 Rolling Hills General Plan
Every city and county in California is required to adopt a General Plan for its long-term development. This Housing Element is actually part of the General Plan but it stands on its own as a separate document since it is updated on a schedule set by the State of California. The other elements of the General Plan are updated as needed. Most cities update their plans every 15 to 20 years.

Most of the Rolling Hills General Plan was drafted in 1990. In addition to the Housing Element, the Plan includes a Land Use Element, a Circulation Element, an Open Space/ Conservation Element, a Safety Element, and a Noise Element. An update to the Safety Element was prepared concurrently with the Housing Element, in response to recent State requirements.

The Rolling Hills Land Use Element includes a Land Use Policy Map illustrating the types of uses permitted throughout the city. When the Map was adopted in 1990, it reinforced existing parcel patterns and responded to the infrastructure, geologic, wildfire, and environmental constraints in 584

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-2
the city. Four categories are shown: Very Low Density Residential (2 acres per unit), Low Density Residential (1 acre per unit), Civic Center, and Publicly-owned Open Space.

Prior to 2020, the City did not allow development at densities greater than one unit per acre and had no General Plan provisions for multi-family housing. As part of 5th Cycle Housing Element implementation, the City amended its Land Use Element to add the Rancho Del Mar Housing Opportunity Overlay designation to the Map (corresponding to the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar school site). At the same time, the City adopted new Land Use Element standards and policies allowing multi-family housing in the Overlay area, along with policies allowing a diverse mix of housing units, as required by state law.

The Land Use Element recognizes Rolling Hills’ heritage as an equestrian community comprised of large lots on steep terrain. Its policies call for buffering between uses, preservation of views, and minimizing exposure to landslides, wildfires, and other hazards. These policies remain appropriate given the safety hazards in the community. The Element specifically discusses the 150-acre Flying Triangle landslide hazard area, noting that the area is subject to a moratorium due to unstable geologic conditions. It also notes that many existing parcels are constrained by steep slopes and have only small areas that are suitable for building pads and construction.

Recent amendments to the Safety Element further emphasize environmental hazards in the city, as well as constraints associated with evacuation, water supply, and emergency vehicle access.

These constraints make most of Rolling Hills poorly suited for additional development or zoning changes that would result in increased density and population.

As it currently stands, the General Plan is not a development constraint.

5.2.2 Zoning Standards
The Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code) implements the General Plan and provides objective development standards for all parcels in the City. There are three zoning districts in the City:
• Residential Agricultural Suburban 1 (RAS-1), which has a one-acre minimum lot size • Residential Agricultural Suburban 2 (RAS-2), which has a two-acre minimum lot size • Public Facilities (PF)
The RAS-1 zone roughly corresponds to the “Low Density Residential” General Plan designation The RAS-2 zone roughly corresponds to the “Very Low Density Residential” General Plan designation.1 The PF zone corresponds to the “Civic Center” General Plan designation. Parcels with a General Plan designation of “Publicly-owned Open Space” are zoned RAS-1 or RAS-2, whichever is prevalent on private parcels in the vicinity.

There are also two overlay districts. Overlays are mapped “on top” of one of the three base zones listed above and apply additional regulations specific to subareas of the city. The first overlay district (OZD-1) provides more lenient setback standards in an area of the city characterized by smaller lots. Roughly 70 lots along Middleridge Lane, Williamsburg Lane, Chesterfield Road and Chuckwagon Road, are covered. The second overlay district (RDMO) is 1 Parcels along Spur Lane and Cinchring Road have a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential but a zoning designation of RAS-1.
585

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-3
the Rancho Del Mar Overlay, which is mapped on the Rancho Del Mar School site in the RAS-2 district. The RDMO requires the transfer of General Plan density for the property as a whole (which yields 16 units) to a single location in order to facilitate the production of multi-family housing. This overlay also includes objective standards for multi-family housing and emergency shelter, which are permitted by right.

The zoning ordinance includes definitions of terms (Chapter 17.12). At this time there are no definitions of transitional and supportive housing, both of which must be permitted in every residential district under state law. An action program in this Element has been included to make that Code amendment. The definitions expressly acknowledge manufactured and mobile homes as being the same as detached single family dwellings, provided they are located on a foundation.

The zoning regulations indicate permitted and prohibited uses in each zoning district. Single family residences and accessory dwelling units are permitted “by right” in RAS-1 and RAS-2.

The only expressly prohibited uses are short-term rentals (less than 30 days), commercial cannabis activities and cannabis dispensaries. Numerous types of accessory structures are permitted by right, including stables, pools, sheds, and small (under 200 SF) cabanas, guest houses, pool houses, garages, greenhouses, and similar structures. Such structures generally require conditional use permits when they exceed 200 SF (accessory dwelling units are excluded from this requirement). Other conditional uses include schools, fire stations, and similar public buildings and utilities. Site plans are required when development is proposed.

Table 5.1 summarizes the development standards in the RAS-1 and RAS-2 zones, starting with the minimum lot size requirements of one acre and two acres. The Code states that existing parcels of record that are smaller than the minimum lot size requirements are considered to be conforming. Minimum dimensional standards are established for new lots, including the ratio of width to depth and a requirement for a minimum width of 150 feet. There are also standards for minimum street frontage, keeping in mind that most streets are private and contained within easements. These standards are more flexible on cul-de-sacs, depending on turning radius.

As indicated in Table 5.1, building coverage is limited to 20 percent of the net lot area in both the RAS-1 and RAS-2 zones. Total impervious surface coverage (structures and hardscape) is limited to 35 percent of the net lot area; maximum disturbed area is limited to 40 percent of the net lot area; and building height is restricted to one story. The code identifies 2:1 (50%) as the maximum buildable slope. A minimum dwelling size of 1,300 square feet is established for the primary unit on the site. The Code includes setback standards of 50’ for front and rear yards, and 20’ for side yards in RAS-1 and 35’ for side yards in RAS-2. Lower standards apply in the OZD-1 overlay zone and exceptions are provided for lots along street easements. 2 The zoning code affirms the one-story construction requirement established by the Rolling Hills Community Association (the RDM Overlay area is subject to a two-story requirement). The finished floor of structures must be no more than five feet above grade. Basements are permitted and storage areas may be located above or below a story. The code also provides standards for graded building pads and requirements for stables and corral sites. 2 The City is currently developing standards to implement SB 9, which allows the division of existing lots into two parcels and the construction of two dwellings on each parcel, subject to specific objective standards and other considerations. 586

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-4
Table 5.1: Summary of Rolling Hills Zoning Standards(1) RAS-1 RAS-2 OZD overlay
Minimum Lot Size 1 acre 2 acres N/A
Setbacks
Front 50’ from front easement line (2) 30 feet from front roadway easement
Side 35 feet (3) 20 feet (3) 20 feet, reduced to 10’ for street side yards
Rear 50 feet
Structure Coverage (4) 20%
Impervious Surface Coverage 35%
Building Pad Coverage 30%
Maximum Disturbed Area 40% of net lot area (excl. easements) Maximum Height One-story
(1) Standards for the RDM Overlay Zone and standards for ADUs are addressed in Section 5.3.2 of the Housing Element.
(2) Most property is Rolling Hills is subject to easements varying in width around each property boundary and road easements, granted by the property owner to the RHCA, a private corporation, or another person or entity for the purpose of construction and/or maintenance and use of streets, driveways, trails, utility lines, drainage facilities, open space, and/or a combination of these uses. The RHCA requires that all easements must be kept free of buildings, fences, plantings or other obstructions.
(3) Reduced to 20’ in RAS-2 and 10’ in RAS-1 and OZD if there is a private street along the side property line. (4) The percentage figures in Table 5.1 apply to the “net lot area” on each parcel, which excludes these easements.

Additional standards in the Zoning Code prohibit reflective outdoor siding, limit outdoor lighting (to maintain dark skies), and require Class “A” roofing. Conditions are established for specific accessory uses, such as greenhouses, pools, and playgrounds. This includes a requirement that guest houses (which are different from ADUs) may not exceed 800 square feet. Whereas guest houses may not be rented and typically require a conditional use permit, ADUs are permitted by right and subject to different standards (see P. 5-5).

A minimum of two garage parking spaces are required for each single family dwelling unit. An additional space is required for homes with guest houses (as noted above, guest houses are treated differently than ADUs). Homes are also required to have driveways, which are generally limited to 20 feet in width and one per lot, though exceptions apply. The parking requirement is not a development constraint and is appropriate given the size of parcels, the high number of automobiles per household3, and the fact that the streets lack sidewalks and are too narrow to permit on-street parking. There is also no public transit service in the city. 3 The 2015-2019 US Census American Community Survey indicates that 63% of all households in Rolling Hills own three or more vehicles.
587

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-5
The development standards in Table 5.1 do not present constraints to the construction of single family homes. Even a “small” substandard lot of 200’ x 200’ (40,000) square feet would be allowed 16,000 square feet of buildable area after required setbacks are subtracted. The allowable structure coverage on such a lot would be 8,000 square feet, providing more than enough space for a residence and detached accessory structures. The requirement for singlestory construction has not constrained single family construction, given the ample building footprint accommodated on each site. In fact, single-story construction has enabled many older adults in Rolling Hills to age in place.

State law also requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory. No such requests have been received in Rolling Hills, as development typically occurs on existing lots rather than through subdivision or multi-unit construction.

5.2.3 Standards for Different Housing Types
Section 65583 and 65583.2 of the Government Code require cities to plan for a “variety of types of housing, including multi-family rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.” Accordingly, the Rolling Hills Housing Element includes provisions for each of these housing types in the city, with the exception of housing explicitly reserved for agricultural employees, since this was not identified as being a need in the city.

Accessory Dwelling Units
An Accessory Dwelling Unit—or ADU—is an attached or detached dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. ADUs are commonly known as in-law units, second units, or granny flats. A “Junior” Accessory Dwelling Unit (or JADU) is an ADU that it is no more than 500 square feet in size, contained entirely within the footprint of an existing or proposed single family dwelling, and has an efficiency kitchen. JADUs often have their own bathrooms but they may also share bathrooms with the primary residence. State law now requires that all cities and counties permit ADUs and JADUs meeting certain standards “by right”—in other words, without a public hearing or discretionary approval.

Prior to 2018, ADUs and JADUs were not permitted in Rolling Hills. However, the zoning regulations allowed the construction of non-rentable guest houses for family members, visitors, and domestic employees on all residential properties. The large size and high value of properties in Rolling Hills has supported the development of guest houses in the past, resulting in a large inventory of structures that could potentially be converted from guest houses to ADUs in the future. The city also has a large number of accessory structures such as barns, pool cabanas, studios and workshops that could be converted to ADUs. Because of the single story construction requirement, there are also a substantial number of homes with floor plans conducive to Junior ADUs, as many homes have wings, additions, or rooms that could easily be partitioned as independent living units.

In January 2018, the City Amended Chapter 17.28 of the Municipal Code to allow for the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs and 588

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-6
JADUs). Consistent with State law (Government Code 65852.2 and 65852.22), the City allows ADUs and JADUs ministerially (e.g., without a discretionary public hearing) provided the units meet specific standards and design criteria established in the zoning code. The City has also created a discretionary review path for projects that do not meet these standards.

Chapter 17.28 establishes that an ADU and JADU may be allowed with a simple building permit if it is within the space of an existing single family dwelling or accessory structure, including an allowance for up to 150 additional square feet for ingress and egress. The unit must also have exterior access independent of the single family dwelling and side and rear setbacks that meet building and fire codes. In addition, detached ADUs are permitted with a building permit (and no additional permit) if they are 800 square feet or less, no more than 16 feet tall, and have side and rear setbacks of at least four feet.

A second permitting path has been created for units that are between 800 and 1,000 square feet. Such units require an ADU Permit, which like the building permit is issued ministerially, with no discretionary review. These units are subject to a size limit of 850 square feet for a studio or one bedroom and 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit. If attached to the primary dwelling, the unit is subject to a requirement that it may not exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling. The ADU may not cause the lot coverage on the property to exceed 50 percent or cause the FAR to exceed 0.45. Setback standards also apply.

The City’s ADU ordinance incorporates State standards for parking, which waive parking requirements for JADUs and units created by converting habitable accessory structures.

Parking is also waived for units near public transit stops or car-share vehicles. This is generally not applicable in Rolling Hills, since the community is not served by transit or car-share services.

Per State law, the Code allows for carports and garages to be converted to ADUs without replacement parking. Where this situation does not apply, one space is required for each ADU, and tandem parking is permitted.

ADUs are subject to general requirements, such as fire sprinklers (if the unit is in the primary residence) and a prohibition on short-term rentals (less than 30 days). They are also subject to permit streamlining requirements, including a requirement to act on the application within 60 days after it is deemed complete. This time period may be extended at the applicant’s request, or if the ADU is located within a new single family dwelling on the lot. The City allows both the ADU and the primary residence to be rented, although there are limitations on renting JADUs if the primary residence is not owner occupied.4 The City’s Ordinance also prohibits the sale of an ADU separately from the lot and primary dwelling.

ADUs are also subject to basic architectural standards, including compatibility with the design of the primary dwelling. This is objectively quantified, for instance by specifying that the roof pitch must match the primary dwelling, and that the entry be on the side or rear elevation. The ADU is also subject to a minimum length and width standard of 10 feet, and a minimum ceiling height of seven feet. Landscape screening requirements apply to units that are near adjacent parcels.

If the ADU changes the building exterior or involves a new structure, it is subject to design review by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee (see next section for further discussion).
4 JADUs (units created within the floorplan of an existing home) are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement unless the property is owned by a government agency, land trust, or housing organization. 589

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-7
ADUs smaller than 750 square feet are exempt from all impact fees. Units larger than 750 square feet may only be charged impact fees that are proportionally related to the square footage of the unit. The Code also includes waivers for utility connection fees for most ADUs, thereby reducing construction and operating costs. Moreover, the Code provides the option for a conditional use permit for ADUs that do not conform to the basic development standards of Chapter 17.28.

Overall, these requirements do not constrain or inhibit ADU or JADU construction. The regulations reflect State regulations and create ample opportunities for homeowners to earn extra income while providing a new dwelling unit for a tenant, employee, caregiver or family member. Given the large lot sizes in the city, the setback standards, FAR standards, and lot coverage limits still allow for generous ADU footprints. Likewise, the single story requirement is consistent with the requirement for single family homes. The “bonus” 150 square feet for JADU ingress/egress creates an incentive for such units. The requirement to provide a parking space is consistent with State law, since there is no transit in Rolling Hills—and is not a constraint given the large lot sizes and substantial driveway space available on most lots.

While no constraints have been identified, there are opportunities to provide incentives for ADUs that have yet to be realized. Because of recent changes to State law, there are opportunities for ADUs to be conveyed separately or operated by non-profits and/or affordable housing providers. As noted in Chapter 6, the City will pursue future programs to encourage ADU construction, including ADUs for very low and low income households. This includes creating a roster of ADUs and an inventory of units that meet “extremely low income” needs by providing housing for family members, domestic employees, or other long-term occupants.

Additionally, State law for ADUs was amended in 2020 and 2021. Several provisions in the City’s regulations must be updated for consistency. This includes eliminating the prohibition on ADUs with more than two bedrooms, and adding a provision that completed applications be deemed approved if they are not acted upon within 60 days. The City will work with the State Housing and Community Development Department to determine if there are other provisions of the ordinance that require updating. Program 6.10 in Chapter 6 identifies this as a high priority action, to be completed by October 15, 2022.

Multi-Family Housing
In February 2021, the City amended its General Plan and zoning regulations to allow multi-family housing within the City limits. This was a key implementation measure in the Fifth Cycle Housing Element. New policies in the General Plan Land Use Element expressly support a range of housing types in the city, including multi-family housing. Chapter 17.19 of the Municipal Code creates the Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Opportunity Overlay Zone, which has the following objectives:
• Create “by right” opportunities for multi-family housing • Implement state laws that require cities to demonstrate available land capacity and zoning to accommodate the City’s current and projected need for housing • Facilitate well-designed development projects
590

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-8
• Encourage development that provides attractive features that integrate the public realm with development on adjacent private property.

The zone is mapped on the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar school site, which as noted in Chapter 4 and Appendix B, is the most viable location for multi-family housing in Rolling Hills. The zone allows 16 units of multi-family housing on the site (excluding potential density bonus units), with a requirement that this housing be constructed at a density of 20 to 24 units per acre. The 20 unit per acre minimum density requirement corresponds to the “default density” under AB 2348, while the 16-unit requirement is based on the number of units permitted by the underlying General Plan and RAS-2 zoning designations. It is also a threshold used by HCD to identify viable housing sites.

Affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right in this zone, provided it is affordable to low and very low-income households and meets objective design standards that are included in the zoning code. These include minimum dwelling unit sizes of 250 square feet for a studio, 400 square feet for a one-bedroom, 650 square feet for a two-bedroom, and 900 square feet for a three-bedroom. Higher minimums had been proposed initially but were lowered to the adopted standards based on direction from HCD that the above figures would not constrain development.

As noted above, the allowable density range for the Zone is 20-24 units per acre. Numerous projects—both market-rate and affordable—have been developed in this density range in Los Angeles County in recent years. The range can accommodate apartments, condominiums, townhomes, row houses, clustered units, manufactured homes, and small detached cottages.

All of these housing types would be permitted under the regulations prescribed by the Overlay Zone.

Development standards for multi-family housing within the Overlay Zone are conducive to higher density construction. These standards require 5-foot front and side setbacks and a 10-foot rear setback. Encroachments such as decks, balconies, awnings, porches, and stairways may extend into the setback areas, and architectural features such as eaves and cornices are also permitted in the setbacks. There are no lot coverage standards or Floor Area Ratio limits. A 28’ height applies, allowing two-story construction. This is the only place in Rolling Hills where twostory construction is permitted.

Development is subject to a requirement that 100 square feet of common open space be provided for each dwelling unit. Thus a 16-unit project would be required to set aside 1,600 square feet of shared open space, which is equivalent to about 5 percent of the development site (assuming a density of 20 units per acre). When drafting the Ordinance, the City initially proposed a common open space standard of 150 square feet per unit, but this was reduced to 100 square feet during HCD’s review of the draft to eliminate the potential for a constraint.

One parking space per unit is required, plus one guest parking space for every 10 units. For senior housing, one space per unit is required for the first 10 units, and 0.5 spaces per unit are required for any additional units. The RDMO zone allows surface parking, with no requirements for garages or carports. At 180 square feet per parking space, the total area dedicated to parking in a 20 unit per acre project would be 3,240 square feet, or about nine percent of the site. Even with driveway lanes, the total area of the site required for parking would be small. 591

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-9
Moreover, the ordinance includes provisions for reduced parking where certain conditions exist (shared parking agreements with nearby uses, available street parking, etc.).

No parking is permitted in the 20’ front setback area (at the driveway location). This would not be a constraint given the large size of any parcel that would be created in the future to accommodate multi-family development. Moreover, the front yard setback for structures is only five feet, which creates more space for the building envelope and encourages parking to be placed to the rear or side of the parcel, potentially within the setback.

The development standards require that multi-family housing be located at least 50 feet from the toe of the slope associated with a hillside area within the Overlay District. Figure 5.1 shows the sloped area and indicates that the linear distance between the toe of the slope and the access road serving the multi-family development site is 337 feet. Thus the area where structures are acceptable extends 287 linear feet back from the access road (minus a 5-foot front setback).

While the rear 50 feet may not include structures, it could include open space and other amenities, including parking and driveways. The 50’ setback does not affect parcel width (i.e., the east-west dimension), and still leaves room for a substantial development site on the property.

Because affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right in the Overlay Zone, the City has adopted objective design standards to ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent uses. These address residential frontages (facades, etc.), usable open space standards, public space amenity requirements, and operational standards. Such standards have the potential to create a development constraint if they are too onerous or add to the cost of housing.

Figure 5.1: Slope Setbacks on PVUSD Site
592

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-10
The residential frontage standards require that the ground floor be no more than five feet above the ground surface. This is easily attained, since the site is relatively flat. The standards establish a 10’ floor to floor height, which is consistent with the overall 28’ height limit as well as typical residential construction standards and interior ceiling heights. Entrances and windows are required along the front façade, and entrances to individual units may either be direct to the exterior, or to an interior hallway. Stoops and porches may be located on the exterior, and projecting elements (bay windows, eaves, balconies) may extend into setback areas. Street tree, landscaping, and lighting requirements apply, but these do not constrain development.

The usable open space standards likewise do not represent a constraint. These requirements call for an amenity such as a children’s playground or clubhouse in multi-family projects. The amenity may be indoors or outdoors and may not include parking areas, streets, or driveways.

Projects are also expected to include amenities such as pedestrian walkways, landscaping, bike storage racks, and screened trash enclosures, and would need to comply with building code standards for interior noise. These are common requirements in California communities and do not represent a constraint.

Mobile and Manufactured Homes
As required by State law, the City Zoning Ordinance allows for manufactured housing units to reduce residential construction costs. Section 17.12.130 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code defines manufactured homes and mobile homes as “single family dwellings”; as such, they are subject to the same standards as wood-frame construction.

Emergency Shelters
Every city in California is required to identify a zone where at least one year-round emergency shelter is permitted without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit (Govt Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)). The Government Code further requires that emergency shelters be subject to the same standards that apply to residential and commercial development in that zone, except that certain objective standards prescribed by the State may apply.

In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to permit emergency shelters “by right” in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Zone. Rolling Hills has adopted standards for shelters that meet the requirements of the Government Code and facilitate emergency shelter construction or conversion. The RDMO Zone encompasses over 31 acres of public property, most of which is underutilized. There are opportunities to create shelters by converting existing buildings, constructing new buildings, or using temporary facilities such as portables or tiny homes. This use is permitted by right, with no discretionary permit required by the City. There are no limitations on where shelters may locate within the boundary of the RDMO Zone. Since shelter beds do not constitute “dwelling units”, an emergency shelter would not be considered part of the 16 dwelling units permitted by the Overlay Zone and would not affect the number of allowable multi-family units in the Zone.

The City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review in December 2020 and subsequently revised those standards to ensure that they are compliant with the Government Code and do not present a constraint to emergency shelter development. The adopted standards include:
593

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-11
• Shelters must be at least 300 feet apart, as allowed by the Government Code Shelters may be 300 feet apart, consistent with Government Code 65583(a)(4)(A)(v) • One parking space for each staff person must be provided. There are no supplemental parking requirements based on the number of beds. The requirements are consistent with Government Code 65583(a)(4)(V)(A)(ii) and are no greater than those that apply to other land uses and activities in the RDMO zoning district. • A maximum of 12 beds applies. This is comparable to the maximums that apply in nearby cities, including those with unsheltered populations. • 50 square feet of personal living space is required for each occupant, excluding common areas.
• The standards allow, but do not require, shelters to include a dining room, commercial kitchen, laundry room, recreation room, child care facilities, and support services (the Code indicates these may be provided, but they are not mandatory) • At least five percent of the shelter area must be dedicated for on-site waiting and intake, and an equivalent (or larger) area is required for exterior waiting • Shelters must comply with building code, plumbing code, and trash enclosure requirements—the same standards that apply to other uses in the Overlay Zone and in the underlying base RAS-2 Zone.

Consistent with the Government Code, an application to operate an emergency shelter requires submittal of a management and operations plan that addresses hours of operation, staffing levels, maximum length of stay, and security procedures. The application would require approval by the City Administrator, based on satisfaction of the conditions listed above and review for compliance with Building, Fire, and other applicable regulations.

The regulations do not constrain emergency shelter development and are compliant with Government Code requirements. As they were just put into effect in 2021, the City will monitor their effectiveness over the 2021-2029 planning period to determine if changes are needed.

Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels
In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to allow Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing in the RDMO Zone. These are facilities with individual rooms or small efficiency apartments designed for very low-income persons. There are no limitations on where SROs may locate within the boundary of the RDMO Zone. A Conditional Use Permit is required.

In December 2020, the City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review and subsequently revised those standards to ensure that they do not present a constraint to SRO development. The adopted standards include:
• A minimum of six units and a maximum of eight units
• Maximum occupancy of two persons per unit
• Floor area of 250-350 square feet per unit
• Each room must include a water closet (Toilet plus sink) • Each room must include a kitchen sink with a disposal (but not necessarily a full kitchen) • Each unit must have a closet
594

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-12
• Full kitchens (i.e., with range, refrigerator, dishwasher, etc.) and full bathrooms (with shower/bath) may be provided in each unit but are not required. If these facilities are not included in each unit, then shared facilities are required on each floor. • 0.5 parking spaces are required per unit, plus one space for each employee on duty • Occupancy is for 30 days or more
The City initially proposed including a requirement for 24-hour on-site management, and a requirement for elevators in the event the building was two stories. Both of these requirements were removed following HCD’s feedback that they were potential constraints. Requiring 24-hour management requirement could be a constraint for a 6-8 unit facility. As a result, on-site management is not required on a 24-hour basis. Given that the building would only be two stories, the requirement for elevators was removed. Since SRO rooms would not be classified as independent “dwelling units”, they would not be considered part of the 16 units permitted by the Overlay Zone and would not reduce the number of allowable multi-family units in the Zone.

Supportive, Transitional, and Employee Housing
Supportive housing is a type of rental housing that includes on-site services such as medical assistance or treatment of chronic health conditions or disabilities. Transitional housing is a type of supportive housing but is specifically intended for unsheltered residents who are transitioning to permanent housing. Supportive and transitional housing is not associated with a specific structure type—single family homes can be used in this manner, and so can multi-family buildings.

Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires cities to treat transitional and supportive housing as residential uses that are only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. In other words, a City cannot hold a single family home used as supportive housing to a different standard for parking, setbacks, floor area, etc. than a single family home occupied by a family or other type of household.

Public Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 requires the City to treat employee housing for six or fewer people the same as other single family housing in each zoning district. For example, if a corporation in another city purchased a home in Rolling Hills and allowed its employees to live there, the use would be treated like any other single family home.

Rolling Hills presently has no Code language that limits transitional, supportive, or employee housing or imposes any special restrictions on such housing. However, these housing types are not expressly acknowledged in the Municipal Code. The 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an action item to add definitions of transitional, supportive, and employee housing to the Municipal Code within six months of Housing Element adoption, acknowledging that such housing is permitted or conditionally permitted in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone, as required by State law.

Housing Constraints for Persons with Disabilities
Government Code Sections 65583(a)(4) requires the Housing Element to include “an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement of development of housing…for persons with disabilities. AB 686 also requires the City to 595

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-13
affirmatively further fair housing, which includes housing that meets the needs of persons with disabilities.

In November 2020, the City Council approved reasonable accommodation procedures, including application requirements, review procedures, findings, and provisions for noticing and advertising the opportunity. These procedures establish a process through which persons with disabilities can request reasonable accommodations (or modifications) to the City’s codes, rules, policies, practices or services so that they have an equal opportunity to enjoy or use a dwelling.

The City has also adopted a resolution recognizing the Americans with Disabilities Act, including a commitment to assist disabled residents.

A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when the application of a land use, zoning, or building regulation, policy, practice, or procedure acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. The City has posted notices at City Hall informing the public of its right to make such a request, including application forms for those making a request. Requests are generally made to the City Manager.

Once a completed application is received, the City Manager has 45 days to make a written determination. Additional information may be requested of the applicant in order to make an informed determination. An alternative solution to the one proposed by the applicant may be considered if it would reduce impacts and still achieve the intent of the request.

The request is granted, with or without conditions, if the City Manager finds that the housing will be occupied by an eligible individual, the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the individual with equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, the requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City, or fundamentally alter the City’s zoning or building laws or undermine the General Plan, and there are no other reasonable accommodation methods that would allow the applicant to enjoy the dwelling that would be less impactful on the surrounding area.

Conditions of approval may be replaced on the application. These may include periodic inspection to verify compliance, recordation of a deed restriction requiring removal of the improvements when it is no longer needed, time limits, measures to reduce off-site impacts, and measures that respond to the unique physical attributes of the property. Decisions may be appealed.

Rolling Hills has adopted the Los Angeles County Building Code. As long as construction is consistent with the Building Code, residents are permitted to provide any disabled access or amenity improvements necessary to reduce barriers. Access to homes via ramps is permitted.

One-story construction throughout the community removes a major barrier for persons with disabilities and facilitates access for persons with mobility limitations. Accessibility improvements, universal design changes, and other accommodations for persons with disabilities are processed administratively in conjunction with the building permit process and are permitted in both of the City’s residential zones.

No constraints to housing for persons with disabilities were identified in this analysis. As noted in Chapter 3, the city’s large population of older adults requires ongoing efforts to facilitate retrofitting of existing homes for residents with physical limitations, and their caregivers. 596

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-14
Residential Care Facilities and Definition of “Family”
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act requires that small licensed residential care facilities for six of fewer clients be treated as regular residential uses and permitted by right in all residential districts. Care facilities with seven or more clients (e.g., “large” residential care facilities) may be subject to additional requirements but must be treated the same as other residential uses in that zoning district. Cities that require conditional use permits for large residential care facilities are required to mitigate this constraint in their housing elements.

Rolling Hills complies with this requirement in practice and has no minimum distance (separation) or siting requirements for residential care facilities. However, At this point in time, the Rolling Hills Zoning Code does not expressly mention or define small residential care facilities, nor does it distinguish between “large” and “small” facilities. It The Code should be amended to expressly indicate that this use is permitted by right in all zones where housing is allowed, and is subject to the same standards, fees, and procedures as other residential uses in those zones. This is required by State law. . As required by California Health and Safety Code Section 1566.2, the City does not collect business taxes, registration fees, or other fees for small residential care facilities.

The Rolling Hills Municipal Code includes a definition of “family” in its zoning regulations. Overly restrictive definitions may pose a housing constraint, but in this instance the definition is broad and inclusive. According to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, “family” means:
“one or more persons living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding, rooming or lodging house, hotel or club. Family may include domestic servants.”
597

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-15

5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts of Land Use Controls
State law requires the City to consider not only the impact of individual development standards, but also the cumulative effects of these standards on the cost and supply of housing. For example, it is possible that a particular setback requirement may appear reasonable on its own but may limit development opportunities when combined with height and lot coverage limits. Sometimes, the combined effect of different development controls can require more expensive construction or result in frequent zoning variances.

Because of the very large lot sizes in Rolling Hills, the zoning standards do not create an adverse cumulative impact on development costs or the housing supply. As previously noted (pages 5-2 and 5-4), a special zoning overlay (OZD-1) was created in 2012 to recognize that some parts of the city have prevailing lot sizes that are smaller than the one-acre minimum required by the RAS1 district. Roughly 10 percent of the City’s parcels are covered by this zone, which allows reduced setbacks in order to avoid the need for zoning variances.

As noted earlier, the combination of front, rear, and side yard setbacks on a rectangular one-acre lot would still allow for a buildable area of over 16,000 square feet. Most parcels are considerably larger than one acre and have buildable areas that exceed 20,000 square feet. FAR and lot coverage limits likewise allow ample structure coverage, and homes larger than 10,000 square feet can be built without Variances on most lots. The one-story height limit tends to produce building footprints that are quite large—but still within the 20% structure coverage requirement.

Each residence is required to have two covered parking spaces (three, if an ADU or guest quarters are on-site). This requirement is modest given the typically large home size and does not constrain building construction.

The land use controls also do not present a cumulative constraint to ADU construction. Almost every parcel in the City has the land area or existing built floor area to support an ADU, and many homes already have spaces that could be easily converted to ADUs. The ADU and JADU regulations adopted in 2018 and revised in 2020 were drafted to work in tandem with the controls for the RAS-1 and RAS-2 districts and have laid the foundation for substantial ADU production.

There are no cumulative land use constraints to multi-family development. The Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Zone standards have been tested to ensure they are internally consistent and can support housing in the 20-24 unit/acre range. The RDMO Zone allows multi-family housing to be either owner or renter occupied. New housing units in this zone must be affordable. The affordability requirement is not a constraint to development, as the site is publicly owned and represents a unique opportunity for reduced land and construction costs. There are no comparable opportunities in the city, as this is the only property in Rolling Hills that is flat, vacant, served by public sewer, and walking distance from public transit.

One notable omission from the City’s zoning regulations a provision for density bonuses. State law requires that the City offer a density bonus for projects that set aside various percentages of units for affordable housing, senior housing, and other types of special needs housing. The number of bonus units is based on a sliding scale and can be up to 50 percent above the base density permitted by zoning. For projects where all units are affordable to low and very low 598

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-16
income households, the density bonus rises to 80 percent. A density bonus could be requested for the Rancho Del Mar site, since the overlay requires that any multi-family housing is 100 percent affordable. This would allow 28 units on the site instead of the 16 allowed by the General Plan and zoning.

The Housing Element includes a program recommendation that the City amend the Municipal Code to adopt density bonus provisions or adopt the State provisions by reference.

5.2.5 Building Code Standards
The City of Rolling Hills adopted the Building Code for Los Angeles County in effect on January 1, 2020 as its Building Code. A number of local amendments to the Code were made. This includes an allowance for the City Council to hold a public hearing to review decisions of the County Board of Appeals, Code Enforcement Appeals Board, or Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board. Other local amendments include a modified definition of “basement” (to avoid the appearance of multi-story buildings), adjusted provisions for grading and cut slopes, limits on driveway slope, and limits on developing slopes over 50 percent. The City has also adopted the Los Angeles County Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, Residential Code, Fire Code, and Green Building Code.

Effective July 1, 2008, all land in the City of Rolling Hills was deemed to be a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” (VHFHSZ). As a result, several more restrictive fire safety standards have been adopted. The City also has adopted standards for hours of construction, and requirements for geological surveys and investigations.

5.2.6 Permit Processing Times and Approval Procedures
Processing and permit procedures can be a constraint to the production and improvement of housing due to the time they add the development process. Unclear permitting procedures, layered reviews, multiple discretionary review requirements, and costly conditions of approval can increase the cost of housing, create uncertainty in the development process, and increase the financial risk assumed by the developer.

In Rolling Hills, the time required to process a project varies depending on the size and complexity of the proposal, and the volume of projects being reviewed. Not every project must complete every possible step in the process. In addition, certain review and approval procedures may run concurrently.

For smaller projects, permit processing times tend to be faster than in most cities.

Administrative review applications (i.e., those that do not require public hearings) typically take only a few days to process. However, the City’s capacity is limited, requiring that some permit processing functions are contracted out. Even smaller projects that are approved ministerially typically require review by the Rolling Hills Community Association and the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department, in its role as the contracted building authority of the City.

The City collects no fees for over the counter review—such fees are assessed when the project is submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Administrative review processes have been created for residential additions less than 1,000 square feet, accessory dwelling units and 599

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-17
junior accessory dwelling units, remodels, foundation repair, and re-roofing. Such projects are required to submit two sets of plans, various checklists, and calculations of existing and proposed square footage, lot coverage, and impervious surface coverage. The City’s website provides comprehensive information for applicants seeking permits, including on-line portals for applications, payment, and checking progress on permit status.

Larger projects such as new homes take longer, but they are less common. New homes in Rolling Hills are multi-million dollar projects that often require demolition, site preparation and grading, and new driveways before construction may begin. Larger projects may also require review by the LA County Health Department for the adequacy of the septic system, and the Fire Department for fuel modification.

Unless specifically exempted by State law, large projects such as new homes and residential additions of 1,000 square feet or larger are subject to Site Plan Review. An initial consultation with staff is strongly encouraged at the start of the process. Once an application is received, it is reviewed for completeness, including required calculations, elevations, and site plans. When the application is deemed complete, it is forwarded to the Planning Commission for a hearing, including a recommendation from staff. The Planning Commission conducts an initial project review meeting, a field trip, and a meeting to forward the application to the City Council.

Likewise, the Council conducts an initial meeting, a field trip, and a meeting to forward the plans to the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA).

The Site Plan review process typically takes three to six months from start to finish, including a field trip by Planning Commissioners to the project site at the start of the process. The process may be completed in a single hearing but on occasion may take two to three hearings so that issues raised by the Commission and public can be addressed. Additionally, project applicants may modify their site plans after approval and return to the Commission for approval of major revisions.

The Planning Commission has the authority to approve Site Plan Review applications. The decision of the Commission is considered final unless an appeal is filed with the City Council or the City Council decides to take the application under its jurisdiction. The decision becomes effective 30 days after the adoption of the resolution.

Approval of a Site Plan Review application requires findings related to compliance with the General Plan and adopted lot coverage standards, preservation of topography and vegetation, grading that follows natural contours or does not adversely modify natural drainage channels, the use of drought-tolerant landscaping, impacts to pedestrian movement, and compliance with CEQA.

The Planning Commission does not expressly perform design review as part of this process, as its findings are principally related to address public health, safety, and welfare. Design review occurs privately, through the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). The RHCA has an Architectural Committee that reviews plans for new homes and large additions to ensure that easements are kept free and clear of structures, including fences and other obstructions.5 5 School District and City-owned property is exempt from this requirement. Thus, any development in the RDMO Housing Opportunity Zone would not be subject to RHCA review. 600

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-18
Projects are submitted to LA County Building and Safety following RHCA review. RHCA maintains its own design guidelines, covering such topics as roofs, walls, windows, doors, and lighting. Because RCHA is a non-governmental agency, these guidelines are described later in this report under non-governmental constraints (see discussion of CC&Rs on page 5-22).

Projects that require Variances to development standards or Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) also require Planning Commission hearings. CUPs are required for large horse stables and corrals, detached garages, tennis courts, and a number of other large-footprint site features.

From start to finish, the process from submittal of plans to approval of permits may take six months or longer for a brand new home. Applications for ADUs, major remodels, residential additions, and accessory structures are more common, and are processed more rapidly. ADUs, JADUs, and other ministerially approved projects take approximately two to four weeks to process.

The City regularly seeks ways to expedite processing and improve the timeliness of its services.

At the present time, permitting and processing time is not considered a constraint and the City complies with the time limit requirements established by Sections 65943 and 65950 of the Government Code. The Site Plan Review requirements and other permitting requirements are not a constraint to the development of multi-family or affordable housing as they would not apply to projects on the Rancho Del Mar site nor would they apply to ADUs that meet the City’s adopted standards. As such, they have no impact on the cost, supply, timing, or approval certainty of these projects. For new single family homes, the review requirements result in processing times that may take several months. However, they do not affect the supply approval certainty. In a review of applications over the past eight years, only one application was denied (requesting a height modification to approved addition in 2017) and another application had a partial denial (for stairs and walls, in 2014).

5.2.7 Site Improvement Requirements
The principal site improvements required upon development of a vacant property are the undergrounding of electrical lines to the structure, installation of a septic system, and conformance to the City’s outdoor lighting standards. Road and emergency access (fire safety) improvements may be required for properties that do not have street frontage or have other access constraints. New development in Rolling Hills consists almost entirely of custom homes on existing vacant or previously developed lots, rather than subdivision of “raw land,” which tends to reduce overall improvement requirements. At the Rancho Del Mar affordable housing site, installation of curb and gutter improvements would be required prior to development, but the site already has road access, storm drainage, and water and sewer facilities in place. There would be no special or unique site improvement requirements imposed on development of this site.

Projects requiring the subdivision of land would be subject to the standards set forth by the City’s subdivision regulations, which are specified in Title 16 of the Municipal Code. These standards establish a 24-foot road width for streets. A 32-foot turning radius is required on dead-end streets, and grades may not exceed six percent. The standards recognize that all streets in Rolling Hills are private. The City Council has the discretion to require additional site improvements adjacent to sites where land is being subdivided, including widening existing roads to meet neighborhood traffic and drainage needs. The subdivider may also be required to 601

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-19
provide drainage improvements, in accordance with standards set by the City Engineer and with the city’s MS4 permit (see P 5-26). The subdivision ordinance further specifies that water mains and fire hydrants may be required when new lots are created, and that easements for gas and electric services may be required.

The cost of installing a new septic system is generally not a constraint for brand new homes but can be an impediment for ADUs and smaller additions, particularly for homeowners with limited incomes. At minimum, the County Health Department requires a feasibility study for any project that could result in septic tank capacity being exceeded. Older homes may face costly septic installation requirements that could render a home addition or ADU infeasible. Programs to assist lower income or senior homeowners with septic tank replacement could be considered, particularly where an ADU is being added.

5.2.8 Development and Permitting Fees
Fees are charged by the City and other agencies to cover the costs of processing permits and providing services and facilities, such as utilities, schools, and infrastructure. Most of these fees are assessed through a pro rata system based on the square footage or value of the project, the staff time required for processing, and the magnitude of the project’s impact. If fees become excessive, they can become a constraint on development and make it more difficult to build housing affordably. They can also place a burden on lower income homeowners seeking to modify their homes or add an Accessory Dwelling Unit.

A summary of residential development fees charged by the City of Rolling Hills is presented in Table 5.2. Most projects do not require payment of these fees, as they would not typically require use permits, Variances, Zoning changes, General Plan amendments, CEQA review, lot line adjustments, and so on. However, Site Plan Review is commonly required for all new homes and major additions, and ADU permits are required for larger ADUs. For projects complying with City standards and requirements, the fees are not a development constraint.

Table 5.2: City of Rolling Hills Major Development Fees1 Fee Type Fee Amount Notes
Site Plan Review $1,500
Conditional Use Permit $1,500
Variance $1,250
Minor Variance
$750 Encroachments from main
structure that do not extend
more than 5’ into required
setbacks
Zoning Change or Code Amendment $2,000
General Plan Amendment $2,000
Accessory Dwelling Unit application $375
Major Remodel Review $375
602

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-20
View Impairment Review
$2,000 Processing fee for Committee
review of impacts on trees and
views
Water Efficient Landscape Review $1,500 Unused balance refunded Traffic Commission Review $300 Required for new driveways Lot Line Adjustment $1,500 Plus County fee
Tentative Parcel Map $1,500 Plus County fee
Final Parcel Map -- County fee only
Environmental Review Determination $200 Plus Fish and Game Fee Environmental Impact Reports Consultant fee
plus 10%
Only required as needed
Appeal Fee 2/3 of original
application fee
Only required as needed
Source: City of Rolling Hills, 2021. Barry Miller Consulting, 2021 1 This is not a comprehensive list of all fees but covers the major development-related categories in the City’s fee schedule. The fee schedule also covers records searches, inspections, and review of grading plans.

Rolling Hills is one of 13 cities that contracts with the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety (LACDBS) for plan checking, building permits, and building inspection. The County issues building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits on the City’s behalf. The cost schedules for the incorporated cities served by LACDBS are higher than the schedules for the unincorporated area but are comparable to nearby cities with full-service building departments. A residential project with an assessed valuation of $100,000 would be subject to a plan check fee of $3,413 and a permit fee of $4,029. This includes required energy and disabled access checking costs. As the value of a project increases, the fees decline as a percentage of total project costs. They represent 7 percent of a $100,000 project but less than 5 percent of a $500,000 project.

The fee schedules for other permits varies by type. Electrical permits are subject to a base fee of $74.70, plus a cost per square foot ($0.20/SF for multi-family and $0.50/SF for single family and duplexes). Separate fees are collected for swimming pools, branch circuits, lighting fixtures, appliances, and electrical plan checking. Mechanical permits are collected for HVAC systems, compression units, boilers, refrigeration systems, etc. Plumbing permits are based on the number of fixtures and also cover projects requiring connection to septic tanks and work such as solar water heaters, sprinkler systems, and backflow protection devices. Relative to the other 12 cities that contract with Los Angeles County, the fee schedule in Rolling Hills is slightly higher. However, the fees are lower in Rolling Hills than in nearby Rolling Hills Estates.

The County also collects fees for projects requiring geotechnical review. This would apply to most new housing units in Rolling Hills. The fee ranges from $2,752 to $17,746, with the actual amount based on 0.50% of the value of the proposed structure. Additional fees are charged for geotechnical site inspections and geotechnical review of grading plans. 603

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-21
Los Angeles County typically updates its fees annually based on the consumer price index and other factors. The increase in 2021 was 2.2 percent for all cities served by the County. Rolling Hills updates its fee schedule less frequently, although fees are considered as part of the annual budgeting process. Some of the City’s fees—such as the fees for parcel maps and lot line adjustments—have not been updated in many years.

There are no local surcharges or special fees associated with multi-family housing. On a per unit basis, permitting costs would be substantially lower for multi-family units than for new single family units. This is due to the smaller size of multi-family units and to multi-family housing being permitted “by right” within the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, with no applicable administrative fees. The City’s fee structure has not historically distinguished between single and multi-family construction, as multi-family housing only recently became a permitted use.

A number of other fees apply in Rolling Hills; these are typically associated with new residences and are intended to offset the additional cost of providing services. These include:
• A Park and Recreation Fund Fee, which is equivalent to 2% of the first $100,000 in building evaluation, plus an additional 0.5% of the remaining balance. The fee for a $1 million construction project would be $6,000. This fee is only charged for new primary homes---ADUs are exempt.
• A School Impact Fee, which is paid to the Palos Verdes Unified School District. In 2020, the fee was $3.79 per square foot for new residential construction. • A fee collected by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), equivalent to $0.20 per $100 of assessed valuation (i.e., $2,000 for a project with a construction value of $1,000,000)
• Additional architectural review fees collected by the RHCA, including a $165 flat fee plus $1 per square foot for new construction, additions and major remodels. In addition, RHCA collects fees ranging from $25 to $500 for individual features such as swimming pools, tennis courts, gazebos, and new roofs.

There are no sewer connection fees in the city, since there are no sewers. There is no water connection fee; water service charges are determined by the size of the meter and the number of fixtures, plus the amount of water used. The City likewise has no impact fees for housing, transportation, public art, or other services. Projects in the RDMO Zone would be exempt from the RHCA fee, since they are outside the HOA boundary.

In total, fees for a typical new home are roughly equivalent to 7-8 percent of total construction costs. This is comparable to other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, though somewhat higher than in other urbanized parts of Los Angeles County. The higher fees are associated in part with the terrain and hazards in Rolling Hills and the size and complexity of applications for new homes, many of which require extensive grading and multiple inspections. Fees do not constrain development in Rolling Hills, but they do add to the cost of housing, which is already expensive in the City. Programs to reduce processing and permitting fees for ADUs could be considered, as they could incentivize ADU production.
604

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-22

5.2.9 Other Local Ordinances and Disclosure Requirements No other local ordinances were identified that could present potential constraints to housing needs. The City does not have an inclusionary zoning requirement, growth control ordinance or limits on the number of units that may be constructed in a given year, or other locally-imposed requirement impacting the cost of residential development. The City prohibits the rental of rooms and houses for periods of less than 30 days, effectively disallowing short-term rentals.

This supports the City’s goal of using Accessory Dwelling Units as rental housing, rather than for transient occupancy.

The City also complies with AB 1483 (2019), which requires that agencies publish specific information on their websites starting January 1, 2021. This information includes:
• All current fees and exactions applicable to housing
• All zoning ordinances, design and development standards • Current and five previous annual financial reports
• An archive of nexus studies for impact fees conducted after January 1, 2018 The City of Rolling Hills maintains a Planning and Community Services landing page on its website that contains all of this information. This landing page includes a link to all planning and development fees, the Zoning Map, the Municipal Code (which includes the zoning ordinance and all applicable development standards), the General Plan, the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Landscape Design Standards, the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Planning and Development forms and application materials, the Planning Commission calendar, technical information for developers (related to stormwater management), permitting requirements, guidelines for equestrian facilities, information on solar panels and rainwater harvesting, and guidance on septic system installation. The City is also updating its environmental programs page. An action program in the Housing Element calls for this information to be reorganized and updated, with new information added on Accessory Dwelling Units and links to the RHCA Design Guidelines.

Every annual budget and audited financial report for the City since 2010 is available on the City’s website. There have been no nexus studies for impact fees since 2018, but such studies would be posted if conducted in the future.

Disclosure requirements related to SB 35 also apply to Rolling Hills. In 2018, California adopted SB 35, which establishes streamlining provisions for multi-family projects meeting certain criteria related to affordability and payment of prevailing wages to construction workers. As of 2021, projects in Rolling Hills in which 10% of more of the units are affordable are eligible for SB 35.

Article III Section 300 (b) of HCD’s Guidelines for SB 35 requires that cities in this situation must provide “information, in a manner readily accessible to the general public, about the locality’s process for applying and receiving ministerial approval, materials required for an application as defined in Section 102(b), and relevant objective standards to be used to evaluate the application.” An action program in this Housing Element recommends creating an SB 35 information sheet and application and including it on the Planning and Community Services Website.
605

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-23

5.3 Non-Governmental Constraints
Non-governmental constraints significantly affect the affordability of housing in Rolling Hills.

Specifically, the high cost of real estate in the city, its heritage as a rural, gated equestrian community, and its limited infrastructure and severe environmental constraints, make it extremely challenging to build traditional affordable housing units. The city is one of the most expensive and highly constrained communities in California. To be economically viable, affordable housing must be tailored to community context—for example, through accessory dwelling units.

5.3.1 Land Costs
Land in Rolling Hills is expensive. The city features dramatic topography, with sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean and Los Angeles basin. Property in the city is marketed as a location for prestigious estates. The supply of acre-plus homesites on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is limited, making demand for such properties very strong. A scan of Zillow.com in Fall 2021 shows two vacant lots for sale in the city—one for $7.5 million and another with geologic constraints for $1 million. Data on recent sales shows a vacant single family parcel that sold for $6.85 million in November 2020 and another that sold for $1.84 million in 2019. These properties have been marketed and sold as sites for large single family homes.

The economic viability of affordable housing on these sites is further challenged by the cost of the site improvements that would be required to facilitate safe development. The vacant parcels described above lack public sewer; are accessed by narrow, winding, private roads traversing an area with very high wildfire severity; and have slopes that exceed 50 percent in some cases.

The cost of road widening, grading and earth movement, and installation of community-wide sewer and storm drainage construction make most types of multi-family housing economically infeasible. There is no public revenue source to make these improvements. The absence of commercial land uses in the city limits the City’s ability to sponsor programs that would reduce or underwrite land or site improvement costs.

5.3.2 Construction Costs
The cost of construction, including labor and materials, is a significant constraint to housing development in Rolling Hills. While high costs have impacted the entire state, Rolling Hills is particularly impacted by the high cost of mitigating environmental constraints, including fire and geologic hazards. New home construction requires grading and earth movement, often with costly retaining walls and engineered drainage systems. Many homes in the city feature highend finishes, as well as amenities that result in higher costs. The city is also vulnerable to elevated or inflated costs that reflect its reputation as a high-end, high-income market.

In 2014, the Rolling Hills Housing Element estimated that construction costs were approximately $330 to $500 per square foot. Based on recent projects in the city, costs have doubled since then. The National Association of Homebuilders estimated that costs increased 26 percent between June 2020 and June 2021 alone. There have been rapid increases in the price of lumber, copper, steel, aluminum, concrete, and other building materials, resulting in some 606

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-24
projects being placed on hold and others being cancelled altogether. Construction costs for home additions now regularly exceed $800 per square foot.

Construction of septic tanks represents a unique expense in Rolling Hills that is not common in surrounding cities. Anecdotally, homeowners in the city report costs of well over $25,000 to install new septic systems, which in some cases can be an impediment to adding an accessory dwelling unit or expanding an older home.

5.3.3 Financing
Financing is not a constraint to housing development in Rolling Hills, but the high cost of housing makes it infeasible for most households to buy a home in the community. Home mortgage interest rates were remain relatively low at the time the Housing Element was drafted, with rates at around 3.0 percent for a 30-year mortgage in Fall 2021. Income and down payment requirements have become more stringent than they were following the mortgage crisis of a decade ago, and there are fewer flexible loan programs to bridge the gap between the amount of a required down payment and a potential homeowner’s available funds.

Given the very high cost of housing in Rolling Hills, significant capital is required to purchase a home. A 20 percent down-payment on the median priced home in the City would be nearly $750,000, with monthly mortgage payments of nearly $19,000. A very high income would be required to qualify. First time buyers face particular challenges in the city, given the lack of equity from prior home ownership.

5.3.4 Delays Between Approval and Construction
Given the high cost of construction and rising interest rates, there may be delays between the time a project is entitled and when it is actually constructed. Applicants may postpone their projects due to high material costs, supply shortages and shipping delays, and a lack of skilled construction workers and contractors. Rising interest rates can also add to the cost of a project, leading to postponement. The economic uncertainty and upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic has also caused some projects to stall over the last two years. In some cases, projects may be cancelled altogether, or the property may be sold to a new owner who may modify or abandon previously approved plans.

These factors are out of the City’s control but can have a real impact on housing supply and construction. The City is particularly interested in the completion of permitted ADUs, as these units are critical to achieving affordable housing goals. As noted in Chapter 6, Rolling Hills intends to establish a monitoring program for permitted ADUs to facilitate their construction.

This would include reaching out to those who receive ADU permits and monitoring construction progress on those units. The monitoring program includes follow-up conversations with any applicants who do not complete their projects to understand the factors leading to that decision, and any steps the City can take to improve completion rates. 607

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-25

5.3.45 Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
Development in Rolling Hills is controlled through both municipal zoning and privately enforced CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are considered a non-governmental constraint because they are enforced by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), a private entity. The CC&Rs were established by the Palos Verdes Corporation in 1936 upon the initial development of the community. They apply to all property in the city except the City Hall Campus, Tennis Court Facilities, PVP Unified School District site (Rancho Del Mar), and Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center. The RHCA does not have design review or building permit review authority on these sites.

Elsewhere in Rolling Hills, the CC&Rs restrict the development and use of property to single family homes and limited public uses. They do not allow multi-family housing, commercial, office or industrial activity. One of the stated purposes of the CC&Rs is to preserve and maintain the rural character of the community, including regulating the architectural design of structures.

The CC&Rs authorize the RHCA Board to appoint and maintain a five-member Architectural Review Committee to carry out this objective. The Committee is comprised of three Association members and two licensed architects.

The RHCA Board has adopted a Building Regulations manual that is used by homeowners and their architects/ contractors, and by the Committee to evaluate projects. Committee review is required for all new residences and accessory structures, and for all projects that modify the exterior of existing structures. Committee meetings occur twice monthly, on the first and third Tuesdays. The meetings are not considered “public hearings” since RHCA is not a public agency, but they are open to all members of the Association and are subject to Association bylaws.

RHCA’s Building Regulations require that all homes under RHCA’s jurisdiction be one-story, ranch-style construction. The Regulations identify three permissible style types: traditional ranch, contemporary ranch, and early California Rancho. Specific standards are provided for each style, including allowable exterior siding materials, roof materials (and colors), roof pitch, building height (25 feet), and floor to ceiling plate heights (8’6” maximum in at least 50 percent of the structure). Regardless of style, all buildings must be painted white, conform to the natural grade, and have consistently designed doors and windows. A minimum floor area of 1,300 square feet, plus a two-car garage, is required for all residences.

The regulations align with the City of Rolling Hills zoning regulations—in fact, the CC&Rs expressly state that the Architectural Committee must comply with applicable provisions of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. This includes allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), which are not mentioned in the Association’s Building Regulations. Under AB 670 and AB 68 (effective January 2020), CC&Rs may not be used to deny ADU applications, and prohibitions on ADUs by homeowner associations are not enforceable.

State law does allow homeowner associations to review the design of ADUs, provided their process is fair, reasonable, and expeditious. This has been occurring in Rolling Hills for the last three years with no adverse effects on ADU construction. 608

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-26
As noted earlier in this chapter, the City has developed a ministerial process for ADU approval as required by state law. Projects meeting the dimensional requirements in the Municipal Code (which are consistent with State standards) are approved without a public hearing or discretionary review by the City. If an ADU does not affect the exterior of a home (for instance, a Junior ADU entirely within the footprint of an existing home, or the conversion of a detached guest house to an ADU), then no RHCA review is required. The Architectural Committee does review ADUs that modify the exterior, add square footage to a structure, or result in a new accessory structure. The purpose of this review is to verify that the structure meets the objective design requirements in the RHCA Building Regulations rather than to evaluate the merits of the project or its off-site impacts. According to the Committee’s own guidelines, it “will not require modifications to working drawings that materially change the massing of the project.”
City staff has worked closely with RHCA staff to ensure that their design review process is coordinated with City permitting, streamlined, and does not impose unreasonable restrictions on applicants. The RHCA office is adjacent to City Hall and there is ongoing coordination between the two entities. When an application for an ADU is submitted to the City, the City advises the applicant to proceed to RHCA immediately afterwards to initiate project review. Projects are typically forwarded to the RHCA Architectural Committee within two weeks and are typically approved at the initial meeting; if modifications are required, the plans are typically approved at the second meeting two weeks later. The review occurs concurrently with the City permitting process, avoiding potential delays.

In practice, every ADU application approved by City staff has subsequently been approved by the RHCA Architectural Committee. Nonetheless, an action program in this Element recommends that the City work with RHCA to update the 2017 Building Guidelines to acknowledge ADUs and provide guidance for homeowners seeking to add an ADU.

5.3.56 Infrastructure
Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the limited availability of infrastructure, specifically streets, sewer, storm water and water facilities.

Streets
Rolling Hills has no public roads or streets. Since the 1930s, the community’s internal street network has been designed to establish a rural, equestrian character. This historic aspect of the city’s infrastructure is one of Rolling Hills’ defining features. The road network is typified by winding roads with a 15- to 25-foot paved cross-section and no curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or streetlights. Narrow road width, coupled with steep grades and very low densities, effectively precludes public transit within the city. Access is also gate-controlled at three entry points.

The city's circulation infrastructure is not conducive to uses generating high trip volumes, such as higher-density housing. Given the entire city’s designation as a very high wildfire hazard severity area, the capacity to evacuate the population is also a limiting factor. Most streets in the community are “dead ends” without emergency vehicle access alternatives in the event that ingress and egress is blocked.
609

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-27
A number of properties—including City Hall, the Retreat Center, and the PVUSD site, are accessed from roads outside the City gates. These parcels are less constrained by street access but could require ingress and egress improvements (resurfacing, driveways, etc.) in the event a change of use was proposed. Such improvements are typical for any development and would not adversely affect expected construction costs.

Wastewater Disposal
With the exception of the school site and thirteen residences that have individually or collectively (through the creation of a small sewer district) connected to an adjacent jurisdiction's sewer systems, there is no sanitary sewer system in Rolling Hills. Residences are served by individual septic tanks and seepage pits. These systems are designed to serve single family residences and are not conducive to multi-family housing. This is particularly true given the geologic, slope, and soil constraints in Rolling Hills. To meet water quality and runoff requirements, high-density housing typically requires a viable sewer connection.

Over the past 35 years, the City has conducted multiple sewer system feasibility studies. In 2019, the City received approval from the Los Angeles County Public Works and Sanitation District to discharge effluent from up to 235 existing homes in Rolling Hills. The City is in the process of completing design drawings for Phase One, which is a 1,585-foot long 8-inch diameter sewer line along Rolling Hills Road/Portuguese Bend Road. This will provide service to City Hall, the RHCA offices, and the Tennis Courts. Future phases of the project could provide service to residences but would require significant grant funding and potentially special assessments.

In 2021, the City surveyed all households to determine the level of support for developing a sewer system. Roughly 16 percent of the City’s households participated. The survey found that about three-quarters of the residents’ septic tanks were more than 20 years old. More than 80 percent supported construction of a sewer system, though many responses were contingent on the cost. Past engineering studies have concluded that the terrain and unstable geological conditions in the city make a conventional gravity sewer system infeasible in the city, meaning the cost to property owners could be significant.

The Palos Verdes Unified School District site is an exception. It is connected to a wastewater treatment line that was installed when the school was initially constructed. Collection lines were sized to accommodate a school campus with several hundred students, and associated maintenance facilities—a higher level of demand than is associated with current uses on the site. Given the availability of sewer service to this site and the high cost of extending sewer services elsewhere, it is the most suitable property for multi-family housing in the City.

In some instances, septic systems may present a constraint to ADU development. This is generally not an issue for JADUs or smaller ADUs that repurpose existing habitable space, but a new detached ADU that adds floor space may require increasing the capacity of a septic system. As noted earlier in this chapter, a program in this Housing Element proposes further evaluation of this constraint, and possible ways to assist homeowners in addressing it. 610

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-28
Storm Water Run-off
As a rural community without public streets, Rolling Hills does not have a municipal storm sewer system or continuous network of storm drains. Drainage follows topography, with stormwater flowing into steep ravines through the community. Water percolates into the ground along canyon bottoms, with runoff flowing to the ocean, or to larger streams and detention basins downstream, depending on location.

To comply with federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and maintain its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, the City is required to screen and monitor its runoff to avoid compromising downstream water quality standards. It also required to implement a number of programs, such as an Illicit Discharge Elimination Program. The City also requires Best Management Practices (BMP) for construction in order to avoid erosion, pollution, sedimentation, and runoff that would degrade water quality. These requirements are not a development constraint but may add to the cost of construction.

Moreover, the lack of a municipal storm drainage system represents another constraint to higher density housing in most of the city.

The Rancho Del Mar site is outside the area covered by the MS4 monitoring program and drains west toward Rancho Palos Verdes. Unlike the rest of Rolling Hills, it is served by an improved storm drainage system. A 2017 facility evaluation reported the storm drains and inlets on the site as being in good condition.

Water
Water infrastructure in Rolling Hills is owned, maintained, and operated by California Water Service (CalWater). The city is within CalWater’s Palos Verdes District, which also serves the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Facility planning is governed by an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which evaluates anticipated demand and the water resources available to meet that demand.

Projections of future water use are based in part on expected population growth, which is derived from SCAG forecasts and local general plans. Water demand is projected to increase by 6 percent by 2045, reflecting very slow population and housing growth in the Peninsula cities.

Development beyond that anticipated by SCAG forecasts could reduce water pressure, compromise firefighting capabilities, and curtail domestic water availability. This is a problem throughout California, made worse by persistent drought conditions. The UWMP provides water shortage contingency plans, including measures to reduce demand and procure emergency supplies.

Water storage facilities and pipelines in Rolling Hills are generally adequate to meet local needs.

However, many of the city’s water facilities are aging and the system as a whole is vulnerable to damage during earthquakes and landslides. Storage and distribution facilities reflect the rural density of the city and are not sized to accommodate significant growth. The Palos Verdes Unified School District site provides a unique opportunity in this regard, as its water system was designed for a public school campus with several hundred students.

611

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-29
The introduction of ADUs in Rolling Hills could potentially impact water demand in the City. The California Water Company has no plans to upgrade the aging water system. As ADUs are created, it will be important to consider potential impacts on water distribution lines and fire fighting capacity. Several factors work to mitigate the impacts of ADUs on the water system.

First, the population of Rolling Hills has declined by roughly 300 since 1980. Thus, the addition of 40 or so ADUs over eight years may not increase the total number of residents in the City.

Second, water conservation measures have been implemented—and continue to be implemented—to reduce water flows and water demand. These measures include waterefficient landscaping requirements, as well as requirements for more efficient plumbing fixtures.

Dry Utilities
Rolling Hills residences are also served by dry utilities. Electric services are generally provided by Southern California Edison while natural gas is provided by Southern California Gas Company. A range of private vendors provide phone, internet, and cable services. Capacity is available to serve new development, and all of the vacant and underutilized sites identified in Chapter 4 would have access to these services if they were developed. The Rancho Del Mar site currently has access to these services as it is a former school.

5.3.76 Environmental Constraints
Rolling Hills has severe environmental constraints to development. Slopes exceeding 25 percent are present on almost every remaining undeveloped parcel in the city. Geotechnical studies are required when new homes are constructed, and mitigation is often required to reduce the potential for future damage. The City’s Site Plan Review Process and grading requirements are intended to strictly limit recontouring of existing terrain. Most grading occurs through “cut and fill” procedures that retain materials on site. This adds to local housing costs and limits the viability of multi-family housing on most properties in the city.

Landslide Hazards
Figure 5.2 shows landslide zones in Rolling Hills, as mapped by the California Geological Survey (CGS). Large portions of the city are considered hazardous and major slides have occurred in the past. This includes the Flying Triangle Landslide, which has impacted roads, homes, and properties in the southern part of the city for the last 50 years. These areas are poorly suited for development and are susceptible to slope failure. Human modifications to slopes (through development) can exacerbate the problem and the risk.

Building at the head of a landslide can decrease the bedrock strength along an existingor potential rupture surface and “drive” the landslide down slope. Improper grading practices can also trigger existing landslides. Because of these geologic hazards, the City limits land disturbance and other actions that would exacerbate soil instability. Ground instability would contribute to potential risks to human life as well as to physical structures. The Safety Element of the General Plan sets forth policies to restrict new development and expansion of existing development in areas susceptible to landslides.
612

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-30
Earthquake Hazards
Like most of Southern California, Rolling Hills is vulnerable to earthquakes. Large earthquakes can cause building damage and collapse, as well as damage to roads and utilities. The City of Rolling Hills is crossed by the Cabrillo Fault, which is part of the Palos Verdes Fault Zone. It is also vulnerable to earthquakes on the Whittier Fault, the Newport-Inglewood Fault, the Malibu Fault, the Santa Monica Fault, the Redondo Canyon Fault. The location of these faults is shown on Figure 5.3.

The Whittier and Newport-Inglewood Faults are considered capable of generating earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 7.0 and have the potential to cause catastrophic damage. In the event of a major earthquake on either fault, the city of Rolling Hills would be vulnerable to ground shaking. Secondary hazards include liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and differential settlement. Fault rupture is not a significant hazard in the city, and there are no Alquist Priolo “special studies” zones within the city limits.

Wildfire
As shown on Figure 5.4, the entire city of Rolling Hills has been designated a “Very High Wildfire Hazard Severity Zone” by CalFire. The city’s terrain creates challenges for vegetation management and presents conditions where a fire can travel quickly up and down canyon slopes. Despite defensible space requirements, the city’s rural nature and equestrian heritage means that extensive areas are covered by dense scrub and brush. The Palos Verdes Peninsula has a history of destructive wildfire, including fires that destroyed homes in 1973, 1993, 2009, and 2018.

The City has taken measures to reduce fire hazards, including preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan in 2020. The Plan outlines measures to harden infrastructure, improve vegetation management, underground electric power lines, and improve inspections and enforcement. It also includes provisions for evacuation. Additionally, the City (and Los Angeles County) require special building safety measures, including standards for roofing, eaves, exterior finishes, and buffer zones that respond to the higher fire hazard levels.

Despite these measures, the risks of wildfire cannot be eliminated entirely. Moreover, the city continues to face evacuation constraints resulting from its narrow roads, limited ingress and egress points, and the presence of livestock on many properties.

Biological Resources
Rolling Hills supports a variety of plant and wildlife species, including some that are listed or under consideration for listing by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These species include the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly, the California Gnatcatcher, the Pacific Pocket Mouse, the San Diego Horned Lizard, and Brackishwater snail. Development that could adversely impact the habitat of these species must undergo review and approval by the overseeing federal and state agencies. Typical mitigation measures include preservation of habitat, further restricting the potential land available for development. This constraint is likely to continue throughout the planning period. 613

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-31
Figure 5.2: Landslide Hazard Areas in Rolling Hill Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021 s Updated Map-shows Flying
Triangle Landslide Area
614

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-32
Figure 5.3: Earthquake Faults in the Rolling Hills Vicinity Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021 615

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-33
Figure 5.4: CalFire “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zones Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021 616

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-34
617

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-1

6. Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs
Chapter 6 provides the City’s housing plan for the next eight years. The plan has three components:
• A statement of the City’s goals and policies for housing. The goals and policies balance State mandates and Government Code requirements with local needs and priorities. • An action program. The action program identifies the specific, measurable steps the City will take during 2021-2029 to implement the policies.
• Measurable objectives for housing production. These objectives correspond to the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and also include numeric targets for housing rehabilitation and conservation.

6.1 Goals and Policies
The following goals and policies reflect the City’s continued commitment to actively support residential development and plan for the City’s fair share of regional housing needs:

GOAL 1: Provide housing opportunities which meet the needs of existing and future Rolling Hills' residents.

Policy 1.1: Accommodate Rolling Hills’ share of the region’s housing needs in a way that protects public safety, responds to infrastructure constraints and natural hazards, recognizes market conditions, and respects the historic context and land use pattern in the city.

Policy 1.2: Allow the development of a variety of housing types in the city, including multifamily housing. While Rolling Hills will remain a rural equestrian community, housing opportunities will be provided for all income groups as required by State law.

Policy 1.3: Facilitate development on the remaining vacant buildable lots in the city in a manner consistent with adopted zoning standards.

Policy 1.4: Allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in all residential zones. Maintain objective standards to ensure that ADUs and JADUs are compatible with the community; minimize visual, parking, traffic, and other impacts; and respect neighborhood context.

Policy 1.5: Explore incentives to create and maintain Accessory Dwelling Units that are affordable to low and very low income households.

Policy 1.6: Encourage the conversion of existing guest houses and other habitable accessory buildings into legal ADUs.
618

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-2 Policy 1.7: Work with other governmental entities and the non-profit community to support the development of affordable or senior housing on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and in nearby South Bay cities.

Policy 1.8: Maintain planning and building procedures that maximize efficiency and reduce permit processing times and high fees. Encourage public understanding of the planning and building processes to reduce project costs and delays.

GOAL 2: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Rolling Hills.

Policy 2.1: Encourage and facilitate the maintenance and improvement of existing homes.

Policy 2.2: Ensure that new housing and home improvements comply with building code and fire safety requirements.

Policy 2.3: Maintain a code enforcement program, including procedures to remediate violations.

Policy 2.4: Require the design of home improvements, additions, ADUs, and infill housing to minimize impacts on existing residences. Include objective standards in the zoning ordinance that protect visual quality, privacy, and community character.

Policy 2.5: Mitigate hazards that could potentially cause a loss of housing units in the city, including wildfires, landslides, and earthquakes. Encourage home hardening and defensible space to minimize the potential for housing loss during a natural disaster.

Policy 2.6 Prohibit the use of ADUs as short-term rentals in order to maintain their viability as permanent housing units.

Policy 2.7: Encourage weatherization, energy conservation, and renewable energy to increase energy efficiency and reduce home energy costs.

GOAL 3: Address the housing needs of older adults and others in the community with special housing needs.

Policy 3.1: Provide reference and referral services for seniors, such as in-home care and counseling for housing-related issues.

Policy 3.2: Support shared housing programs and room rentals as options for seniors to remain in the community without financial hardship.

Policy 3.3: Encourage housing opportunities for live-in care givers, domestic employees, and family members who may assist elderly or mobility-impaired residents who wish to age in place.
619

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-3 Policy 3.4: Consider participation in state and federal programs that assist lower income and senior households in home repair and maintenance.

Policy 3.5: Strive to meet the needs of extremely low-income Rolling Hills residents, including seniors on fixed incomes.

Policy 3.6: Encourage the retrofitting of existing Rolling Hills homes so they are accessible to the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities. Provide reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, and procedures for disabled persons to ensure equal access to housing.

Policy 3.7: Participate in countywide programs to meet the needs of unsheltered residents and others who may need emergency housing assistance.

GOAL 4: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, disability status, or national origin.

Policy 4.1: Affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring that housing opportunities for persons of all income levels, races and ethnicities, and physical abilities are available in Rolling Hills.

Policy 4.2: Enforce all applicable laws and policies pertaining to equal housing opportunity and discrimination. Maintain third party agreements to follow-up on and correct alleged violations.

Policy 4.3 Make information on fair housing laws available to residents and realtors in the City by providing information on the City’s website and print media at the City Hall public counter.

Policy 4.4: Ensure effective and informed community participation in local housing decisions.

This should include special efforts to include traditionally underrepresented groups, including persons working or providing services in Rolling Hills.

Policy 4.5: Distribute affordable housing opportunities around the city by focusing on ADUs as a housing strategy.

Policy 4.6: Participate in regional forums and initiatives to promote fair housing. 620

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-4

6.2 Housing Implementation Plan, 2021-2029
The goals and policies set forth in the Housing Element will be implemented through a series of housing programs. Some of these programs are already underway and others will be implemented over the next eight years. This section of the Housing Element provides a brief description of each program, including measurable objectives, responsible entities, and implementation timeframes. Each of these programs has been developed consistent with HCD guidelines and State Government Code requirements.

Program 1: Annual Progress Report
As required by State law, the City will prepare and file an annual report on the progress made toward implementing its Housing Element using forms and definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Guidance on the content of the report is provided by the State Office of Planning and Research. It documents the City’s progress toward meeting its share of regional housing needs and efforts to remove government constraints to housing production. The report must be presented to the City Council prior to its submittal (it may be approved as a consent item).

Quantified Objective: Provide one report per year
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: File by April 1 of each year Program 2: Rancho Del Mar Opportunity Site Monitoring
In February 2021, the City adopted the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone on the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar (RDM) campus owned by the Palos Verdes Unified School District. As documented in Chapter 4 and Appendix B of this Housing Element, large parts of the RDM site are unimproved and vacant. The new zoning permits 16 affordable multi-family units on the site, which may be developed “by right” at a minimum density of 20 units per acre.

The City Manager will meet at least once annually with the School Superintendent to discuss the future of the site, including future development opportunities. Next steps to be pursued on the site include:
• Exploring the feasibility of sSubdividing the site to create a separate parcel west of the PVPTA transit facility. This site could potentially be more easily marketed as a development opportunity than the 31-acre site as a whole. 1 • Preparation of a “fact sheet” for the site, for review by the School Superintendent and School Board, highlighting the potential for multi-family housing • Further discussions with the School Board regarding opportunities for teacher housing and/or senior housing on the site.
1 Subdivision is not required to develop the site—it can also be developed “as is” in 2022. However, subdivision could provide an incentive for future development during the planning period. 621

A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-5 • In collaboration with the School District, make information on the site (e.g., the “Fact Sheet”) available to affordable housing developers.
• Further discussions with non-profit developers regarding the opportunity to construct housing on the site, including technical assistance to developers where requested. • Consideration of permit streamlining, CEQA clearance, and fee reductions for future affordable housing development on the site. Multi-family housing is already permitted “by right” subject to objective design standards adopted in February 2021, but further steps could be taken to reduce future development costs.

Quantified Objectives: (1) 16 units of affordable housing on the RDM site (2) Annual meeting between the City Manager and School
Superintendent
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: Once annually, beginning in 2021 (1) Meeting with School Superintendent by end of 2022 and once annually thereafter
(2) Preparation of site “fact sheet” for review by School District and School Board by June 2023
(3) Subdivision creating “western” parcel by end of 2023, subject to School Superintendent and Board approval
Program 3: No Net Loss Monitoring and Other Multi-Family Housing Opportunities The City has identified adequate capacity to accommodate 45 units of housing, as required by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Sixteen of these units are on the Rancho Del Mar Site.