open space and they cannot be resold to private individuals or redeveloped.
To initiate the process, the local jurisdiction must assess community interest and determine whether the buyout aligns with broader hazard mitigation and land-use planning goals. The City is responsible for preparing a detailed application to Cal OES, which includes environmental assessments, cost-benefit analysis, and documentation of the hazard risk. Cal OES then reviews the submission and forwards qualifying proposals to FEMA.
An important program requirement is demonstrating cost-effectiveness through FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) methodology, using a specialized software toolkit. The BCA is used to demonstrate that a hazard mitigation project is cost-effective by showing that the expected benefits equal or exceed the project costs. To support this, the City must identify benefits recognized by FEMA, such as avoided damages, emergency response costs, service disruptions, and displacement, and accurately document all project costs, including construction, design, and compliance. Using FEMA-approved data sources and hazard information, the City must also demonstrate the frequency and severity of the risk and provide supporting documentation, such as maps, cost estimates, and damage data. The BCA is often the most difficult threshold to meet, and even well-developed proposals may be excluded from consideration if they fail to demonstrate adequate cost-effectiveness.
The Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) review process ensures that all program applications comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and other program-specific environmental regulations. This compliance review can take several months to complete and must be finalized before the City can receive FEMA approval.
The Voluntary Buyout Program is not intended for immediate post-disaster relief but is part of a long-term hazard mitigation strategy. Due to environmental reviews and the federal approval process, extended time may pass between application submission and actual property acquisition. Cities considering participation must be prepared to lead a transparent community engagement process, support applicants throughout the program, and assume responsibility for managing the acquired land in perpetuity.
Rancho Palos Verdes Voluntary Buyout Program
In May 2025, City of Rolling Hills staff met with representatives from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) to learn about their experience designing and implementing a Voluntary Buyout Program under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The purpose of the meeting was to understand the program’s development from initial concept to current implementation and to gather insights and lessons learned from a neighboring jurisdiction already navigating this complex process. The information provided by RPV offers a valuable roadmap for communities considering a similar initiative.
RPV launched its buyout program in response to accelerated land movement in the Greater Portuguese Bend area. City staff emphasized the importance of establishing clear systems and procedures from the outset. This included designing a transparent application process, conducting broad and inclusive outreach to potentially eligible property owners, and creating structured screening and evaluation criteria to ensure fairness and efficiency.
RPV received 85 applications, of which 23 were selected to move forward. The selection
process began with strict minimum eligibility requirements. Notably, applicants involved in either of the two lawsuits, Black or Monks, stemming from prior development agreements in high-risk areas were deemed ineligible, as those agreements included waivers against future claims. Additionally, any applicant involved in active litigation against the City was required to release all legal claims prior to being awarded grant funds.
Program Design and Funding
RPV’s program is strictly voluntary; homeowners are not required to participate, and eminent domain is not used. Properties in RPV are acquired at fair market value as determined by a licensed real estate appraiser, using a set appraisal date (e.g., December 1, 2022). FEMA provides 75% of the property acquisition cost and associated eligible expenses, including:
Appraisal and title search costs
Lot surveys (if needed)
Real estate transaction, escrow, and closing costs
Demolition and site restoration
Environmental remediation (e.g., lead paint or asbestos removal) RPV is responsible for advancing all upfront costs, which are later reimbursed by FEMA. To manage the workload and meet compliance obligations, the City contracted with a grant management firm to support both pre-award application development and post-award program administration.
To meet FEMA’s 25% non-federal cost share requirement, property owners contribute the remaining share through a deduction from the final fair market value payment. A portion of this contribution is held in escrow at closing to cover costs such as demolition and restoration. Any remaining balance is returned to the property owner upon completion and closeout of site restoration.
Properties acquired through the program must be demolished and cleared, with the site regraded and restored to eliminate any public safety concerns. Once cleared, the land is permanently deed-restricted for open space, recreation, or natural hazard mitigation functions and cannot be redeveloped or sold to private individuals.
Appeals, Phased Implementation, and Grant Management
RPV implemented the program in phases, starting with the acquisition of three properties funded through an initial $10 million allocation from their General Fund reserves. The City must wait for reimbursement from this first round before proceeding with the next set of property purchases. To streamline operations, the City relied on pre-qualified vendors for appraisal, title, and escrow services and planned to issue RFPs for demolition contractors. While surveyor services were not yet required, the City remained prepared to issue additional RFPs if needed.
To address potential disputes over property valuations, RPV developed a formal appraisal appeal process. The City contracted with two separate appraisal firms, one for the Portuguese Bend area and another for the Seaview neighborhood. If a property owner challenged their appraisal, the case was reviewed by the alternate firm for an independent secondary valuation.
RPV also noted the importance of accounting for in-kind costs such as staff time and administrative resources, which can be significant. Outsourcing key program components helped the City manage these demands while maintaining compliance with federal and state requirements.
Eligibility and Prioritization Criteria
RPV, in coordination with Cal OES and FEMA, ensured that each application complies with all applicable program rules, regulations, and federal requirements, including Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) and Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) guidelines. Only properties deemed eligible by FEMA would advance to the formal selection process.
Minimum eligibility criteria include:
The property is not bank-owned (mortgages do not disqualify; foreclosure ownership does)
The property has not changed ownership since December 1, 2022 The property contains legally permitted residential structures The applicant is the legal property owner according to the County Assessor and building permit records
Once eligibility was established, properties were prioritized for acquisition based on the following factors:
1. Properties red-tagged by the City’s Building Official.
2. Properties yellow-tagged by the City’s Building Official.
3. Properties in imminent danger of being red or yellow tagged due to proximity to fissures, sinkholes, or other geologic hazards.
4. Properties that have been de-energized indefinitely.
5. Properties offering strategic value for landslide stabilization or winterization efforts.
6. Properties that enhance or expand the adjacent Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
Duplication of Benefits
FEMA regulations prohibit duplication of benefits. If a property owner has received financial assistance (e.g., insurance payouts or other grants) for the same damage or purpose, those amounts must be accounted for and deducted from the buyout payment unless the owner can document that the funds were used for repairs. For example, if a structure was damaged and the owner received insurance funds for repairs, they must prove that those funds were spent.
If not, FEMA will reduce the buyout amount accordingly.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In evaluating the potential participation in the Cal OES Voluntary Buyout Program, it is important to consider not only the grant funding and long-term benefits of hazard mitigation, but also the fiscal impacts that accompany property acquisitions. The following outlines a few key cost considerations that would affect the City’s general fund and operational responsibilities should it move forward with a property buyout program:
Potential Ongoing Costs (all estimates):
Loss of Property Tax Revenue
Each acquired property is permanently removed from the tax rolls.
Example: A $3.5 million property could generate $2,700/year for the City (1% of assessed value = $35,000/year paid by the property owner. Most cities in LA County receive about 7–8% of the 1% general levy collected by the County. $35,000 × 0.077 (7.7%) = $2,695/year to the City).
Multiple acquisitions would result in a cumulative annual revenue loss.
Parcel Maintenance
Vacant lots require vegetation management to comply with fire codes.
Costs vary based on terrain, vegetation density, and contractor rates.
Liability Insurance
Annual cost depends on parcel access, size, location, and risk exposure.
Estimated range: $1,000 - $3,000 per parcel annually, higher if public access is allowed or terrain is hazardous.
Each City-owned parcel will be added to the City's Property schedule and reported to the California Joint Powers Authority on an annual basis.
Program Administration
As seen in RPV, in-kind contributions (e.g., staff coordination, oversight) remain under 1% of the total FEMA grant.
Grant Management Services
The City may need to hire a specialized grant management firm to initiate and oversee the application process for the Cal OES Voluntary Buyout Program.
CONCLUSION
The City of Rolling Hills recognizes the severe impact the recent utility shutoffs and ongoing land movement have had on residents in the Flying Triangle, Cinchring Road, and Quail Ridge Road South areas. These disruptions have led to significant financial burdens for many, including costs associated with prolonged outages, alternative energy solutions, and, in some cases, unreported home repairs necessitated by ground instability.
As the City considers participation in the Cal OES Voluntary Buyout Program, it is essential to weigh both the immediate and long-term implications of acquiring properties behind the gates. While the program offers a potential path toward permanent risk reduction and open space preservation, it also represents a substantial policy and fiscal commitment that will shape the City’s future land use, financial planning, and emergency management responsibilities.
Tonight’s discussion provides an opportunity to reflect on the technical and regulatory dimensions of a potential buyout initiative, as well as the potential impacts it may have on our community. Informed by Rancho Palos Verdes' experience, staff recommend that the City Council carefully evaluate the potential grant opportunity and provide direction on whether to proceed with finalizing the Notice of Interest (NOI) for the current DR-4856 funding cycle and/or ask that Staff return to the City Council with additional information.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Unknown at this time
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file. Provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A CL_AGN_241125_CC_Item15B.pdf
Attachment B CL_AGN_241210_CC_Item4B.pdf
Attachment C FEMA-4856-DR-CA Major Disaster.pdf
Attachment D Cal OES DR-4856 HMGP NOFO.pdf
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Hello Robyn,
Thank you again for your reply. I appreciate it.
I wish you great success in your career. Cal OES is lucky to have you on-board.
Thank you again for your time, everyone.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:54 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <[email protected]> wrote:
MatthewFEMA has never funded a buyout for land movement like this before RPV. FEMA seemed very unwilling to consider a later date in all the meetings I had with them for RPV. I think that fundamentally, FEMA would view it the same, as the geology of the Peninsula seems linked – and things started moving with the atmospheric rivers. I wouldn’t even know what FEMA would need. Based on the speed to review things, I don’t think they’re going to rush to get back to us on it.
It still makes a key issue that Cal Water must come on record and say the pipe breaks were due to land movement, and not due to anything else.
I will say – if there is any change in the discount rate with OMB again, I will absolutely let you and the City know. We have the Notice of Interest in our system, and we can always change the status to “active” at any time. I mean that.
I cannot even begin to put into words how disappointed I am by the rollback of the BCA policy changes we finally got in 2023 and 2024. There are going to be a LOT of projects that were submitted to FEMA and are no longer eligible. I’ve been talking to my counterparts in other states. Any time we can resubmit things with policy changes, we do, because we don’t want to miss the opportunity to say, “Thank you FEMA, these projects are good and are eligible!”
We are working with the City on other HMA grants – we’ll continue to be in touch!
Robyn
Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers)
Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Alternate State Coordinating Officer DR-4856, LA Wildfires California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Cell: (916) 799-8660
Email: [email protected]
Click here to request a meeting with me
From: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 10:42 AM
To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <[email protected]>
Cc: Karina Banales <[email protected]>; Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <[email protected]>; Samantha Crew <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thank You
This Message is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Hello Robyn,
Thank you for the thorough and kind response. I appreciate it.
Since the pipe breaks happened in Rolling Hills in 2024 (instead of 2022), would this change the calculations at all? Note: Cinchring is not part of the historical landslide complex that encompasses RPV. So, would the Cinchring pipe breaks and the RPV landslide be viewed as separate issues by Cal OES?
Although, as you said, I'm disappointed in the outcome for 13 Cinchring, since I very strongly disagree with the Cal OES calculations... I really do appreciate your effort throughout this process. You deserve an A+ for your work.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:21 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi MatthewThe thing I want to preface is that we are bound to use methodology approved by FEMA. The BCA process does not allow for a lot of wiggle room.
Every input must be backed up by FEMA-credible, acceptable sources, using the methodology approved by FEMA. In 2024, there were a lot of changes to the policies/regulations that govern BCAs and Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs more broadly. Mitigation programs at the state, tribal and territorial levels were very happy with these changes. When I met with you on your
property, my assessment of the feasibility of the project was based on those changes coming online. Those changes have been rescinded.
If the land movement is the root cause of the property damage, FEMA will uniformly use the same “pre-event” date for the entire Peninsula – they have had to really think outside the box, because the Peninsula’s situation is not the cookie cutter way FEMA typically defines “landslide” hazards. Getting FEMA to accept the November 2022 as the timeframe by which to estimate fair market value AND replacement value was a huge deal nationally. That means we also have to look at building replacement value, in addition to fair market value, in November 2022 – not September 2025.
I understand that the determination is disappointing. Even when I drop the cost to $4.15 million and scale the rest of the project costs accordingly, it’s still not cost effective. The limitations of the FEMA methodology are why we don’t do a lot of acquisition/demolition projects in the State of California (whereas, in most other states, it’s the number one funded project type). The housing market in California is a huge factor – and I will continue to reiterate, we are using methodology that was created for floodplain buyouts. They’ve tweaked the tool to support landslide risk, but the entire program was designed to reduce losses to the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodplain buyouts are a lot easier in a mapped 100-year floodplain.
Moreover, the underlying assumption in this BCA is that the property is at imminent risk of failure within 5 years. That underlying assumption is still undocumented. Even if we find all the FEMA credible inputs to get us over the
1.0 benefit cost ratio, we still need that study to show that and for the Cal Water event that really jumpstarted movement on your property to be linked to the land movement.
I have been doing BCAs for HMA programs since 2011, with my longest experience in acquisition/demolition. I am on national panels for mitigation, a certified floodplain manager (matters because that’s what the methodology is set up for), have a degree in economics, and have provided a lot of feedback on the BCA process, inputs, etc. I am just sharing this to highlight that I am very up to date on the methodology, changes, and very passionate
about advocating for changes in the processes. I am not trying to say I disagree with any of your rationale. It’s simply that we are limited and truly understand the frustration. The worst part of my job is communicating with real Californians who are living with the impacts of disasters that we can’t get a BCA to work in their favor.
I’ve been advocating for changes to the methodology and HMA program on a whole for almost 15 years and will continue to do so.
Sincerely,
Robyn
Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers)
Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Cell: (916) 799-8660
Email: [email protected]
Click here to request a meeting with me
From: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 2:52:53 PM
To: Samantha Crew <[email protected]>
Cc: Karina Banales <[email protected]>; Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <[email protected]>; Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thank You
This Message is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Hello Robyn,
I hope that you're having a good day.
I've really appreciated your time over the past year or so. You've been very helpful and kind throughout the process.
My thoughts on the results:
* Can FEMA give me an example of a home being built in Palos Verdes for the cost-persquare-foot that you're assuming? I strongly doubt that you'll find a single example, since it's very, very unrealistic. Would you be open to taking a sample of 50 homes built in Palos Verdes over the past several years to find an average building cost? Can you also take a sample of 50 homes being built now?
* Although the tax assessor shows square footage of 3,507, the actual square footage is what's shown on Zillow (above 4,000). I'm happy for you to measure it; I'm happy to pay for the process.
* It sounds as if the funding wouldn't work at $5 million, but would work at $4.15 million.
Couldn't Cal OES just adjust the payment down to where it would work? Regardless, I've appreciated your time and communication throughout the process, and wish you a great weekend. Take care.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 2:39 PM Samantha Crew <[email protected]> wrote:
My pleasure.
Sincerely,
Samantha Crew
Management Analyst
From: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 12:19 PM
To: Samantha Crew <[email protected]>
Cc: Karina Banales <[email protected]>; Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <[email protected]>; Robyn@CalOES Fennig <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Thank You
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Hello Samantha,
Thank you for your reply.
Great, I've accepted the invitation, and look forward to speaking with you this Friday.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 12:01 PM Samantha Crew <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Matthew
Thank you for the availability window. I’ve just sent a calendar invitation for Friday, September 12 at 2:30 p.m. to you and Jasmine. I hope this time works for you and if not, I'm happy to adjust if needed.
Looking forward to our conversation.
Sincerely,
Samantha Crew
Management Analyst
From: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 9:56 AM
To: Samantha Crew <[email protected]>
Cc: Karina Banales <[email protected]>; Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <[email protected]>; Robyn@CalOES Fennig <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Thank You
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Hello Samantha,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it.
I'm available from 12 PM PST - 5 PM PST this Friday. What works best for you? Thank you for your time and effort.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 9:53 AM Samantha Crew <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning, Matthew
Thank you for following up. I hope your week is off to a good start.
Staff met with Cal OES last week, and we anticipate receiving an update from them later this week as they finalize their Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA). Would you like to schedule a call with me on Friday, September 12, to review their findings? I am available at any time that day and would be glad to adjust to your schedule. Please let me know what works best for you.
Sincerely,
Samantha Crew
Management Analyst
From: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 9:20 AM
To: Samantha Crew <[email protected]>
Cc: Karina Banales <[email protected]>; Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <[email protected]>; Robyn@CalOES Fennig <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Thank You
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Hello Samantha,
I hope that you had a good weekend.
I'm just following up to see if you've received the Benefit/Cost analysis, and/or if there's been any further discussion about the Voluntary Buyout Program? I'm happy to jump on a call, run through numbers, etc., if it's useful.
Thank you for your time. Have a good week.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 9:53 AM Matthew Fournier <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Samantha,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it.
That sounds good.
In the meantime, if you need any additional data/info, please feel free to let us know. We’ll try our best to get it to you.
Thank you for your time. Have a good week!
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Aug 11, 2025, at 9:48 AM, Samantha Crew <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning, Matthew
Thank you for reaching out and for your willingness to participate and provide additional information for this effort. At this time, Cal OES has not indicated that they require any further information, and they have been provided with all of the materials you previously supplied.
About a week and a half ago, staff met with the Cal OES team to discuss the Voluntary Buyout Program. They are currently working on the Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) and indicated that they hope to have an update for us by the first or second week of September. Once we receive their feedback, staff will follow up with you.
I hope all is well with you in the meantime, and we appreciate your patience as we await the next steps.
Sincerely,
Samantha Crew
Management Analyst
<Outlook-o2ka1ze3.jpg>
From: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 6:56 AM
To: Samantha Crew <[email protected]>
Cc: Karina Banales <[email protected]>; Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <[email protected]>; Fennig, Robyn@CalOES
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thank You
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Hello Everyone,
I hope that you had a good weekend, and that you're enjoying Summer.
I'm just following up to see if there's any other data/information that you need from us?
We're happy to jump on a call, if it's useful.
Thank you for your time. Have a good day. Take care.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 9:34 AM Matthew Fournier
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Samantha,
Thank you for your e-mail, effort and time. We appreciate it.
Have a good upcoming weekend. Take care.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 9:16 AM Samantha Crew <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning
Thank you for your assessment notes. We appreciate you taking the time to use the FEMA calculator tool and share your findings. Staff was in communication with Cal OES this morning and passed along your notes to support their ongoing efforts in conducting the Benefit-Cost Analysis.
We’re hopeful that the results will be available within the next couple of weeks, and we’ll be sure to keep you informed as soon as we hear back.
Thanks again for your time and effort. Wishing you a great weekend, we’ll be in touch soon.
Sincerely,
Samantha Crew
Management Analyst
<Outlook-ay1u3lgh.jpg>
From: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 10:50 AM
To: Karina Banales <[email protected]>; Samantha Crew <[email protected]>
Cc: Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Thank You
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Hello Karina and Samantha,
One note in those assumptions: Robyn said that the FEMA team will be using the "landslide" hazard type. I was just following her direction when using the calculator.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:29 AM Matthew Fournier
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Robyn,
Thank you for your reply.
No worries, that sounds good. (Moving you to "cc").
For the RH and Cal OES Modeling Teams, please see the attachments, which show Benefit/Cost analysis using the FEMA tool. My notes:
* For "Analysis Method Type", I used "Modeled Damages". * For "Project Cost", I said $6 million, with an annual maintenance cost of $5k (post-demolition, since it'd just be an open field at that point). * For "Total Building Area", I used what was stated on Zoom (4,488 square feet).
* For "Building Replacement Value", I modified the default. In California, as you know, building costs are very high. I watched a documentary last weekend about the California fires, and it discussed how building costs right now in Southern California can be over $1,500/square foot. In Rolling Hills, as you know, building costs can also be very high relative to other Southern California areas. So, this was my one notable adjustment relative to the FEMA Model (which was unrealistically low for California).
* I used the default for Contents Damage, Displacement Costs Avoided, Life Safety Costs. I assumed 3 displaced residents (Me, Jasmine, my son), 1 who is working (me).
* For "Ecosystem Services Losses Avoided", I said 100% Rural Green Open Space.
The result of the above is a benefit/cost ratio of 2.03. (This is higher than the previous 1.99 because I adjusted the house square footage to what's exactly stated on Zillow, as compared to just rounding to a simpler number).
Happy to chat with someone at some point in time, if necessary.
Regardless, thank you for your time. Have a good rest of the week. Take care!
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:16 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi MatthewThe program guidance for what is allowable and what documentation is acceptable to substantiate inputs is
pretty particular – there are requirements that must be met to go outside the required inputs for certain hazards and project types. My team is still working through that
documentation process with Karina and Samantha.
I’m not the person conducting the analysis – please
continue to communicate with Karina and Samantha so
that my team can be looped in!
Cheers,
Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers)
Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Alternate State Coordinating Officer DR-4856, LA Wildfires California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Cell: (916) 799-8660
Email: [email protected]
Click here to request a meeting with me
<image001.png>
From: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 9:36 AM
To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <[email protected]>
Cc: Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <[email protected]>; Karina Banales <[email protected]>; Samantha Crew <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Thank You
This Message is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Hello Robyn,
Thank you for your helpful reply, as always. Along with your patience.
I downloaded the FEMA Calculator. Does this online calculator assume the aforementioned 100 year "useful life"? Is this the exact calculator that you use?
My results came out with a benefit/cost ratio of 1.99.
I'm happy to walk through my assumptions, which I think are very reasonable and realistic.
Thank you for your time
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 9:25 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Matthew1.0 or greater - benefits equal to costs (or outweigh costs). Costs include the project costs and maintenance over the 100 year “useful life” that FEMA allocates per guidance for acquisition.
Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers)
Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Cell: (916) 799-8660
Email: [email protected]
Click here to request a meeting with me
From: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 8:58:15 AM
To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <[email protected]>
Cc: Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Thank You
This Message is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Good morning, Robyn.
We hope that you've been well.
Quick question: what benefit-to-cost ratio is needed for Cal OES (and FEMA) to approve the acquisition?
Thank you for your time. Have a good day!
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:22 PM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES
<[email protected]> wrote:
The water agency would likely have to come on record
with data showing that the pipe bursts were related to
land movement in order for us to attribute the damage
from pipe failure to the event. We’re conducting our
analysis with that assumption in mind.
From: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 12:35 PM
To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <[email protected]>
Cc: Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <[email protected]>; Samantha Crew <[email protected]>; Karina Banales <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Thank You
This Message is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Hello Robyn,
Very interesting, thank you!
Does the probability of a future hazard (as calculated by the software) take into account conditional probabilities? Ex: given the previous pipe breaks that have already occured, it increases the probability of future catastrophic events, etc.
No need to reply. Jasmine and I are somewhat nerdy, so this is partly just curiosity.
Have a good afternoon. Take care!
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 10:59 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES
<[email protected]> wrote:
Future damages – since the mitigation action is
acquisition and demolition, we can look at the avoided
damages associated with a catastrophic land failure
and home failure. The costs include the appraised value (not property value, since those are likely higher than the assessed value). We usually have to estimate that, but
getting some data about how the appraisals are coming
in for the RPV residents vs. what we estimated in the
subapplication is helpful!
-Robyn
Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers)
Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Alternate State Coordinating Officer DR-4856, LA Wildfires California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Cell: (916) 799-8660
Email: [email protected]
Click here to request a meeting with me
<image001.png>
From: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 10:52 AM
To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <[email protected]>
Cc: Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <[email protected]>; Samantha Crew <[email protected]>; Karina Banales <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Thank You
This Message is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Hello Robyn,
I hope that you had a good weekend.
Great, thank you, we appreciate it.
I'm guessing the software takes into account local property values, since that's what's directly impacted (homes across Rolling Hills, etc.)? (No need to respond).
Have a good week. Take care!
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 10:07 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES
<[email protected]> wrote:
Jasmine and MatthewThe Benefit-Cost Analysis must be conducted using FEMA software. The probability of a failure is based on geologic hazard data – specifically, the event must
come from a natural hazard cause to be eligible in our
programs. It’s an annual probability that will be factored into the calculations. We can no longer submit
narratives, as OMB removed that option with their policy rollback along with the increase of the discount rate to 7%.
Our team is working closely with the Rolling Hills staff to ensure we have everything captured. We appreciate
your willingness to ensure we have all of the information captured!
Thanks,
Robyn
Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers)
Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Alternate State Coordinating Officer DR-4856, LA
Wildfires
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Cell: (916) 799-8660
Email: [email protected]
Click here to request a meeting with me
<image001.png>
From: Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 11:17 AM
To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thank You
This Message is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Hi Robyn,
We apologize for all of these emails!
Matthew forgot to mention the most important point, which is:
* If there are about 600 homes in Rolling Hills, and the average prepipe-break price was about $4 million, then the property values in Rolling Hills would be about $2.4 billion.
* By buying out the highest risk homes on Cinchring, you could reduce the risk to the rest of the homes in Rolling Hills. Or, you could spend $X today to reduce the risk to $2.4 billion in home values (maybe more). Doing so would preserve the property tax base, which funds essential public services.
So, the cost/benefit to the home buyout program suggests that it's very much worth buying out the highest risk homes on Cinchring, in my opinion.
Thank you again for your time. Best wishes!
Sincerely,
Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier
On Sat, Jul 5, 2025 at 8:53 AM Matthew Fournier
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Robyn,
I hope that you had a good July 4th, and that you're enjoying a long weekend.
I apologize for all of the e-mails. This is our last intended e-mail on this subject.
I was talking with Jasmine, and we're wondering if it'd be useful for us to also provide some feedback on potential costs of Rolling Hills not purchasing 13 Cinchring through a Voluntary Home Buyout Program?
To us, here are some potential costs:
* As mentioned in the prior e-mail, 13 Cinchring has already experienced damage from pipe breaks, etc. Now that there are land fissures, sinkholes, and eroding hillsides, there are also immediate risks of landslides, etc. Thus, the damage and risks are existing and immediate.
* Since 13 Cinchring now faces an existing and immediate risk of home failure, then this could create a number of other risks for all of the homes on the Cinchring hillside. For example:
- Cinchring is located at the perimeter of the PV Nature Preserve.
There are fire risks in this area. A large fire in 1973 burned homes on the hillside, including 13 Cinchring and several other homes on Cinchring. Another fire in 2009 damaged several homes in the area, including 13 Cinchring. There have been other fires in the area in recent years. One concern: should 13 Cinchring fail and this impact the power lines in the area (since it's linked to the power grid), then this could trigger fire issues.
- Similarly, Cinchring has a septic tank. Home failure could dump sewage into the area.
- Additionally, Cinchring is obviously linked to the water system in the area. Home failure could cause water dumping on the hillside, triggering landslides, sinkholes, etc. This could impact all of the homes on the Cinchring and Quail Ridge hillside.
* What would be the dollar cost of this damage? In general, using broad assumptions:
- There are about 15 homes or so on Cinchring and Spur Lane. If the average pre-pipe-break home value was around $4 million, then that would represent $60 million in potential damages on Cinchring and Spur Lane. from fires, landslides, septic dumps, etc.
- Similarly, if there are an additional 8 homes or so on Quail Ridge with an average pre-pipe-break home value of $3.5 million, that would be potential damages of about $28 million or so.
- If there are 5 Crest Road homes (or so) on the immediate Cinchring hillside with an average pre-pipe-break value of $4
million, then that would be an additional $20 million of potential damages.
- Thus, a fire, landslide, and/or septic issue that impacts all of the homes on the Cinchring and Quail Ridge hillside could mean prepipe-break damages of $100 million+, under these basic assumptions.
In conclusion, the potential costs of not doing the buyout program are high. Allowing 13 Cinchring (and others) into the Home Buyout Program can reduce these risks to the broader hillside, saving the City and State money from future disasters, while allowing citizens to relocate today to new areas.
Thank you again for all of your time and effort, Robyn. I hope that you enjoy the rest of this weekend and don't see this e-mail until Monday. Take care.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 11:07 AM Matthew Fournier
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Robyn,
Thank you for your reply.
Yes, please feel free to share this information with your Technical Assistance team conducting the BCA.
We appreciate your time and effort. Have a good weekend! Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 10:55 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi MatthewThank you for taking the time to capture this in an email. I know we have discussed it in person during
my site visit in December 2024, as well as in
conversation since. Are you okay if I share this
information via email with my Technical Assistance
team conducting the BCA?
-Robyn
Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers)
Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Alternate State Coordinating Officer DR-4856, LA
Wildfires
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Cell: (916) 799-8660
Email: [email protected]
Click here to request a meeting with me
<image001.png>
From: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 10:34 AM
To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <[email protected]>
Cc: Jasmine Fournier <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thank You
This Message is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Hello Robyn,
I hope that you're having a good morning.
Also, my wife and I want to quickly write down the facts about 13 Cinchring, so that you have the necessary information when analyzing whether or not 13 Cinchring should be accepted by the Voluntary Property Buyout Program. In our opinion, the answer
is: yes, 13 Cinchring should be accepted by the Voluntary Property Buyout Program.
Existing and Immediate Damage + Failures:
* As you know, multiple pipe breaks resulted in
potentially 100,000+ (hundreds of thousands?) of gallons of water being dumped onto our property. This, in turn, resulted in our property being "pushed" down the hillside. For example, at least 2800 cubic feet of dirt from the top of our property was pushed down to fill the storm drain at the bottom of Cinchring after the pipe breaks. Again, more than 2800 cubic feet of property was dislodged and moved: some dirt was placed before the storm drain, some after the storm drain, etc. Thus, the damage that's already been done is notable and measurable. * Since the pipe breaks, 13 Cinchring and the nearby roads have already experienced sinkholes and fissures. Thus, there is existing damage, and an imminent risk of future landslides. * Since the pipe breaks, we've been experiencing slope failures in multiple locations. Thus, there is existing damage. This also points to the imminent risk of future landslides.
* Our garage and home have experienced floor, wall, ceiling, and beam cracking. Our own water pipes (as opposed to the
aforementioned City street pipe) have also recently been breaking. This represents current damage, while also pointing to the imminent risk of failure.
* Our home was de-energized for multiple months in the past year. Given this event, we're concerned that the home will again be de-energized by the utility companies and/or the City.
* As you know, 13 Cinchring is adjacent to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, making it easy to incorporate into this broader area. This is a positive of 13 Cinchring being accepted into the buyout program.
* As you know, 13 Cinchring is not located in a pre-existing, known landslide zone. What occurred was truly unexpected, and thus there's a stronger argument for emergency assistance for 13 Cinchring than other Southern California areas that are located in long-known landslide zones.
Summary:
In summary, 13 Cinchring has already experienced notable damage. It is also at risk of further imminent events such as landslides, de-energization, the home collapsing, etc. Since it wasn't part of a historical landslide zone, there's a stronger argument for assistance and acceptance into the Home Buyout Program than other homes located within previously well-known slide complexes.
If you have any questions/comments, please don't hesitate to contact us.
Thank you for your effort and time, and again, have a good rest of the week.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 8:35 AM Allison Smart
<[email protected]> wrote:
Replying all to add my mom to these emails. Please reply to her as well in the future. Thanks!
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 7:21 AM Matthew Fournier
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Robyn,
Thank you for your reply and time, as always.
Have a great rest of the week.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 7:22 PM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES
<[email protected]> wrote:
We unfortunately don’t have a choice in the matter - it’s an OMB directive to go back quite a bit in the changes to the BCA process across the board for all federal agencies.
Fingers crossed!
Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers)
Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Cell: (916) 799-8660
Email: [email protected]
Click here to request a meeting with me
From: Matthew Fournier <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 5:55:51 PM
To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <[email protected]>
Cc: Jasmine Fournier <[email protected]>; Allison Smart <[email protected]>; Waylon Smart
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thank You
This Message is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Hello Robyn,
Thank you for all of your time and effort working with
Rolling Hills. We really do appreciate it.
As an update, we received the related paperwork today. We'll be submitting it to Rolling Hills tomorrow, in person.
Also, one thing we're wondering: during the City Council meeting, you discussed the recent increase in the discount rate used for buyout analysis.
Since we: i) submitted an application to RPV; and ii)
requested that Rolling Hills submit our application prior to the increase in the discount rate, does this mean that our homes will be analyzed using the old (sub-4%?) discount rate, or the new (higher) discount rate?
We'd obviously argue for the lower discount rate, since that was the applicable rate when we applied.
Thank you for your time. Have a good night. Take care!
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 7:33 AM Matthew Fournier
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Robyn,
Thank you for your time and efforts last night at the Rolling Hills City Council meeting. We truly appreciate it.
If there's any way that we may be of assistance with next steps--for example, providing you with home data, etc.-- please don't hesitate to contact us.
Jasmine and I are, as you know, willing to be a part of the "Rolling Hills pilot program".
I've also included our neighbors, Allison and Waylon, in this e-mail.
Thank you again for all that you do, Robyn.
Sincerely,
Matthew Fournier
WARNING: Do not click links or attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the email is safe.
WARNING: Do not click links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the email is safe.
--
Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier
(650) 269-6333
Item: 14.C.
Meeting Date: 9/22/2025
To: City Council
From: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Receive a verbal update on Planning Department Recruitment(s) Background:
None.
Discussion:
None.
Fiscal Impact:
None at this time.
Recommendation:
Receive a verbal update
Attachments:
None