Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC SR 20241217 G - Border Issues
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 12/17/2024 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar AGENDA TITLE: Consideration and possible action to review the 2024 Border Issues report. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Receive and file a report on the status of Border Issues for 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Megan Barnes, Senior Administrative Analyst REVIEWED BY: Catherine Jun, Deputy City Manager APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. April 2024 Daily Breeze article on Rancho LPG (page A -1) B. April 3, 2024 Los Angeles City Council motion regarding Rancho LPG (page B-1) C. December 2024 Daily Breeze article on Rancho LPG (page C-1) D. October 2024 Daily Breeze article on West Harbor (page D-1) E. Port of Los Angeles Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the West Harbor Modification Project (page E-1) F. June 2024 Daily Breeze article on Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project (page F-1) G. February 27, 2024 Palos Verdes Estates City Council staff report (page G-1) H. June 4, 2024 Palos Verdes Estates Traffic Safety Committee staff report (page H- 1) I. July 23, 2024 Palos Verdes Estates City Council staff report (page I-1) J. August 13, 2024 Rolling Hills Estates City Council staff report (page J -1) K. July 15, 2024 comment letter on Vincent Thomas Bridge Deck Replacement Project (page K-1) L. January 23, 2024 Rolling Hills Estates City Council staff report (page L-1) M. March 12, 2024 Rolling Hills Estates City Council staff report (page M-1) N. November 12, 2024 Rolling Hills Estates City Council staff report (page N-1) ____________________________________________________________________ 1 CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES BACKGROUND: Twice a year, Staff presents the City Council with a report on various development projects along the City’s borders that may potentially affect residents and businesses of Rancho Palos Verdes. These “Border Issues” reports are typically presented at the second City Council meeting in June and December. However, due to diverting Staff resources to the landslide emergency, Staff has consolidated the June and December 2024 reports into one. Staff will return to the twice-yearly reporting schedule starting June 2025.Tonight’s report covers the following issues: Palos Verdes Estates: • Palos Verdes Drive West Corridor Project Rolling Hills: • Rancho Del Mar Affordable Housing Overlay Zone • Proposed residence at 77 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills Estates: • George F Canyon Nature Center Renovation Project • The Brickwalk Residences • The Residences at Peninsula Center Los Angeles / San Pedro: • Proposed leasing of the Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro for commercial fueling operations • Ponte Vista development on a former Navy housing site on Western Avenue • Issues and events related to the Rancho LPG butane storage facility • San Pedro Waterfront Project (West Harbor) • Proposed Starbucks drive-thru at 28110 South Western Avenue Torrance: • 248-unit Butcher Solana apartment project at Hawthorne Boulevard and Via Valmonte • Proposed 18-unit mixed-use development on Hawthorne Boulevard near Rolling Hills Road • Proposed 11-unit mixed-use residential development at 24601 Hawthorne Boulevard Intercity Projects: • Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project • Proposed Caltrans Vincent Thomas Bridge Deck Replacement Project The full current status report and archived reports are available on the City’s website at: http://www.rpvca.gov/781/Border-Issues-Status-Report 2 DISCUSSION: Current Border Issues Butcher Solana Residential Development Project (Torrance) There has been no change in the status of the proposed Butcher Solana apartment project at the southwest corner of Hawthorne Boulevard and Via Valmonte, which would consist of 248 one- and two-bedroom apartments in three five-story buildings with 484 parking spaces in a six-story structure. According to the City of Torrance, in mid-September 2019, the project developer notified planning staff that it was putting the project on hold while it reviewed more than 690 comment letters on the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which was released in June 2019. Concerns raised by City staff and the other Peninsula cities included traffic impacts, adequacy of parking, inconsistencies throughout the document, purportedly outdated information, and erroneous analyses. Planning staff for the City of Torrance has indicated that as of December 2024, the project remains on hold. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. Additional information about the project is available on the City of Torrance’s website at https://www.torranceca.gov/our-city/community-development/planning/butcher-solana. Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro (Los Angeles (San Pedro)) Negotiations remain ongoing for two leases for Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro (DFSP), the sprawling, inactive U.S. Navy fuel tank farm on North Gaffey Street (which borders the City on a stretch of Western Avenue) and an 8-acre Marine Terminal about five miles southeast in the Port of Long Beach. According to the Navy, the Marine Terminal lease is expected to be signed in summer or fall 2025. For the Main Terminal, the Navy determined that additional environmental review is needed. This analysis is anticipated to take 9-12 months to complete. The signing of a Main Terminal outlease could take place as soon as late 2025 or early 2026. No additional information about the leases is available due to Department of Defense solicitation regulations. Once they are signed, the Navy will be able to provide additional information. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. Ponte Vista (formerly Highpark) Project (Los Angeles (San Pedro)) Home building continues at Ponte Vista, the 676-unit project on 61.4 acres of former Navy property along Western Avenue in San Pedro across from Green Hills Memorial Park, and consists of single-family homes, townhomes, and flats. 3 According to master developer Harridge Development Group, almost all areas of Ponte Vista are in various phases of construction. As of August 2024, 351 homes (about half of the overall development) were sold and occupied. Staff has requested an update and will share it as late correspondence if received prior to tonight’s meeting. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro) In April 2024, Los Angeles City Councilmember Tim McOsker introduced a motion calling for a study evaluating the cost and timeline for closing Rancho LPG, the facility on North Gaffey Street in San Pedro, where 25 million gallons of butane are stored in two aboveground tanks. Another five horizontal storage tanks each hold 60,000 gallons of propane (Attachment A). Rancho LPG has long been the subject of concerns from residents of San Pedro, the Eastview area of Rancho Palos Verdes, and others about safety and the potential for a catastrophic explosion. Plains All American Pipeline, which owns the facility, has defended its safety record and procedures. Councilmember McOsker noted that while many motions have been introduced over the years to address Rancho LPG, “it is time for the City Council to seek an amortization study that can provide the expert information that can lead to the termination of the Rancho LPG Facility use and well as help address the remediation of the site for the safety of local residents and the greater Los Angeles community.” (Attachment B) In response, a spokesperson for Plains All American Pipeline told the Daily Breeze that the facility has “safely operated for more than 40 years with ongoing oversight from multiple local, state, and federal regulators” and “made numerous upgrades and safety enhancements since we purchased the site in 2008. We remain committed to safe operations in the community.” On December 3, 2024, the Los Angeles City Council’s Trade, Travel and Tourism Committee discussed a report from the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) regarding the inspection, oversight, public safety measures, and resource needs for Rancho LPG. LAFD staff explained that the facility undergoes various regular inspections, including inspections that require the tanks to be emptied every three years. The inspections have found that the facility is in compliance with the fire code. LAFD acknowledged that multiple violations have been discovered over the years, but stated they were minor in nature. Councilmember McOsker expressed skepticism that the inspections can adequately assess the safety of the facility and the potential for a catastrophic explosion, noting that Rancho LPG was built in 1973 for a 25-year lifespan. According to the Daily Breeze, he reiterated his intent to shut down the facility and persuaded his colleagues to unanimously reject the report so that it could move more immediately to a hearing before the full City Council (Attachment C). No date has been set for the City Council hearing. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. 4 San Pedro Waterfront Project (West Harbor) (Port of Los Angeles) Construction continues on the West Harbor development at the site of the former Ports O’ Call Village in San Pedro, which will include 375,000 square feet of restaurants, retail, office, open space, and entertainment over 42 acres. The first building in the new development was completed over the summer . In October 2024, the Daily Breeze reported that West Harbor plans to add a 150-foot Ferris wheel and amusement attractions, such as a carousel, wave swings and a possible drop tower or other mechanical rides (Attachment D). The Battleship Iowa is no longer planned to be part of West Harbor due to the high costs of relocating the WWII -era battleship from its current location in the cruise ship terminal in the Port of Los Angeles. On November 6, 2024, the Port of Los Angeles released a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) studying a proposed 6,200-seat, 100,000- square-foot-amphitheater on 2.1 acres of Port property leased to West Harbor, as well as a nearby 2,600-stall parking lot (Attachment E). The amphitheater would host approximately 100 paid events per year, generally from April through November. It is Staff’s understanding that the stage speakers would face south toward the ocean and away from residential neighborhoods to minimize noise impa cts. In addition to concerts, 25 offshore barge fireworks displays per year are proposed. The Draft SEIR found that the project would result in significant, unavoidable impacts related to air quality, including greenhouse gases, noise and transportation. Staff will review the analysis and submit a comment letter on behalf of the City by the January 10, 2025 deadline. In May 2022, the City submitted comments (PDF) on the Notice of Preparation for the SEIR raising concerns about noise and environmental impacts from concerts and fireworks displays. The West Harbor development is expected to open in phases starting in 2025, with a grand opening celebration planned for 2026. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. Mixed-Use Residential Development at 24601 Hawthorne Boulevard (Torrance) There has been no change in the status of the proposed mixed-use development on the northwest corner of Hawthorne Boulevard and Via Valmonte in the City of Torrance (across from the Butcher-Solana project). Located at 24601 Hawthorne Boulevard, the proposed project consists of an 11-unit, two-story multiple-family residential building over a semi-subterranean parking garage, and a three-story office building. On October 6, 2021, the Torrance Planning Commission was scheduled to review a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and consider approving a Conditional Use Permit 5 for the project. However, the project developer, Ashai Design Consulting Corporation, agreed to continue the Planning Commission hearing indefinitely to conduct public outreach regarding traffic, density, and neighborhood compatibility concerns from nearby residents, including those in the Valmonte neighborhood . It is Staff’s understanding that Ashai Design has taken public feedback received at outreach meetings into consideration, but that no new Planning Commission hearing date has been set at this time. It is also unknown at this time whether project revisions will occur. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. Rancho Del Mar Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (Rolling Hills) There has been no change in the status of the Rancho Del Mar Affordable Housing Overlay Zone in the City of Rolling Hills, a mixed-use, multi-family overlay zone on a 31- acre site owned by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) at 38 Crest Road West, which is included in Rolling Hills’ 6th Cycle Housing Element. The overlay zone allows the addition of up to 16 multi-family units by-right, including low- and very low-income units, in an area west of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA) facility. According to staff at the City of Rolling Hills, the city previously received informal inquiries about developing the site. However, no plans have been submitted. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project (Caltrans) In June 2024, Caltrans hosted a virtual public meeting regarding the Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project, which aims to enhance connectivity and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians along Western Avenue from 25th Street in San Pedro, to the 405 Freeway in Torrance (Attachment F). In addition to installing bike lanes along this stretch of Western Avenue, the project includes curb ramps compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and pavement markings to create a northbound right-turn lane at Westmont Drive/Delasonde Drive. This portion of Western Avenue is owned, operated, and maintained by Caltrans as part of the state highway system. The City has no jurisdiction over Western Avenue, but can share feedback and public concerns with Caltrans. Staff attended the virtual meeting, where residents of cities traversed by Western Avenue expressed frustration with Caltrans over a lack of outreach about the project. This included criticism from Los Angeles City Councilmember Tim McOsker, who represents San Pedro and Harbor City. Over the past few years, City Staff has also experienced difficulty obtaining information and updates from Caltrans about th is project. As part of the project, in October 2024, Caltrans closed a left-turn pocket along the northbound lanes of Western Avenue at 1st Street and placed channelizers to enhance 6 traffic flow. A change in striping was implemented to allow crews to safely work in the median. This area was expected to be restriped back to the original condition this week. According to Los Angeles City Councilmember Tim McOsker’s office, completion of the work is anticipated in January. At that time, bike lanes will be added, but the number of car lanes will not be reduced, and electrical work will be finalized . Staff has reached out to Caltrans for clarification on when construction on the bike lanes will begin, as Caltrans previously indicated that construction on the bicycle lanes is not expected to begin until winter 2026 and will take approximately two years to complete. Staff continues to request Caltrans provide the City advance notice of work that will have traffic impacts. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports . Palos Verdes Drive West Corridor Project (Palos Verdes Estates) On February 27, 2024, the Palos Verdes Estates City Council considered recommendations from the Traffic Safety Committee regarding the Palos Verdes Drive West Corridor Project, which aims to alleviate traffic congestion along the Palos Verdes Drive West corridor, including its intersections with Via Corta and Palos Verdes Drive North (Attachment G). The City Council directed city staff to evaluate and provide feedback on Option A of the recommended evaluations of traffic alternatives, which called for evaluating traffic improvements at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive West/Via Corta and the existing configuration at Palos Verdes Drive West/Palos Verdes Drive North (the “Triangle”). The City Council requested an evaluation of the proposed improvements, including costs, various traffic impacts and potential applicability of existing Metro funding. Based on that evaluation, on June 4, 2024, the Traffic Safety Committee made the following recommendations to the City Council (Attachment H): • Widen eastbound PVDW west of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection by narrowing the median and flaring the intersection at PVDW/Via del Puente to allow for this lane widening. • Restrict eastbound traffic on the Upper Barrel east of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection to right turns only by installing a raised diverter median. • Modify the existing westbound right-turn lane approach on PVDW east of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection to allow through and right -turn movements. • Add the “DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION” sign west of the PVDW/Via del Puente intersection for eastbound traffic. • Add a curb extension at the southeast corner of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians PVDW east of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection. • Remove the parking stalls on the eastbound side of PVDW from east of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection to west of the PVDW/Via Chico intersection. • Add on-street parking to the south side of the existing raised median, which is on the north side of the Upper Barrel and across from City Hall. • Remove the two westernmost parking stalls on the westbound traffic/north side of Palos Verdes Drive West next to/in the right-turn lane. 7 The City Council considered these recommendations on July 23, 2024 (Attachment I), directing staff to coordinate with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments and Metro to review eligibility of the existing Measure M grant funding for the conceptual scope of work discussed that night. Staff will report back to the City Council at a future meeting once the eligibility of the Measure M grant funding is determined. The conceptual scope of work is not final and is still under consideration by City Council. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. George F Canyon Nature Center Renovation Project (Rolling Hills Estates) In May 2024, the City of Rolling Hills Estates issued a request for bids for the demolition of the aging George F Canyon Nature Center on the southwest corner of Palos Verdes Drive North and Palos Verdes Drive East and the construction of a new nature center/community center. Only very minor changes have been made to the project since it was approved by the Rolling Hills Estates City Council in August 2022 due to structural and fire department requirements. The project will include a single-level, 1,750-square-foot nature center/community room building with a viewing deck, a 1,000 -square-foot outdoor classroom area with a photovoltaic (PV) shade canopy, storage enclosures, a boardwalk with a canyon overlook, privacy screen, community-preferred fencing, gate, and associated parking and drop-off spaces, increasing the overall size of the facility to 3,290 square feet. The outdoor amphitheater will remain and b e accessed by a new boardwalk ramp from a central court between the nature center and the covered outdoor classroom area. The overall project has been downsized from a 5,500 -square-foot version that was considered in 2019. Two construction bids came in for the project, each at over $5 million. Due to rising materials and labor costs, the bids were much higher than the $2.8 million estimated by the project architect. On August 13, 2024, the Rolling Hills Estates City Council directed city staff to reject the bids and re-bid the project with “Additive Alternatives” to potentially break it into phases by deferring the outdoor classroom and canyon gateway ramp to be constructed at a later time (Attachment J). If the new bids are too high and/or additional funds have not been secured, these components could be deferred, and at a minimum, the new nature center building, parking lot and landscaping could be constructed. It is Staff’s understanding that due to limited funding availability, the city has not yet re- bid the project, but aims to do so in the coming months. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. Starbucks Drive-Thru at 28110 South Western Avenue (Los Angeles (San Pedro)) According to the Kaidence Group, a Phoenix-based commercial real estate developer, no applications have been filed to the City of Los Angeles for a proposed Starbucks drive- 8 thru in the Garden Village Shopping Center in San Pedro on Western Avenue just north of Westmont Drive. However, the developer is still exploring opportunities in the shopping center. The Kaidence Group previously planned to build a 2,178-square-foot Starbucks drive- thru on the site of a vacant bank building but withdrew its application in May 2023 . Then, Kaidence considered the site of a vacant Coco’s restaurant space in the southwest corner of the shopping center. It is not clear when an application could be filed and for what area of the shopping center. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. Mixed-Use Residential Development on Hawthorne Boulevard Near Rolling Hills Road (Torrance) According to City of Torrance planning staff, the application for a proposed 18-unit apartment mixed-use development along the east side of Hawthorne Boulevard just north of Rolling Hills Road was deemed incomplete, and there are no new updates. In 2022, silhouettes went up outlining the visual impacts of the proposed project, including 5,745 square feet of office space. The site is located on seven vacant parcels within the city’s Hillside Overlay Area. It is Staff’s understanding that the project will not require an environmental review, because it meets the parameters of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332, meaning it is considered an “infill” development project. This exemption is intended to promote infill development, which is defined by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research as “building within unused and underutilized lands within existing development patterns, typically but not exclusively in urban areas.” Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. 77 Portuguese Bend Road (Rolling Hills) There has been no change in the status of the proposed residential development located at 77 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills (referred to as the Shen Residence). The proposed project consists of the construction of an 8,847 -square-foot single-family residence, a 2,427-square-foot guesthouse, a 2,766-square-foot pool area, and the re- alignment and potential modification of an existing road and driveway into the ease ment area located between residences at 73 and 74 Portuguese Bend Road. The home would include two two-car garages, four bedrooms, four bathrooms and two half -bathrooms. Amenities would include an open central courtyard, a gym/workshop, a breakfast nook, a laundry room, and a pantry. The guesthouse would include an open pond courtyard, one bedroom, one bathroom and one half-bathroom. The pool area would include a swimming 9 pool with a pool gate, jacuzzi, walkway, and pool deck. The proposed project would also include a 450-square-foot stable, a 550-square-foot corral, and a trash enclosure near the northern boundary of the project footprint. The City previously provided comments on a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an initial study and mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) for the project that was released by the City of Rolling Hills in December 2022. Rolling Hills planning staff previously indicated that the next step was for the applicant’s geotechnical engineer to review and prepare responses to comments. It was Staff's understanding that there was a possibility that the project notice may be reissued due to information that needed to be corrected and updated. This would give Community Development Department Staff another opportunity to provide comments. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. Vincent Thomas Bridge Deck Replacement Project (Caltrans) In July 2024, Staff submitted a comment letter to Caltrans on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) for the Vincent Thomas Bridge Deck Replacement Project (Attachment K). The project aims to preserve the 60-year-old suspension bridge’s structural integrity and enhance overall safety by replacing the deck and upgrading barriers, railings, and seismic sensors. This work will require a long-term bridge closure that will result in major traffic impacts to commuters, including those traveling between the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Long Beach/Orange County. The City’s comment letter noted that while none of the proposed staging options in the Draft EIR/EA was desirable, the City preferred the one with the shortest duration: the single-stage proposal lasting 16 months with 24/7 work using orthotropic or pre -cast construction. The letter also re-iterated concerns about traffic and air quality impacts and stressed that every measure be taken to ensure the project is on or ahead of schedule and to minimize disruptions and quality-of-life impacts to commuters and neighborhoods along detour routes. In October 2024, Caltrans released the Final EIR/EA for the project, which identified the single-stage, full bridge closure as the preferred construction staging option. The document is available at the following link: https://virtualeventroom.com/caltrans/vtb/ Construction is anticipated to begin in late 2025 or early 2026. Caltrans is hosting open houses in San Pedro, Wilmington, and online to inform the community on construction and its impacts on neighborhoods and commutes. A Traffic Management Plan Task Force was formed to receive input and develop Caltrans’ plan to detour traffic around the closure and divert traffic onto freeways. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. 10 New Border Issues The Brickwalk Residences (Rolling Hills Estates) On January 23, 2024, the Rolling Hills Estates City Council received a presentation regarding a 407-unit mixed-use development proposed for Indian Peak Road and Deep Valley Drive near Crenshaw Boulevard on the city’s border with Rancho Palos Verdes. Proposed by property owner Rolling Hills Capital, LLC, the project calls for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of 407 residential units (including 29 very low-income units, qualifying for a 30% density bonus) in three eight-story buildings and one six-story building on a 10.42-acre site located at 655- 815 Deep Valley Drive and 924- 950 Indian Peak Road, where a landslide occurred in 1997. Additionally, 3,249 square feet of retail and 503 parking spaces are proposed. An 8-acre portion of the site is identified as an Opportunity Area in the land use element of the city’s 2040 General Plan, which considers infill and redevelopment potential in five areas in the city’s Commercial District. The proposed residential development is called the Brickwalk Residences , and all units would be for rent. This includes 245 one-bedroom/one-bathroom units, 83 two- bedroom/two-bathroom units, and 79 three-bedroom/three-bathroom units. Access and improvements at the Indian Peak Road site will require coordination with the City o f Rancho Palos Verdes as Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard are within our City’s jurisdiction. To accommodate the density bonus and proposed height maximum of 96.5 feet, the developer is requesting a waiver for the site’s 44-foot height limit. A staff report with project plans and renderings are included in this report as Attachment L. Rolling Hills Capital, LLC submitted a preliminary application for the project under Senate Bill No. 330 on February 7, 2024, and a development application on August 5, 2024. The Rolling Hills Estates City Council is expected to consider a professional services agreement for environmental review-related work for this project at a future meeting. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. The Residences at Peninsula Center (Rolling Hills Estates) 11 On March 14, 2023, the Rolling Hills Estates City Council received a “first look” presentation regarding a proposal to build a 90-unit residential development on a 2- acre portion of the Peninsula Shopping Center, located at 27525 Norris Center Drive. Proposed by Phoenix-based real estate development company Vestar, the project calls for the demolition of an existing 7,000-square-foot building and the construction of 90 units in a 206,514-square- foot, five-story podium structure with a maximum overall height of 68 feet. The proposed residential development is called The Residences at Peninsula Center and all units would be for rent. This includes 57 one-bedroom units and 33 two-bedroom units, with 15% of the units reserved for moderate income households (9 units total). The project would provide a total of 240 parking spaces, with 85 spaces provided as shared public/private parking on the ground floor. On March 12, 2024, the Council conducted a preliminary review of the project’s community benefits and amenities proposed as part of the project , determining that the proposed community benefits qualify for bonus-level development. A staff report with project plans and renderings are included in this report as Attachment M. On July 9, 2024, the Council adopted an ordinance approving amendments to Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code to establish consistency with the 2040 General Plan. As part of this action, the entirety of the Commercial District was redesignated from the Commercial General (C-G)/Mixed-Use Overlay (MU) zoning district to the Commercial General Mixed-Use (CGMU) District. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the project on August 5, 2024. The hearing was continued to September 3 and again to October 7. Ultimately, the Planning Commission was unable to reach a majority consensus on whether to recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the project to the City Council, and consequently made no recommendation. On November 12, 2024, the Rolling Hills Estates City Council approved the development applications for the project and introduced an ordinance to approve the development agreement (Attachment N). A second reading for the ordinance was scheduled for December 10, 2024. Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. 12 A-1 SANPEDRO McOsker eyes ouster of gas facility Study on butane, propane storage site could be step toward removal after years of complaints BY DONNA LITTLEJOHN DLITTLEJOHN@SCNG.COM It's been described by critics as San Pedro's "ticking time bomb." Officials, however, have said through the years that safety measures are in place and it passes frequent inspections . A-2 The butane and propane facility, Rancho LPG, has operated near the Port of Los Angeles for more than 50 years adjacent to homes, businesses and schools. For more than two decades, resident-led efforts to force out the storage facility at 2110 N. Gaffey St. in San Pedro have repeatedly failed. Despite the support of numerous area lawmakers through the years, there appears to be no option to move the facility. It's been in operation since the early 1970s (under a different owner). Owners say they'd be looking at millions of dollars to move out of the area. Rancho LPG LLC Holdings Facility sits on private property with a long-term lease and has been subject to frequent inspections that have found it in compliance with safety laws. It includes two aboveground 12.5 million-gallon refrigerated tanks and five aboveground 60,000-gallon horizontal storage tanks. But Los Angeles Councilmember Tim McOsker, since taking office nearly a year and a half ago, has embarked on a push to end butane and propane storage on the property. McOsker introduced a motion on Tuesday calling for the city to explore requesting an amortization study to provide information he said "can lead to the termination of the use and help address the remediation of the site for the safety of local residents and the greater Los Angeles community." The company, based in Texas, pointed to Rancho's safety record through a spokesperson. "Rancho LPG has safely operated for more than 40 years with ongoing oversight from multiple local, state, and federal regulators," said spokesperson Morgan Ash in a written comment. "We've made numerous upgrades and safety enhancements since we purchased the site in 2008. We remain committed to safe operations in the community." As a first step, McOsker's motion requests a report back on the feasibility of amending current city land use codes in connection with health impacts at oil and gas wells and drill sites to apply to the Rancho facility. The councilmember points to a City Council motion from 2017 that led to a policy adoption and budget considerations relative to amortization studies as the city phases out oil and gas land uses and production within the city. McOsker argues that Rancho, while not a drill site, should still fall under that policy for several reasons: • The site fails to meet the setback requirements of 200 feet from neighboring land use. • It's surrounded on all sides by uses that include an oil refinery, a soccer field and businesses. A-3 • Rancho LPG failed to get the required permits in a timely fashion from the South Coast Air Quality Management District after it became the owner of the facility. "Multiple motions have attempted to address this facility," McOskerwrote in the request. "It is time for the City Council to seek an amortization study that can provide the expert information that can lead to the termination of the Rancho LPG Facility use as well as help address the remediation of the site for the safety of local residents and the greater Los Angeles community." McOsker' s motion requests that the Office of Petroleum and Natural Gas Administration and Safety-in coordination with the Department of City Planning, the Los Angeles Fire Department, and the City Administrative Officer-"expeditiously report on the cost and timeline associated to conduct an amortization study related to termination of the Rancho LPG Facility use. The results of the study should be used to inform policy and decisions related to the future of the site and its land use." Earlier, questions from critics were directed to the Port of Los Angeles regarding a port rail spur used for the products at Rancho. Port responses to those inquiries said it cannot impose restrictions on those operations as rail carriers have "not only a right, but a statutory common carrier obligation, to transport hazardous materials upon reasonable requests" and thus those requests for restrictions are preempted, a port statement said. Janet Schaaf-Gunter of San Pedro Homeowners United expressed encouragement after spending 20 years in the movement to move the tanks. "A litany of elected representatives have for years feigned their concerns about the facility without engaging in any serious effort to address that risk," she said in a written comment. "At least ... until now." McOsker's motion, seconded by Councilmember Heather Hutt, was referred to the council's Energy and Environment Committee. Led initially by a coalition of homeowners groups and neighborhood councilmembers, the longstanding effort to force the company to move its operation has sparked various protests, studies and community meetings through the years. Critics, including former Los Angeles Unified School District board member Richard Vladovic in 2014, have said the chance of an accident can never be predicted. "Folks, accidents happen," Vladovic said at a 2013 meeting held at Taper Avenue Elementary School that is within sight of the tanks. "You couldn't build that here today." A-4 A terrorism risk expert at that meeting, Carl Southwell, said while it's "highly unlikely to occur," a deadly accident is possible. "I think the best response to a disaster is to prevent it." Recent events, Schaaf-Gunter added, may now be drawing more attention to the issue. "With the convergence of the Baltimore bridge collapse and now the 7.4 quake in Taiwan, there appears to be a bit more concern about the hard reality of the Rancho LPG facility and its highly explosive opportunity," Schaaf-Gunter said, noting also the earthquake faults that through the L.A. coastal zone. In his motion, McOsker said the most recent studies conducted "indicate that a catastrophic incident at the Rancho LPG Facility, with a release of butane, could potentially cause more than 2,500 deaths and 12,500 injuries and also major destruction for the Port of Los Angeles and its infrastructure." In 2014, federal officials from anti-terrorism and environmental protection departments assured some 200 residents that Rancho LPGwas in full compliance with U.S. regulations. The forum was organized by then-U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Manhattan Beach. B-1 • I ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT MOTION On April 19, 2017, a Los Angeles City Council Motion (Council File No. 17-0447) was introduced to report back on the feasibility of amending current city land use codes in connection with health impacts at oil and gas wells and drill sites. The Board of Public Works, Office of Petroleum and Natural Gas Administration and Safety (OPNGAS) staff conducted an extensive inventory of oil and gas facilities within the City, participated in a public hearing at the Los Angeles City Health Commission, collected historical records from multiple private and public databases, held dozens of meetings with numerous agencies, and retained a consultant to study the potential health impacts at oil and gas wells and drill sites. This effort has led to policy adoption and budgetary considerations relative to amortization studies as the City Council continues to lead on the phasing out of oil and gas land uses and production within the City of Los Angeles. Due to the continued community concern for environmental and public health and safety- the same standard applied for oil and gas wells should be applied when it comes to sites such as the Rancho LPG facility located in San Pedro. The Rancho LPG 1) fails to meet the setback requirements of 200 ft. from neighboring land use, 2) is surrounded by uses on all sides including an oil refinery, a soccer field, and businesses, and 3) has failed to get the required permits in a timely fashion from the South Coast Air Quality Management Division (SCAQMD) after it became the owner of the facility. The most recent studies conducted for this site indicate that a catastrophic incident at the Rancho LPG Facility, with a release of butane, could potentially cause more than 2,500 deaths, and 12,500 injuries and also major destruction for the Port of Los Angeles and its related infrastructure. According to a 2023 petition to the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of the San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, Inc. and the Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation, no risk analysis was ever performed for the site. Neighborhoods and schools that existed at the time of the 1973 installation of the facility ( within 1,000 to 2,000 feet) were ignored by the Environmental Impact Reports prepared in conjunction with the building of this facility. Studies and records gathered from the Department of City Planning (DCP) indicate that the storage tanks within the Rancho LPG facility are located on the active Palos Verdes Fault (magnitude 7.3) and in a recorded Earthquake Rupture Zone (with a convergence of multiple faults) on a United States Geological Survey (USGS) identified Landslide, Liquefaction and Methane Areas. Multiple motions have attempted to address this facility-it is time for the City Council to seek an amortization study that can provide the expert information that can lead to the termination of the Rancho LPG Facility use and well as help address the remediation of the site for the safety of local residents and the greater Los Angeles community . ~ APRz a 2-2024- B-2 I THEREFORE MOVE that the Board of Public Works bureaus, specifically the Office of Petroleum and Natural Gas Administration and Safety (OPNGAS), in coordination with the Department of City Planning (DCP), the Los Angeles Fire Department, and the City Administrative Officer, to expeditiously report on the cost and timeline associated to conduct an amortization study related to termination of the Rancho LPG Facility use. The results of the study should be used to inform policy and decisions related to the future of the site and its land use. PRESENTED BY: TI ~ ~. Councilmember, 15 th Dis ~; y ... ~ SECONDED BY: ~ · i APR D 2 2/JM. C-1 SANPEDRO McOsker pushes gas site closure Los Angeles council member steps up effort to shut down Rancho LPG storage facility BY DONNA LITTLEJOHN DLITTLEJOHN@SCNG.COM Los Angeles City Councilmember Tim McOsker hit the accelerator this week in his ongoing challenge to the Rancho LPG storage tank facility in San Pedro that critics have called "a ticking time bomb," despite city fire officials and the company saying the building complies with safety regulations. Los Angeles fire officials were among those who testified this week during a meeting of the City Council's Trade, Travel and Tourism Committee, outlining the inspections the agency has regularly carried out at the San Pedro facility, 2110 N. Gaffey St. But McOsker, a member of the committee, successfully urged his colleagues to unanimously reject the reports so the issue could move more immediately to a hearing before the full City Council. In April, McOsker introduced a motion calling for a study evaluating the cost and timeline for closing the butane and gas storage facility that has been operating since 1973 . It was built by Petrolane Inc . of Long Beach. The plant "is closing down," McOsker pledged at one point during the committee meeting. The Rancho LPG LLC Holdings Facility sits on private property with a long-term lease and has been subject to frequent inspections, all of which have found it complied with safety laws . The property includes two above-ground 12.5 million gallon refrigerated tanks and five above-ground 60,000-gallon horizontal storage tanks. For more than two decades residents battled the facility, often with support from the area's elected officials but with little resolution. "Fifty-two years later it's still sitting here ," said one of those residents who spoke at the meeting, Janet Schaaf-Gunter, of San Pedro Homeowners United "This is not right," she added. "It's got to go." C-2 When McOsker, an attorney, took office nearly two years ago, the tanks were among the issues he wanted to pursue. In a telephone interview Wednesday, McOsker reiterated his intentions to see the facility shuttered or moved. "My goal is to shut down the facility," he said. "This matter has been the subject of at least a dozen motions in the past 12 years. There's been a lot of effort put into trying to conform this use to its surrounding uses or to change this use to make it more compatible. "I don't want to give the impression this is an easy task," McOsker added, "but I want to leave no stone unturned and want to look at every reasonable and lawful means to shut this facility down and make that land more compatible with the surrounding (residential) uses." But Plains All American Pipeline -Rancho LPG's parent company-said in a written statement the facility complies with the fire code and other current operating rules. "Rancho LPG has safely operated for more than 40 years," the company said, "with continued oversight from the City of Los Angeles, plus state and federal regulators." Ongoing Rancho LPG inspections, including emptying the tanks every three years, are conducted, fire officials said at the committee's Tuesday meeting, adding that the facility complies with the 2024 fire code. McOsker remained skeptical, taking issue with the plant's age, saying the 1973 tanks were built with a 25-year lifespan in mind and, in case of an explosion, could take out homes and schools for miles around. The facility is also close to the Port of Los Angeles. "We keep hearing this complies with the 2024 code," McOsker said, "but I don't know how that's possible. "My guess is it's impossible (to certify current safety) without a complete renovation of that facility," McOsker also said during the meeting. "I'm not buying this, that they're compliant with the 2024 fire code." L.A. City Fire Inspector Alvin Dong of the department's Certified Unified Program Agency, told the committee there have been violations at the facility "over time," but most were considered minor. Any issues, he added, must be corrected "immediately" or else the facility can be shut down. The plant is in compliance, officials said. An October Fire Department report advocated for recruiting "process safety engineers" and supporting legislative measures to enhance compliance enforcement of the facility. "Inspections are very detailed," Dong said at the meeting. C-3 McOsker, though, said separate minor issues could become a bigger cumulative problem that could lead to a "catastrophic incident." He noted that hundreds of children play at nearby soccer fields. "How do you characterize 'a very small number' of violations?" McOsker said. "Where's the tipping point?" McOsker still needs "very clear" details about those violations, the council member said Wednesday. McOsker said he hopes to get those details at the City Council level when Fire Department officials and others will be asked to testify. As for the age of the facility, Dong said it is still in good condition. "Although this was built 50 years ago, its materials are still almost as good as day one," he said. "(We have) housing built 50 years ago that never gets inspected, and we still live in these houses. But these facilities, because they have hazardous materials, are inspected regularly and audited, and I am confident this facility meets current standards." In its statement, Rancho LPG's parent company also said the facility has had several safety renovations since it took over the site 16 years ago. "We have made numerous upgrades and safety enhancements since we purchased the site in 2008," the statement said. "We remain committed to being a part of the community and to continued safe operations of Rancho LPG." McOsker, though, also raised questions directed to the Port of Los Angeles about the rail spur used for Rancho products. He remained unconvinced that the facility, which also sits on an earthquake fault, is safe in its present location. "It feels to me like we're bending over backward to see this thing limping along forever," he told the fire inspectors at the meeting. "I appreciate the discussion, but this thing is closing down." While the inspectors offered to bring back to the committee more information and answers to some of McOsker's specific questions, the council member said he wanted "to move with haste" and instead opted to "skip (that) step" and end the committee's pursuit by rejecting this week's report and presentation and sending the matter directly to the full City Council. No date has been set for that agenda item, which McOsker has now requested. But when it is considered, McOsker said he knows his next steps. ''I'll make amendments asking for more specific action on the council floor working with colleagues," he said. D-1 SANPEDRO Giant Ferris wheel eyed for waterfront Largest such ride on SoCal coast to be part of new amusement park Developers of West Harbor Park, a shopping, dining and entertainment complex on the San Pedro waterfront, announced the next phase of their project Wednesday, including an amusement park that will feature Southern California's largest coastal observation wheel. The West Harbor Wheel will stand between 100 and 150 feet tall, based on plans being worked on by developers and the Port of Los Angeles. Officials said guests riding the wheel will enjoy "spectacular panoramic views" of the port, the Battleship USS Iowa, the Vincent Thomas Bridge, the Pacific Ocean and passing cruise ships -all from the comfort of enclosed modern gondolas. "The West Harbor Wheel and park will become an iconic feature of the West Harbor project, which aims to enhance the Los Angeles waterfront experience with exceptional shopping, dining, and recreational activities," said Todd Schneider of SkyView Partners, a St. Louis- based attraction and amusement park operator. The park will also include a seaside carousel and several other rides and attractions. Wednesday's announcement included the addition of more than 125,000 square feet of new tenants, including a King of Padel pickle ball club, a new San Pedro Fish Market location and other food tenants such as Miller Butler pizza and Coffee with Creme and Sugar. Previously announced tenants included the off-leash membership dog park Bark Social, Harbor Breeze Cruises, Wheel Fun Rentals and Catalina Tea Bar, which are open along West Harbor's Promenade. The new lease announcements follow the completion of Building A, a major Phase 1 construction milestone. Construction of Building B is underway and estimated for completion in 2025. "Leasing interest catapulted once phase one came to life," said Valerie James, senior vice president for Jerico Development, which is collaborating with The Ratkovich Co. on West Harbor. "The addition of these attractions underscores our dedication to developing a dynamic space that blends recreation, dining and entertainment along the L.A. Waterfront. West Harbor is leading the transformation of San Pedro and the Port of Los Angeles into a D-2 major visitor-serving destination. Its success highlights the appeal of this unique and eclectic waterfront location." West Harbor is set for a phased opening starting in late 2025. November 6, 2024 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE WEST HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT AT THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES (SCH NO. 2005061041) The City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (Harbor Department) has prepared a Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for the following project at the Port of Los Angeles: WEST HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT The proposed West Harbor Modification Project (Project) involves development of an approximately 100,000 square foot amphitheater on approximately 2.1 acres in the southern portion of the San Pedro Public Market Project site. The amphitheater would provide 6,200 seats and would host approximately 100 paid events per year, generally from April through November. The venue could also host smaller, local community events year-round. The Project would also include the development of a parking lot at 208 E. 22 Street to provide up to 2,600 parking stalls for the greater San Pedro Waterfront site. The Draft SEIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et. seq. The Draft SEIR has determined that implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to: Air Quality (AQ): Consistent with the underlying San Pedro Waterfront Project, emissions of, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Also, construction and operation activities would exceed thresholds of significance for the nitrogen dioxide, PM10, and PM2.5 ambient air standards. The Health Risk Assessment determined that the cancer risk would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 10 in a million threshold at residential, occupational, recreational, and nonresidential sensitive receptors, but not at student receptors. Greenhouse Gases (GHG): Consistent with the underlying San Pedro Waterfront Project, GHG emissions would exceed the CEQA baseline and would result in significant GHG impacts. Noise (NOI): Consistent with the underlying San Pedro Waterfront Project, construction noise associated with numerous project elements would be significant because the construction elements would increase ambient noise levels by five decibels or more. E-1 THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES Karen Bass Board of Harbor Commissioners Eugene D. Seroka 4 25 s. Palos Verdes Street Post Office Box 151 San Pedro, CA 90733-0151 TEL 310-SEA-PORT portoflosangeles.org Mayor, City of Los Angeles Lucille Roybal-Allard President Execu tive Director John A Perez Vice President Michael Munoz Commissioner Edward R. Renwick Commissioner I. Lee Williams Commissioner West Harbor Modification Project Page 2 Transportation (TRAN): The Project would create a significant impact regarding vehicle miles traveled, which would not be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation measures. The following Mitigation Measures (MM) are expected to further reduce impacts: MM AQ-3: Fleet Modernization for On-Road Trucks During Construction; MM AQ-4: Fleet Modernization for Construction Equipment; MM AQ-5: Fugitive Dust; MM AQ-6: Best Management Practices; MM AQ-7: General Mitigation Measure During Construction; MM AQ-8: Special Precautions Near Sensitive Sites; MM AQ-31: Zero Emission Shuttle Busses; MM NOI-1: Construct Temporary Noise Barriers, Muffle and Maintain Construction Equipment, Prohibit Idling, Locate Equipment, Use Quiet Construction Equipment, and Notify Residents; MM NOI-2: Construction Hours; MM NOI-3: Limit Noise Levels Within the Amphitheater During all Tier 1 Events; MM NOI-4: Require all Tier 1 Events to Utilize the House Public Address/Sound Reinforcement; MM NOI-5: Monitor Amphitheater Noise for all Tier 1 Events; MM NOI-6: Noise Reporting Requirements Following Amphitheater Events; MM NOI-7: Establish a Noise Complaint Hotline and/or Website; MM NOI-8: Enforce a Curfew and Restrict the Hours of Use and Duration for the Amphitheater’s Amplified Sound System; MM NOI-9: Fine for Non-compliance; MM NOI-10: Restrict the Total Number of Tier 1 Event Performance Days to 100 per Year; MM NOI-11: Restrict the Total Number of Firework Displays to 25 per Year; MM NOI-12: Limit the Duration of all Firework Displays; MM NOI-13: Limit the use of “Salute” Fireworks; MM NOI-14: Replace Firework Displays with Drone Displays; and MM TC-1: Develop and Implement a Traffic Control Plan. MM-TRAN-1: Implement TDM Measures Availability: The 45-day public review period will start on November 6, 2024 and end on December 23, 2024. A copy of the document is available for public review on the Port of Los Angeles website at: https://www.portoflosangeles.org/ceqa. Print documents are available for distribution to interested parties upon request and will be made available for review with the Harbor Department’s Environmental Management Division located at 425 South Palos Verdes Street, San Pedro, California 90731. Please contact Sarah Workman at (310) 732-3151 or via email at sworkman@portla.org to schedule an appointment for document review. E-2 West Harbor Modification Project Page 3 Public Meeting: A virtual public meeting will be held on November 14, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. Join the Zoom Meeting at: Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://portla.zoom.us/j/87990301483?pwd=7OYVdNZevxwPPIGC9a3hgHUiLDxzbc.1 Passcode: 391073 Or One tap mobile : +16694449171,,87990301483# US +13462487799,,87990301483# US (Houston) Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): +1 669 444 9171 US +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 719 359 4580 US +1 720 707 2699 US (Denver) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 646 931 3860 US +1 689 278 1000 US +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) 888 475 4499 US Toll Free 877 853 5257 US Toll Free Webinar ID: 879 9030 1483 International numbers available: https://portla.zoom.us/u/keAxkiB8Ou Or an H.323/SIP room system: H.323: 162.255.37.11 (US West) or 162.255.36.11 (US East) Meeting ID: 879 9030 1483 Passcode: 391073 SIP: 87990301483@zoomcrc.com Passcode: 391073 Spanish translation will be available. E-3 West Harbor Modification Project Page 4 Comments: Written comments on the Draft SEIR should be submitted in writing prior to the end of the 45-day public review period and must be postmarked by December 23, 2024. Please submit written comments to: Director of Environmental Management Los Angeles Harbor Department 425 Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, CA 90731 Written comments may also be sent via e-mail to ceqacomments@portla.org. Comments sent via e-mail should include the Project title (West Harbor Modification Project) in the subject line of the email. For additional information, please contact Sarah Workman with the Harbor Department’s Environmental Management Division at (310) 732-3151 or via email at ceqacomments@portla.org. Sincerely, LISA WUNDER Acting Director of Environmental Management LW:NE:ba APP No.: 190529-080 E-4 F-1 LOSANGELESCOUNTY Western Avenue plan draws residents' ire BY DONNA LITTLEJOHN DLITTLEJOHN@SCNG.COM Proposed changes to Western Avenue -from San Pedro to Torrance -drew mostly complaints Wednesday night as some 50 residents and Los Angeles City Councilmember Tim McOsker took Caltrans officials to task for inadequate notice and scheduling the work at a time when several other projects will also be underway around the Port of L.A. The proposed $55 million project is set to start construction in winter 2026 and will take two years to complete, California Department of Transportation has said. But the project itself has come as a surprise to those who will be impacted. McOsker, for example, said he was not notified of the environmental review process -now at the stage of a final draft document, which is about to be released -and said he had "grave concerns" about the project. The design phase, Caltrans officials said, is scheduled to begin next month and be completed in April 2026. Caltrans is also currently finishing up another project that has snarled a number of Western Avenue intersections connecting construction-weary San Pedro motorists to Harbor Gateway, Harbor City and Torrance. And this new project isn't all there is. Residents produced a long list of other projects that are scheduled to be ongoing during that time -including the major Caltrans' project to replace the road deck on the Vincent Thomas Bridge. The WesternAvenueworkwill also overlap with the Summer 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. One resident also brought up work at 25th Street and Western Avenue -where the work is set to begin -to put in a drive-thru Starbucks. The project is also designed to close bike lane gaps for Rancho Palos Verdes. The entire 10-mile-long project-which starts at 25th and Western in San Pedro and ends at the 405 Freeway connection in Torrance -calls for bicycle lanes, bus pads, upgraded crosswalks, bicycle-oriented signs, curb ramps and added amenities to sidewalks and medians. The improvements, tied to some federal funding that has deadlines, transitions that stretch of Western into what is called a "multimodal" roadway. F-2 Lane lines will be impacted temporarily, Caltrans officials said, while some sections of the medians are being reduced and reconstructed. Vic Christensen, a member of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council, stressed that the timing conflicts with several other projects that will be ongoing throughout the Harbor Area and South Bay regions. "It's going to be like a perfect storm ofwork being done," he said, "and traffic is going to grind to a halt." Other projects include work being done around Navy Way on Terminal Island, Alameda Street and Sepulveda Boulevard, the San Pedro waterfront, and the Wilmington Safe Streets project on various roads. The ambitious Vincent Thomas Bridge project is also a Caltrans project and is set to launch in 2026. It is expected to close at least part of the bridge for a year or more. Western Avenue and the bridge are key connectors for the Harbor Area, which is positioned on a peninsula at the end of the 110 Freeway. Residents and visitors alike use those roadways for port community access. "You have a good point (on overlapping projects)," said Caltrans Senior Engineer Jospeh Reynoza. McOsker told Caltrans representatives that his office was not contacted about the project, which is within much of his 15th Council District. "I'm extremely disappointed by that," McOsker said. Vehicular lanes, officials said, will be 11 feet wide to allow for 5-foot bike lanes and parking spaces -something one cyclist cheered. But others pointed to what already is a congested commute by car. Caltrans officials said the agencywill look into designating a South Bay oversight official going forward. McOsker requested Caltrans post links to the environmental documents, questioning how the many improvements could be made while not losing parking orvehicular lanes. ''I'm eager to see the environmental documents," McOsker said, "and see what analysis you did on the cumulative effects of these other projects." "I think those are really going to be important for us to see," he said. "I have just a built-in skepticism that you can have all things -repairing sidewalks, adding bike lanes, retaining parking and landscaping. I'm skeptical not because I disbelieve you but because I F-3 dis believe the math and the physics to do all these things and not lose anything. I need to see it; we all need to see it." Western Avenue has long been the subject of discussions about how to move traffic more efficiently while adding more pedestrian and cyclist-friendly options. But it all comes with its own fair amount of disruption. The Ponte Vista housing development most recently raised concerns in the community about adding hundreds more cars to the Western Avenue mix. All the other overlapping projects, meanwhile, remain a major concern, McOsker said. "I feel it's highly unlikely all these projects can happen at once," McOsker said. "And I'm very concerned about this one moving forward with so little information on impacts on traffic patterns throughout the harbor area. It's all clustering together to become a 'Harbor- geddon' for us." 1 Agenda Item: 9 Meeting Date: 2/27/2024 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ELAINE JENG, P.E., CITY MANAGER BY: ANASTASIA SEIMS, P.E., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR STEVE LORISO, P.E., CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE DEVELOPED AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2023 AND JANUARY 16, 2024 MEETINGS RELATING TO TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST/VIA CORTA AND PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST/PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2024 ACTION REQUIRED CONSENT RECEIVE & FILE RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Committee relating to traffic improvements at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive West (PVDW)/Via Corta, and PVDW/Palos Verdes Drive North (the “Triangle”). BACKGROUND At the July 25, 2023 City Council Meeting, the City Council approved a not to exceed amount of $40,000 for traffic engineering services to complete the following: • Research/consider possible alternatives that were previously reviewed as interim improvements to the intersections, which were presented to the City Council on March 23, 2021, and update/prepare exhibits to be used for presentations to the Traffic Safety Committee and Traffic Safety Committee. • Review/update rough order of magnitude cost estimate for the various alternatives identified. MEMORANDUM X G-1 INC08PORATED 1939 □ □ □ •Research the possibility of using the existing grant funds for the various alternatives identified. As a result of this direction, additional review, analysis, and further traffic modelling, was performed and presented to the Traffic Safety Committee at the November 8, 2023 Traffic Safety Committee Meeting. The Traffic Safety Committee provided recommendations for the City Council on the next steps for possible traffic improvements in the Palos Verdes Drive corridor. When the November 8, 2023 Traffic Safety Committee Action Minutes were included as a consent agenda item for the December 5, 2023 City Council Meeting, the City Council discussed that there was some confusion regarding the recommendations of the Traffic Safety Committee. In order to confirm the recommendations provided by the Traffic Safety Committee, a Special Traffic Safety Committee Meeting was scheduled for January 16, 2024. At this Special Traffic Safety Committee Meeting on January 16, 2024, The Traffic Safety Committee provided the following direction to staff: Evaluate and provide feedback on a comparison of the following traffic design alternatives to the PVDW corridor: a.The proposed improvements at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and the current stop sign controlled intersection at the “Triangle.” b.The proposed improvements at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and a roundabout at the “Triangle.” c.A traffic signal at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and the current stop sign controlled intersection at the “Triangle.” d.A traffic signal at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and a roundabout at the “Triangle.” e.The existing conditions at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and a roundabout at the “Triangle.” The Traffic Safety Committee recommendation to evaluate and provide feedback on a comparison of traffic design alternatives to the PVDW corridor outlined above were not a part of the direction from City Council to the Traffic Safety Committee. DISCUSSION Since the scope of analysis noted above was not originally included as one of the items authorized by City Council, it is requested that City Council approve the recommendations by the Traffic Safety Committee and authorize the analysis as noted. The evaluation of additional traffic design alternatives does not require any additional funds and will be completed by the City’s contract engineering staff using the previously appropriated $40,000 of Prop C funds. FISCAL IMPACT G-2 There are no fiscal impacts associated with this report. In Fiscal Year 2021-2022, the City Council appropriated $70,000 of Prop C Funds for engineering services relating to traffic improvements at PVDW/Via Corta, and at the July 25, 2023 City Council Meeting, the City Council authorized a not to exceed amount of $40,000 of the appropriated $70,000 Prop C funds for the authorized traffic engineering services. The not to exceed amount of $40,000 is what is planned to be used to pay for the traffic engineering work recommended by the Traffic Safety Committee. ATTACHMENTS None G-3 1 Agenda Item: 5 Meeting Date: 06/04/2024 TO: HONORABLE COMMITTEE CHAIR AND TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: ANASTASIA SEIMS, P.E., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BY: STEVE LORISO, P.E., CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDER PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF DATE: JUNE 6, 2024 ACTION REQUIRED CONSENT RECEIVE & FILE RECOMMENDATION That the Traffic Safety Committee consider Palos Verdes Drive West (PVDW) Corridor improvement options and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND At the July 25, 2023 City Council Meeting, the City Council approved a not to exceed amount of $40,000 for traffic engineering services to complete the following: •Research/consider possible alternatives that were previously reviewed as interim improvements to the intersections, which were presented to the City Council on March 23, 2021, and update/prepare exhibits to be used for presentations to the Traffic Safety Committee and Traffic Safety Committee. •Review/update rough order of magnitude cost estimate for the various alternatives identified. •Research the possibility of using the existing grant funds for the various alternatives identified. M E M O R A N D U M X H-1 As a result of this direction, additional review, analysis, and further traffic modelling, was performed and presented to the Traffic Safety Committee at the November 8, 2023 Traffic Safety Committee Meeting. The Traffic Safety Committee provided recommendations for the City Council on the next steps for possible traffic improvements in the Palos Verdes Drive corridor. When the November 8, 2023 Traffic Safety Committee Action Minutes were included as a consent agenda item for the December 5, 2023 City Council Meeting, the City Council discussed that there was some confusion regarding the recommendations of the Traffic Safety Committee. In order to confirm the recommendations provided by the Traffic Safety Committee, a Special Traffic Safety Committee Meeting was scheduled for January 16, 2024. At this Special Traffic Safety Committee Meeting on January 16, 2024, The Traffic Safety Committee provided the following direction to staff: 1. Perform outreach activities to notify and invite the public to all future Traffic Safety Committee meetings and to continue to solicit public input. 2. Review and provide more information on the impacts and footprint of widening PVDW to allow for two westbound thru lanes and a dedicated right-turn lane at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection. Impacts to be considered include but are not limited to impacts to p edestrians, the location of the bus stop, the planters, and the sidewalk, and impacts from the proposed lengthening of the crosswalk on PVDW. 3. Review and provide more information on the impacts of the parking restrictions proposed on the eastbound side of PVDW east of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection. 4. Review and provide feedback on the need for the installation of a crosswalk from the median west of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection to the south sidewalk in front of City Hall 5. Evaluate and provide feedback on a comparison of the following traffic design alternatives to the PVDW corridor: a. The proposed improvements at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and the current stop sign controlled intersection at the “Triangle.” b. The proposed improvements at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and a roundabout at the “Triangle.” c. A traffic signal at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and the current stop sign controlled intersection at the “Triangle.” d. A traffic signal at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and a roundabout at the “Triangle.” e. The existing conditions at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and a roundabout at the “Triangle.” The Traffic Safety Committee recommendation to evaluate and provide feedback on a comparison of traffic design alternatives to the PVDW corridor outlined above (5.a – 5.e) were not a part of the direction from City Council to the Traffic Safety Committee. Since H-2 the scope of analysis noted in 5.a – 5.e above was not originally included as one of the items authorized by City Council, the request to authorize the analysis was presented to City Council at the February 27, 2024 City Council meeting, and the City Council authorized 5.a only. DISCUSSION During the discussion regarding optional improvements to the PDVW corridor at the January 16, 2024 Traffic Safety Committee Special meeting, the Traffic Safety Committee requested additional information from staff, as modified by at the February 27, 2024 City Council meeting, which is provided below: 1. Perform outreach activities to notify and invite the public to all future Traffic Safety Committee meetings and to continue to solicit public input. This has been accomplished through the bi-weekly updates distributed via the City’s website and newsletter. 2. Review and provide more information on the impacts and footprint of widening PVDW to allow for two westbound thru lanes and a dedicated right- turn lane at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection. Impacts to be considered include but are not limited to impacts to pedestrians, the location of the bus stop, the planters, and the sidewalk, and impacts from the proposed lengthening of the crosswalk on PVDW. The layout incorporating the proposed improvements are shown in Figure 1b of Attachment A. Following are the impacts: • The turn pocket would be approximately 150 feet (measured from the back of the crosswalk). • Two (2) parking spaces would be removed (two closest to the intersection). • Bus stop can remain in the same location as currently identified (near the intersection), which would not adversely affect straight, westbound traffic. • The existing sidewalk would remain intact as this is approximately 15 feet north of the current curb line. • The entire planter area (from the intersection to approximately 150 feet east of the intersection) would be removed to accommodate the new lane of traffic. • The addition of the dedicated right turn lane will increase the distance for pedestrians to cross at PVDW; however, with the proposed improvements identified as ISM4, the distance for pedestrians to cross would essentially be unchanged. 3. Review and provide more information on the impacts of the parking restrictions proposed on the eastbound side of PVDW east of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection. H-3 Per the recommendation shown as location IPM1 of Figure 1 in Attachment A, the four (4) parking spaces at location IPM1-A would be permanently removed, and the six (6) parking spaces at location IPM1-B (east of this location) would be restricted during peak traffic hours. With the addition of parking located at IPM3, this location would add approximately seven (7) parking spaces. Therefore, during off-peak times, there would be a net increase of three (3) additional parking spaces between IPM1 and IMP3, however, during peak times, there would be aa net reduction of three (3) parking spaces over these same two locations.. 4. Review and provide feedback on the need for the installation of a crosswalk from the median west of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection to the south sidewalk in front of City Hall. If the proposed improvements are implemented, specifically including ISM2.1 per Figure 1 of Attachment A, the stop-controlled intersection will be relocated to the location shown on Figure 1a of Attachment A. This would create an all-way stop controlled intersection. This would then be identified as a place for pedestrian crossings as a result of the stop-controlled intersection. 5. Evaluate and provide feedback on a comparison of the following traffic design alternatives to the PVDW corridor: a. The proposed improvements at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and the current stop sign controlled intersection at the “Triangle.” Palos Verdes Drive West and Via Corta On March 3, 2021, the Traffic Safety Committee recommended the consideration of four improvements for the Palos Verdes Drive West Corridor at Via Corta. Although the four improvements are listed individually, the operating condition analysis and interim recommendations are based upon implementing all four improvements. Additionally, the interim improvements are based upon the use of stop signs as it is currently at this intersection. The four interim street and parking measures are shown in Figure 1 and described as follows: 1. Widen eastbound PVDW by narrowing the median. (ISM1.1). The additional lane would accommodate through and right-turn movements. To provide an accepting lane on the east side of the intersection the existing on-street parking on the south side of PVDW is recommended for removal to Via Chico. (IPM1) As an alternative parking between the Malaga Plaza entrance and Via Chico could be restricted during peak hours. Eastbound traffic on the Upper Barrel would be restricted to right turns only by installing a raised diverter median. (ISM1.2) The existing westbound right-turn lane approach should be modified to allow through and right-turn movements. (ISM1.3) H-4 2. Simplify turning movements at Via Del Puente by closing the west side of the street and converting the east side to two -way traffic. (ISM2) This would better align the north and south legs of the intersection and could improve eastbound traffic flow by flaring the striping to allow a needed left turn pocket that currently causes delay when an eastbound driver wishes to turn north onto Via Del Puente. 3. Add on-street parking to the south side of the existing raised median to offset parking lost on the east side of the intersection under the first measure. (IPM3) 4. Add curb extension at the southeast corner. (ISM4) This will reduce delays from pedestrians crossing the intersection by shortening the distance across the intersection. Improved pedestrian access may also encourage parking at the Memorial Garden during pe ak parking demand. Following are some additional issues that need to be considered in determining the effectiveness of the interim improvements: • Issue: Delay Time • Benefit of Improvements: - The improvements would substantially reduce the delay in the morning from over 121 seconds per vehicle to just below 45 seconds (a 63% reduction). The afternoon delay would be reduced from 99 seconds to about 47 seconds (a 53% reduction). • Issue: Vehicle Que Length • Benefit of Improvements: - The eastbound and westbound through queue length (at Via Corta) would be substantially reduced from about 25 to 30 cars per lane to about 10 to 11 cars per lane. While the through queues would be shortened, the queue length for the westbound right-turn lane would be longer as that movement would no longer be in an exclusive lane. - Additional Improvement to Consider: ▪ Add a westbound lane by widening the street to the north. This would require the relocation of the westbound curb and gutter approximately 10 feet northerly, along with the removal of portions of existing sidewalk and turf. The ability to fully implement this widening would depend on a field survey of the existing right-of-way on the northerly side of the street. This additional improvement could reduce the queue length for potentially impacted right-turn movements resulting from the shared through/right-turn lane. H-5 The conclusion is that the improvements can reduce delay and traffic queues at the PVDW and Via Corta intersection. Although the proposed improvements better the operating efficiency, the operating conditions are not as good as the operating conditions that would be experienced by using manual traffic control at the intersection. However, the improvements would not require manpower in the street to direct traffic during any hours of the day. Interim Measures – Cost Estimate The design and construction cost for the proposed street and parking measures is estimated to be $950,000. Additional administrative costs for project oversight and construction administration and inspection would be approximately $175,000, for a total anticipated cost of $1,125,000. Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive North Due to the non-standard configuration of the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive West at Palos Verdes Drive North (the “Triangle”), the type of beneficial improvements is limited. After review of the feasibility analysis, the Triangle does not have the possibility of benefitting from alternate improvements, nor are there any recommendations for improvements different from what was proposed in the feasibility study. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with this report. In Fiscal Year 2021-2022, the City Council appropriated $70,000 of Prop C Funds for engineering services relating to traffic improvements at PVDW/Via Corta, and at the July 25, 2023 City Council Meeting, the City Council authorized a not to exceed amount of $40,000 of the appropriated $70,000 Prop C funds for the authorized traffic engineering services. The not to exceed amount of $40,000 is what is planned to be used to pay for the traffic engineering work recommended by the Traffic Safety Committee. ATTACHMENTS A – Figures 1, 1a, and 1b H-6 Page 1 ATTACHMENT A IPM1-A IPM1-B H-7 Page 2 H-8 1 Agenda Item: 11 Meeting Date: 7/23/2024 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KERRY KALLMAN, INTERIM CITY MANAGER BY: ANASTASIA SEIMS, P.E., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR STEVE LORISO, P.E., CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST CORRIDOR DATE: JULY 23, 2024 ACTION REQUIRED CONSENT RECEIVE & FILE RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve the Traffic Safety Committee’s recommended improvements to the Palos Verdes Drive West (PVDW) Corridor. BACKGROUND At the July 25, 2023 City Council Meeting, the City Council approved a not to exceed amount of $40,000 for traffic engineering services to complete the following: •Research/consider possible alternatives that were previously reviewed as interim improvements to the intersections, which were presented to the City Council on March 23, 2021, and update/prepare exhibits to be used for presentations to the Traffic Safety Committee and Traffic Safety Committee. •Review/update rough order of magnitude cost estimate for the various alternatives identified. •Research the possibility of using the existing grant funds for the various alternatives identified. MEMORANDUM X I-1 As a result of this direction, additional review, analysis, and further traffic modelling, was performed and presented to the Traffic Safety Committee at the November 8, 2023 Traffic Safety Committee Meeting. The Traffic Safety Committee provided recommendations for the City Council on the next steps for possible traffic improvements in the Palos Verdes Drive corridor. When the November 8, 2023 Traffic Safety Committee Action Minutes were included as a consent agenda item for the December 5, 2023 City Council Meeting, the City Council discussed that there was some confusion regarding the recommendations of the Traffic Safety Committee. In order to confirm the recommendations provided by the Traffic Safety Committee, a Special Traffic Safety Committee Meeting was scheduled for January 16, 2024. At this Special Traffic Safety Committee Meeting on January 16, 2024, The Traffic Safety Committee provided the following direction to staff: 1.Perform outreach activities to notify and invite the public to all future Traffic Safety Committee meetings and to continue to solicit public input. 2.Review and provide more information on the impacts and footprint of widening PVDW to allow for two westbound thru lanes and a dedicated right-turn lane at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection. Impacts to be considered include but are not limited to impacts to pedestrians, the location of the bus stop, the planters, and the sidewalk, and impacts from the proposed lengthening of the crosswalk on PVDW. 3.Review and provide more information on the impacts of the parking restrictions proposed on the eastbound side of PVDW east of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection. 4.Review and provide feedback on the need for the installation of a crosswalk from the median west of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection to the south sidewalk in front of City Hall 5.Evaluate and provide feedback on a comparison of the following traffic design alternatives to the PVDW corridor: a.The proposed improvements at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and the current stop sign controlled intersection at the “Triangle.” b.The proposed improvements at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and a roundabout at the “Triangle.” c.A traffic signal at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and the current stop sign controlled intersection at the “Triangle.” d.A traffic signal at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and a roundabout at the “Triangle.” e.The existing conditions at the PVDW/Via Corta intersection and a roundabout at the “Triangle.” The Traffic Safety Committee recommendation to evaluate and provide feedback on a comparison of traffic design alternatives to the PVDW corridor outlined above (5.a – 5.e) were not a part of the direction from City Council to the Traffic Safety Committee. Since the scope of analysis noted in 5.a – 5.e above was not originally included as one of the items authorized by City Council, the request to authorize the analysis was presented to I-2 City Council at the February 27, 2024 City Council meeting, and the City Council authorized 5.a only. Staff presented the requested additional information to the Traffic Safety Committee at the June 4, 2024 Traffic Safety Committee Special Meeting, and the Traffic Safety Committee recommended traffic improvements and the associated cost estimate be presented to City Council for consideration. DISCUSSION At the June 4, 2024 Traffic Safety Committee Special Meeting, the Traffic Safety Committee recommended the below improvements to the PVDW Corridor. Palos Verdes Drive West and Via Corta The following improvements were recommended for this intersection and are illustrated in Attachment A with the identifiers used below: • ISM1.1, ISM2.2 – Widen eastbound PVDW west of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection by narrowing the median and flaring the intersection at PVDW/Via del Puente to allow for this lane widening. • ISM1.2 – Restrict eastbound traffic on the Upper Barrel east of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection to right turns only by installing a raised diverter median. • ISM1.3 – Modify the existing westbound right-turn lane approach on PVDW east of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection to allow through and right-turn movements, and remove the two westernmost parking stalls on the westbound traffic/north side of Palos Verdes Drive West next to/in the right turn lane. • ISM2.2 – Add the “DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION” sign west of the PVDW/Via del Puente intersection for eastbound traffic. • ISM4 – Add a curb extension at the southeast corner of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians PVDW east of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection. • IPM1 – Remove the parking stalls on the eastbound side of PVDW from east of the PVDW/Via Corta intersection to west of the PVDW/Via Chico intersection. • IPM3 – Add on-street parking to the south side of the existing raised median, which is on the north side of the Upper Barrel and across from City Hall. These recommended improvements are estimated to have a cost of approximately $1.5 million for the design, management, and construction. The details of this cost estimate are provided below, and this cost estimate is dependent on all recommended improvements being included in the project. Any modifications would affect the cost estimate. I-3 TOTAL COST OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE (FIGURES) TOTAL COST (FIGURES) 1 Mobilization (May Not Exceed 5%) 1 LS $49,000.00 $49,000.00 2 Work Area Temporary Traffic Control 1 LS $128,000.00 $128,000.00 3 Cold Mill 2" Existing Pavement 6,500 SF $3.50 $22,750.00 4 2" ARHM Overlay 125 TN $350.00 $43,895.83 5 R&R Patches 5,000 SF $30.00 $150,000.00 6 Curb & Gutter 990 LF $300.00 $297,000.00 7 Modify Existing CB 2 LS $20,000.00 $40,000.00 8 Irrigation 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00 9 Striping & Markings 1 LS $135,000.00 $135,000.00 10 Curb Ramps (1 plus 3 not included in other locations) 4 EA $15,000.00 $60,000.00 11 Construct sidewalk 150 SF $75.00 $11,250.00 12 Install landscaping 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00 13 Remove existing improvements (i.e. concrete and landscaping) 1,500 SF $10.00 $15,000.00 SUBTOTAL $1,031,895.83 Contingency (15%) $155,000.00 Design (12%) $124,000.00 Construction Management & Inspection (15%) $155,000.00 TOTAL COST $1,466,000.00 Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive North Possible traffic improvements this intersection were also discussed at the Traffic Safety Committee Meetings; however, due to the non-standard configuration of the intersection, the type of beneficial improvements is limited. After review of the feasibility analysis, it was determined that the “Triangle” does not have the possibility of benefitting from alternate improvements, nor are there any recommendations for improvements different from what was proposed in the feasibility study. The Traffic Safety Committee did not recommend traffic improvements for this intersection. I-4 Measure M Grant Funding If the City Council provides direction to proceed with any or all of the recommended improvements to the PVDW Corridor, Staff will share the proposed project with South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), which is involved in the approval and coordination of the Measure M funding awarded by Metro, and with Metro. Staff’s understanding from discussions with SBCCOG and Metro is that depending on the proposed scope of work, SBCCOG and Metro will review eligibility for the Measure M grant funding. If the project is still eligible for the Measure M grant funding, SBCCOG and Metro will advise if the change in the scope of work can be addressed either (1) administratively, which would consist of Metro staff coordinating the execution of a grant funding agreement amendment; or (2) through the formal process, which would include the formal submission of an amendment request with documentation on the scope of work and cost estimates to SBCCOG by early 2025, and the request would be considered by the SBCCOG Board in May 2025, and if recommended for approval by SBCCOG, considered by the Metro Board in September 2025. It should be noted that approval of the conceptual design by City Council is required before proceeding with the funding process outlined above. FISCAL IMPACT The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) awarded grant funding in the amount of $677,000 of Measure M for the PA/ED and PS&E phases of the Project in August 2020. The Funding Agreement for the grant funding was effective July 2021 and executed in November 2021. At the October 26, 2021 City Council Meeting when the Professional Services Agreement for design was awarded, a budget appropriation of $58,139 of Prop C funds was made in addition to the $677,000 of Measure M grant funds to cover the $735,139 of Michael Baker International’s (MBI) Agreement, and $70,000 of Prop C Funds were appropriated to project management services from HR Green. To date, the City has submitted invoices for Measure M reimbursement of $304,172 for services provided by MBI. At the July 25, 2023 City Council Meeting, the City Council authorized a not to exceed amount of $40,000 of the appropriated $70,000 of Prop C funds for the authorized traffic engineering services provided by HR Green. $1,695 of the original $70,000 Prop C funding was expended prior to July 2023., and $16,811 of the $40,000 authorized in July 2023 was expended from July 2023 through June 2024. NOTIFICATION This matter has been agendized and posted in the routine matter. Residents were notified that this item would be discussed by the City Council in the July 12, 2024 biweekly update that is published on the City’s website and emailed to subscribers. ATTACHMENTS A – Street and Parking Modifications I-5 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT A Street and Parking Modifications Add “DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION” sign. ISM4 - Extend intersection corner to shorten crosswalks and more tightly direct traffic movements at the intersection. IPM3 - Add on-street parking space to north side of the Upper Barrel. ISM1.2 - Change EB Upper Barrel at Via Corta to right-turn out only with island. ISM1.1 - Narrow island to add second lane for TH/RT movements. IPM1 – Remove all street parking spaces and stripe with no parking at these two locations ISM2.2 - Flaring intersection will allow for LTs to not block thru traffic. ISM1.3 - Change to right & thru lane. Remove two parking spaces east of turn lane. I-6 City Council Staff Report – August 13, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – George F Canyon Nature Center Replacement Project 1 STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 13, 2024 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DAVID WAHBA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REQUEST TO REJECT BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE GEORGE F CANYON NATURE CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND RE-BID THE PROJECT WITH ADDITIVE ALTERNATIVES. LOCATION: 27305 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST. OVERVIEW The following is a request for the City Council to reject the bids received for the George F Canyon Nature Center Replacement Project on June 20, 2024, and direct staff to re- bid the Project with “Additive Alternatives,” which would allow the City Council to defer portions of the Project into future phases depending on costs and available funding. BACKGROUND On December 12, 2023, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Transtech Engineers to provide Project bidding support and construction management services, for the George F Canyon Nature Center Project in the amount of $249,700. On May 14, 2024, the Council also approved: 1) An amendment to the PSA with RNT Architects to provide additional services for project bid preparation and construction support; 2) An agreement with the Kizh Nation Indian Tribe for Native American Monitoring Services during site grading and initial construction of the project; and, 3) A PSA for Ultrasystems Environmental to provide biological, cultural, and paleontological monitoring services. On May 9, 2024, staff placed the Project out to bid on our new bidding platform, PlanetBids, to ensure that the Project was widely advertised to perspective contractors. A mandatory pre-bid meeting was held at City Hall and out at the Project site on May 23, 2024, in which 13 perspective bidders attended. On June 20, 2024, sealed bids were opened at City Hall for the Project, in which the City received two bids. DISCUSSION The City received two bids for the project on June 20, 2024. The low bidder was CALTEC Corporation at $5,062,000, and the high bidder, Armstrong Cal Builders Inc., was $5,531,247. The architect’s estimate for the project’s total costs, which included a cost CC AGENDA AUGUST 13, 2024 ITEM NO. 8 J-1 City Council Staff Report – August 13, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – George F Canyon Nature Center Replacement Project 2 escalator adjusted for inflation, contingency, bonds and insurance, and a bid market factor was $2,809,000. Staff discussed the bids received, both over $5M, with the Project Architect (RNT) and Project Manager (Transtech Engineers) to understand why the bids were much higher than the architect’s estimate of approximately $2.8M. Unfortunately, the industry is experiencing public works projects coming in much higher than estimated – especially small and mid-sized projects, which can be attributed to current economic conditions with rising costs in materials and labor. Given the higher-than-expected bid amounts, staff is recommending that the City Council reject both bids and direct staff to re-bid the project with “Additive Alternatives” to potentially defer some of the Project’s features to be constructed at a later time. More specifically, it is recommended that the Learning Pavilion (outdoor classroom) and the Canyon Gateway (ramp) be bid as alternatives to the Project so that if the new bids are too high and/or additional funds have not been secured, these Additive Alternatives can be deferred from the Project until a later time. Thus, at a minimum, the new Nature Center building can be constructed along with the site improvements including the parking lot and landscaping. In addition, staff will work with the architect to explore if there are areas of the Project that could be redesigned to reduce costs without comprising the quality, design, and intent of the facility. Project Costs and Funding Based upon previous estimated projected costs, the Nature Center construction and contractor costs, which include general conditions and requirements, contractor fee, bonds, and insurance, and escalation fees, were estimated at $2,809,000. Furnishings, equipment, and interpretive design are expected to be approximately $500,000, with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) contributing a large portion toward the education component. All in, the Nature Center Replacement Project was estimated at a total cost of $4,142,000 as outlined in the table below. Estimated Costs Amount Pre-construction and Management services during construction $833,000 Construction+contingency/escalation fee $2,809,000 Furnishings/education $500,000 Total Project Cost $4,142,000 The table below shows a list of available funding sources for the Nature Center Replacement Project. With a total estimated Project cost of $4.1M, the Project still requires approximately $1.1M to be completely funded. This additional funding is J-2 City Council Staff Report – August 13, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – George F Canyon Nature Center Replacement Project 3 expected through fundraising efforts and from an anticipated FY 24-25 Park Facilities Fees fund balance of just over $1M. Project Grants/Funding Sources Amount City Park Facility Fees budgeted or expended to date $387,000 CA State Dept Parks & Rec (Senator Ben Allen) $1,200,000 LA County-Supervisor Hahn commitment $500,000 Prop 68 - Per Capita Program $177,952 Prop 68 - Urban Area $5,040 Outdoor Enviro Ed Grant $40,000 Measure A $267,863 Rolling Hills Partnership (Prop 68) $177,952 Rolling Hills Partnership (Prop 68-urban area) $1,156 Estimate PVPLC contribution $350,000 Total Funds Allocated/Granted $3,106,963 Moving the Project forward in phases would allow the City to use some of these grant funds before they lapse. With the Project funds available as outlined above and drawing from Park Facilities Fees, and further fundraising efforts, a re-bid Project, with “Additive Alternative” options would make this Project feasible. If the bids for either or both of the two Additive Alternative items – the outdoor classroom and the ramp – are not accepted when the Project is re-bid, those remaining elements could be completed at a later date, when additional funding has been secured. PUBLIC OUTREACH This item was posted on the City Council’s Agenda; no further outreach is required. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Reject the bids received for the George F Canyon Nature Center Replacement Project on June 20, 2024; and, 2. Direct staff to re-bid the Project with “Additive Alternatives,” Learning Pavilion (outdoor classroom) (Additive Alternative “A”) and the Canyon Gateway (ramp) (Additive Alternative “B”), which would allow the City Council to defer portions of the Project into future phases depending on costs and available funding. Attachments A. CALTEC Corporation Bid B. Armstrong Cal Builders Bid J-3 ATTACHMENT A J-4 ATTACHMENT A J-5 ATTACHMENT A J-6 ATTACHMENT A J-7 ATTACHMENT A J-8 ATTACHMENT A J-9 ATTACHMENT A J-10 ATTACHMENT A J-11 ATTACHMENT A J-12 ATTACHMENT A J-13 ATTACHMENT A J-14 ATTACHMENT A J-15 ATTACHMENT A J-16 ATTACHMENT A J-17 ATTACHMENT A J-18 ATTACHMENT A J-19 ATTACHMENT A J-20 ATTACHMENT A J-21 ATTACHMENT A J-22 ATTACHMENT A J-23 ATTACHMENT A J-24 ATTACHMENT A J-25 ATTACHMENT B J-26 ATTACHMENT B J-27 ATTACHMENT B J-28 ATTACHMENT B J-29 ATTACHMENT B J-30 ATTACHMENT B J-31 ATTACHMENT B J-32 ATTACHMENT B J-33 ATTACHMENT B J-34 ATTACHMENT B J-35 ATTACHMENT B J-36 ATTACHMENT B J-37 ATTACHMENT B J-38 ATTACHMENT B J-39 ATTACHMENT B J-40 ATTACHMENT B J-41 ATTACHMENT B J-42 ATTACHMENT B J-43 ATTACHMENT B J-44 ATTACHMENT B J-45 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5207 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.RPVCA.GOV July 15, 2024 Via Email caltransvtb@virtualeventroom.net Jason Roach Senior Environmental Planner Division of Environmental Planning (Project EA 07-39020) California Department of Transportation, District 7 100 South Main Street, MS 16A Los Angeles, CA 90012 SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment (Draft EIR/EA) for the Vincent Thomas Bridge Deck Replacement Project (Project EA 07-39020) Dear Mr. Roach, The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment (Draft EIR/EA) for the Vincent Thomas Bridge Deck Replacement Project (Project EA 07-39020) and offers the following comments for your consideration. It is clear that none of the proposed staging options is desirable, as each will result in long-term detours and delays along major traffic routes in the Harbor Area. However, the City recognizes the urgency of the repair work needed to ensure the bridge can continue to serve the 53,000 vehicles that cross it daily, including those commuting between the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Long Beach/Orange County. If the City must identify a preferred staging option, we would opt for the one with the shortest duration: the single-stage proposal lasting 16 months with 24/7 work using orthotropic or pre-cast construction. Whether a full or partial bridge closure is implemented, we remain concerned about the traffic and air quality impacts that will result from the project. It is critical that every measure be taken to ensure the project is on or ahead of schedule and to minimize disruptions and quality-of-life impacts to commuters and neighborhoods along detour routes. This is especially important because the region will be affected by other ongoing and future construction projects. K-1 Mr. Jason Roach July 15, 2024 Page 2 We echo Los Angeles City Councilmember Tim McOsker’s comments that mitigation measures should include repairing and resurfacing each of the selected detour routes before the commencement of the project to prepare each area for the massive increase in traffic, and after completion to return it to the pre-detour condition. We also continue to support his previous proposal of exploring using a potential ferry or water taxi service during construction. The City appreciates the creation of advisory committees for the project and hopes regular meetings will continue throughout construction to keep lines of communication open with the stakeholders who will be impacted for months if not years. We urge Caltrans to make every effort to ensure robust public outreach and transparency for this project, since many residents and commuters may not be as familiar with Caltrans’ public process as their local municipality. This was observed recently with both this project and another along our City’s border with San Pedro, the Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project, which caught many by surprise. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR/EA, and we hope the final analysis will thoroughly address our concerns. Sincerely, Ara Mihranian, AICP City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Ben Allen, Senator, 24th State Senate District Steven Bradford, Senator, 35th State Senate District Al Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District Mike Gipson, Assembly Member, 65th Assembly District Janice Hahn, L.A. County Supervisor, 4th District Tim McOsker, L.A. City Councilmember, 15th District Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Catherine Jun, Deputy City Manager K-2 City Council Staff Report – January 23, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-231030 655-815 Deep Valley Drive; 924-950 Indian Peak Road 1 STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 23, 2024 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: WHITNEY BERRY, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 231030 FIRST LOOK MEETING TO CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OF A 407-UNIT RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT ON A 10.42-ACRE SITE APPLICANT: DAVE RAND ON BEHALF OF ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC LOCATION: 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE AND 924-950 INDIAN PEAK ROAD OVERVIEW The following is a request for the City Council to consider a proposal for mixed-use development with 407 residential units, 3,249 square feet (ft2) of retail, and 503 parking spaces across four buildings on a 10.42-acre site located at 655-815 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak Road. The project would remediate the steeply sloped hillside that experienced a landslide failure in 1997. The applicant proposes to provide 29 units for very low-income (VLI) households1, which would qualify it for mandatory benefits under the State Density Bonus Law2 (SDBL), including a 30 percent density bonus, one development incentive that reduces project costs to accommodate the affordable housing component, waivers that physically accommodate the project, and reduced parking ratios. This staff report provides an overview of the proposed project and describes the affordable requirements to qualify for the SDBL and the associate d benefits granted to qualifying projects. The Rolling Hills Capital, LLC, team will be providing a presentation at the meeting to more fully describe the proposed project. BACKGROUND The subject property is 10.42 acres in size and is comprised of five lots located at 655- 815 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak Road. The project site is developed with a 42,531 ft2 office building at 655 Deep Valley Drive, 12,500 ft2 of office space in two buildings accessible from Indian Peak Road, and the 25,207 ft2 Brickwalk shopping 1 VLI households is defined in Health and Safety Code § 50105 2 Government Code § 65915. L-1 City Council Staff Report – January 23, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-231030 655-815 Deep Valley Drive; 924-950 Indian Peak Road 2 center and associated parking. The project site is shown in green in Figure 1 below, and the City’s boundary with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is shown in red. Figure 1. Project Site The site encompasses a steep slope rising approximately 100 feet from Deep Valley Drive to Indian Peak Road, a portion of which experienced a landslide in 1997. The landslide resulted in the demolition of two buildings that were accessed from Indian Peak Road, a portion of the parking lots for the Indian Peak office buildings and the Brickwalk development, and restricted access to several other buildings. The easternmost building at 655 Deep Valley Drive office complex has been red-tagged since that time. A portion of the site has been covered in black plastic and sandbags for erosion control since the landslide. The site is zoned CG Commercial General, with the Mixed-Use Overlay (MU), which allows a density of 22 dwelling units per acre (“du/ac”). Title 17 of the City’s Zoning Code is in the process of being updated to be consistent with the General Plan 2040.The City adopted the General Plan 2040 on April 26, 2022, which designated the site as Commercial General. All Commercial General sites are subject to the Commercial District Mixed-Use Overlay, which allows a maximum residential density of 30 du/ac and a nonresidential intensity of a 2.5 floor area ratio (FAR)3. While the zoning code has not yet been made consistent with the adopted General Plan, changes in State law during 3 Table 2-5, Land Use Element, General Plan 2040, p. 2-36. L-2 City Council Staff Report – January 23, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-231030 655-815 Deep Valley Drive; 924-950 Indian Peak Road 3 the 2022-2023 Legislative Session (AB 821), require a local agency to either amend the zoning within a specified timeframe of receiving a housing development application, or process the application according to objective general plan standards and allowable density levels. Additionally, the applicant intends to file a Preliminary Application (PA), as authorized under SB 330, which amended the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) and added new sections to the housing laws. The PA vests ordinances, policies and standards, including fees, in effect at the time of filing the application4, and creates a streamlined process, with a limit of five hearings (including workshops or similar meetings and appeals)5, excluding any hearings required for CEQA purposes. An 8-acre portion of the subject site is identified as an Opportunity Area in the land use element of the 2040 General Plan, which considers infill and redevelopment potential in five areas in the Commercial District6. The Brick Walk Property (Opportunity Area 4) faces significant geological challenges and experienced a landslide failure in 1997. While most of this area is vacant, any development will need to address the significant geotechnical considerations of the site. The land use element notes that development can be clustered or focused on the upper and lower portions outside of the fault line, depending on the results of a geotechnical study. The proposed development considers the geological challenges of the site and the applicant has indicated that addressing the historic landslide area was instrumental in shaping the way the team approached the development proposal. The proposed development is clustered on the upper and lower portions of the site. The land use element identifies the following key characteristics of the development of this Opportunity Area at the Brick Walk site: • Reuse and redevelopment of the existing building. • Buildings are close to the street with minimal setbacks. • New street, pedestrian and multimodal path connections are created. • Passive park space is developed on the hillside. • The top of the hill is developed with programmable space and outdoor seating areas. • Connection to the existing neighborhood development is created. • The top of the hill has ideal mixed-use potential with possible office and residential and destination of hospitality uses. • Building and path siting will create vistas and views from the blocks below. • The building on the top of the hill will have high architectural standards due to its high visibility. 4 Government Code §65589.5(o)(i) and (4) 5 Government Code §65905.5 6 Opportunity Areas, Land Use Element, General Plan 2040, p. 2-65. L-3 City Council Staff Report – January 23, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-231030 655-815 Deep Valley Drive; 924-950 Indian Peak Road 4 The proposed development, in terms of urban form, utilizes the proposed key characteristics outlined for the site by locating buildings close to Deep Valley Drive with minimal setbacks, creating new pedestrian connections and passive park space, and developing residential uses at the top of the hill. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing buildings at the site and construct a 407-unit mixed-use development with 3,249 ft2 of retail and 503 vehicle parking spaces, including 490 residential spaces and 13 retail spaces (Attachment A). The buildings along Deep Valley Drive would consist of three- and five-story portions over three levels of podium parking and would be constructed into the slope with the intent to have no more than five stories at street level. The building on the Indian Peak Road site would be five stories over one level of podium parking. The applicant proposes to develop 335 units across three buildings on the Deep Valley Drive site, and 72 units in one building on the Indian Peak Road site. All residential units will be for rent, and the count consists of 245 one bedroom/one bathroom units, 83 two bedroom/two bathroom units, and 79 three bedroom/three bathroom units. Access and improvements at the Indian Peak Road site will require coordination with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard are within its jurisdiction. Affordable Housing Component The applicant is proposing to provide 29 units for very low income (VLI) households. State Income Limits reflecting median income and household income levels for extremely low- , very low-, low- and moderate-income households for California are determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and are based on federal income limits published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Typically, the very low income limit is not more than 50% of the area median income (AMI). The 2023 AMI for Los Angeles County for a 4-person household is $98,200 (Attachment C). Affordable rental units must be restricted by an agreement which sets maximum incomes and rents for those units for a 55-year term. For very low income households, rent may not exceed 30% of the VLI income limit (50% AMI) adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit7. The rents for the affordable units in the proposed project will be determined at a later date. For reference, however, the table below outlines rent limits as calculated by HCD for affordable units in certain multifamily housing programs8: 7 Health and Safety Code § 50052.5 and § 50053 8 HCD Multifamily Housing Programs 2023 MTSP Rent Limits, gross rent including utility allowance. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/2023-mtsp-regular-limits.pdf#page=27 L-4 City Council Staff Report – January 23, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-231030 655-815 Deep Valley Drive; 924-950 Indian Peak Road 5 Table 1. Los Angeles County Rent Limits for Affordable Units in Multifamily Tax Subsidy Projects (MTSPs) Rent Level 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 100% AMI $ 2,364 $ 2,836 $ 3,278 $ 3,656 60% AMI (Low Income) $ 1,419 $ 1,702 $ 1,967 $ 2, 194 50% AMI (Very Low Income) $ 1,182 $ 1,418 $ 1,639 $ 1,828 30% AMI (Extremely Low Income) $ 709 $ 851 $ 983 $ 1,097 State Density Bonus Law The SDBL requires cities to grant density bonuses and other benefits for housing projects that include certain percentages of affordable housing units. Under the SDBL, a qualifying project’s density is calculated based on the “maximum allowable residential density,” which means the greatest number of units allowed under the Zoning Code or General Plan as of the project’s application date. Currently, the General Plan provides the maximum allowable residential density at 30 du/ac. The site is 10.42 acres and, therefore, 313 units are allowed on the site using the 30 du/ac base density. The applicant is proposing to use the 30 percent density bonus granted under the SDBL by providing nine (9) percent of its base units, or twenty-nine (29) units, to VLI households. The 30 percent density bonus equates to an additional 94 market rate units and results in an overall project total of 407 units9. The applicant’s description of their density bonus proposal and its compliance with the SDBL can be found in the applicant- provided memorandum in Attachment B. Incentives, Waivers and Reduced Parking Ratios When a project qualifies for a density bonus under the SDBL, it may also qualify for development incentives, waivers, and/or reduced parking ratios. Incentives or concessions are granted based on the number of affordable units provided and must be granted by the jurisdiction when it is demonstrated that the incentive would result in cost reductions that accommodate the affordable housing component of the project 10. The proposed project is entitled to one development incentive as a result of providing 29 units to VLI households (or nine percent of the base density)11. The applicant has not identified or requested a specific development incentive at this time. 9 407 units = 313 units x 30% density bonus 10 Government Code § 65915(d) 11 Government Code § 65915(d)(2) L-5 City Council Staff Report – January 23, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-231030 655-815 Deep Valley Drive; 924-950 Indian Peak Road 6 A waiver or reduction of development standards may be requested by an applicant and must be granted by the jurisdiction when it is demonstrated that it is necessary to physically accommodate the density bonus awarded to the project12. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the 44-foot height limit, or three stories height limit, at the site in order to accommodate the bonus development and proposed height maximum of 96.5 feet and eight stories. The SDBL stipulates that, upon the request of the developer, a c ity shall not require a vehicle parking ratio that exceeds certain parking ratios for a density bonus project13. The table below compares the SDBL parking ratios and the RHEMC parking ratios. Table 2. Comparison of State Density Bonus Law-Required Parking Ratios with the City's Parking Ratios Unit Type SDBL Parking Ratios RHEMC Parking Ratios14 Studios and 1 Bedroom 1 space 1 space 2 and 3 Bedrooms 1.5 spaces 2 spaces 4 Bedroom 2.5 spaces Determined by Planning Commission The proposed project includes 503 parking spaces, including 490 residential spaces and 13 retail spaces. A breakdown of the parking space calculations for the project is provided in the table below. Table 3. Comparison of SDBL-Required Parking Breakdown with the City's Parking Ratios Unit Type Proposed Number of Units SDBL Parking Ratio Reqts RHEMC Parking Ratio Comparison 1 Bedroom 245 units 245 spaces 245 spaces 2 and 3 Bedrooms 162 units 243 spaces 324 spaces Guest Parking N/A 136 spaces (1 space/3 units) Total 407 units 488 spaces req’d 705 spaces Environmental Review State density bonus projects must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A project-level environmental review will be required for this project due to the significant geotechnical hazards of the project site. 12 Government Code § 65915(e) 13 Government Code § 65915(p)(1) 14 RHEMC § 17.37.040(f) L-6 City Council Staff Report – January 23, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-231030 655-815 Deep Valley Drive; 924-950 Indian Peak Road 7 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the issues and provide input to the applicant team. Staff will return to City Council with a professional services agreement for the CEQA-related work on the project. Attachments: A. Project Plans B. Memorandum: Brickwalk Mixed-Use Project – Density Bonus Proposal C. 2023 State Income Limits, California Department of Housing and Community Development (AMI Tables) L-7 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES 12/20/23 SB330 ATTACHMENT A - Page 1 of 31 L-8 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I A_00 PROJECT SUMMARY 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC PARKING PROVIDED (BY LEVEL) LEVEL USE # A Bldg A LEVEL 1 COMMERCIAL 8 Bldg A LEVEL 1 RESIDENTIAL 18 Bldg A LEVEL 1 MEZZANINE RESIDENTIAL 2 Bldg A LEVEL 2 RETAIL RESIDENTIAL 40 Bldg A LEVEL 2 RESIDENTIAL 33 Bldg A LEVEL 3 RESIDENTIAL 46 A 147 B Bldg B LEVEL 1 RETAIL COMMERCIAL 5 Bldg B LEVEL 1 RETAIL RESIDENTIAL 24 Bldg B LEVEL 1 MEZZANINE RESIDENTIAL 33 Bldg B LEVEL 2 RESIDENTIAL 29 Bldg B LEVEL 3 RESIDENTIAL 42 B 133 C Bldg C LEVEL 1 RESIDENTIAL 28 Bldg C LEVEL 2 RESIDENTIAL 64 Bldg C LEVEL 3 RESIDENTIAL 44 C 136 D Bldg D LEVEL 1 RESIDENTIAL 87 D 87 TOTAL 503 Units calculated at average 1,120 SF. NET RENTABLE LEVEL AREA Bldg A LEVEL 1 1,026 SF Bldg A LEVEL 2 8,114 SF Bldg A LEVEL 3 12,018 SF Bldg A LEVEL 4 26,063 SF Bldg A LEVEL 5 27,183 SF Bldg A LEVEL 6 24,129 SF Bldg A LEVEL 7 16,029 SF Bldg A LEVEL 8 13,758 SF 128,320 SF Bldg B LEVEL 1 656 SF Bldg B LEVEL 2 9,171 SF Bldg B LEVEL 3 11,959 SF Bldg B LEVEL 4 23,862 SF Bldg B LEVEL 5 25,802 SF Bldg B LEVEL 6 21,141 SF Bldg B LEVEL 7 15,074 SF Bldg B LEVEL 8 12,114 SF 119,779 SF Bldg C LEVEL 1 5,282 SF Bldg C LEVEL 2 12,259 SF Bldg C LEVEL 3 11,939 SF Bldg C LEVEL 4 26,063 SF Bldg C LEVEL 5 27,190 SF Bldg C LEVEL 6 17,620 SF Bldg C LEVEL 7 13,118 SF Bldg C LEVEL 8 13,118 SF 126,589 SF Bldg D LEVEL 2 16,683 SF Bldg D LEVEL 3 18,473 SF Bldg D LEVEL 4 18,473 SF Bldg D LEVEL 5 18,473 SF Bldg D LEVEL 6 9,336 SF 81,439 SF TOTAL 456,127 SF PARKING PROVIDED (BY BUILDING) USE STALL TYPE # A COMMERCIAL STANDARD 8 8 RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBLE 5 RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBLE VAN 1 RESIDENTIAL COMPACT 31 RESIDENTIAL STANDARD 102 139 A 147 B COMMERCIAL STANDARD 5 5 RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBLE 1 RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBLE VAN 1 RESIDENTIAL COMPACT 30 RESIDENTIAL STANDARD 96 128 B 133 C RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBLE 1 RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBLE VAN 1 RESIDENTIAL COMPACT 30 RESIDENTIAL STANDARD 104 136 C 136 D RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBLE 1 RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBLE VAN 1 RESIDENTIAL COMPACT 1 RESIDENTIAL STANDARD 72 RESIDENTIAL TANDEM PRIME 12 87 D 87 TOTAL 503 TOTAL/ BLDG 115 107 113 72 407 3BR/3BA 20% 1,300 /DU 23 20 22 14 79 2BR/2BA 20% 1,100 /DU 23 22 23 15 83 1BR/1BA 60% 800 /DU 69 65 68 43 245 TYPE % UNIT AREA # # # # # BLDG A B C D TOTAL UNIT SUMMARY TOTAL 503 TOTAL/ BLDG 147 133 136 87 TOTAL RETAIL PARKING 13 RETAIL 4 / KSF 8 5 - - ` USE STALL REQUIRED # # # # COMMERCIAL TOTAL RESIDENTIAL PARKING 490 TOTAL/ BLDG (RESIDENTIAL ONLY)139 128 136 87 3BR/3BA 1.5 /DU 35 30 33 21 2BR/2BA 1.5 /DU 35 33 35 23 1BR/1BA 1 /DU 69 65 68 43 TYPE STALL REQUIRED # # # # RESIDENTIAL BLDG A B C D PARKING REQUIRED (STATE AFFORDABLE LAW) PARKING PROVIDED (BY USE) STALL TYPE # COMMERCIAL STANDARD 13 13 RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBLE 8 ACCESSIBLE VAN 4 COMPACT 92 STANDARD 374 TANDEM PRIME 12 490 TOTAL 503 RETAIL SUMMARY LEVEL GFA Bldg A LEVEL 2 RETAIL 1,793 SF Bldg B LEVEL 1 RETAIL 1,449 SF TOTAL 3,242 SF BUILDING SUMMARY PARKING 407 DU ÷ 10.42 ACRES = 39.06 DU/ ACRE PROPOSED DENSITY 39 DU/ ACRE 407 (STATE AFFORDABLE LAW) 9 DU/ ACRE + 30 DU/ ACRE = 39 DU/ ACRE DENSITY BONUS 30% BASE DENSITY 30 DU/ ACRE 313 DU TOTAL SITE AREA 10.42 ACRES SITE SUMMARY 5. MAXIMUM COVERAGE. THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE OF A LOT BY BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED THIRTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA EXCEPT IN THE CASE WHERE THERE IS NO SURFACE PARKING AND NO ADJOINING PARKING STRUCTURE, THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE BY BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED FORTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA. STRIP-TYPE DEVELOPMENTS SHALL BE PROHIBITED AS DETERMINED UNDER DESIGN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 4. "DEVELOPABLE AREA" MEANS THE INTERIOR PORTION OF A LOT DEFINED BY THE BUILDING SETBACK LINES (FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS) FOR A MAIN BUILDING. 3. "BUILDING AREA" MEANS THE SUM IN SQUARE FEET OF THE GROUND AREAS OCCUPIED BY ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ON A LOT. 2. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. NO BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ERECTED IN THE DISTRICT SHALL HAVE A HEIGHT GREATER THAN FORTY-FOUR FEET (44'-0") ABOVE FINAL GRADE OR THREE STORIES, INCLUDING ANY REQUIRED PARAPETS. 1. "HEIGHT OF BUILDING" MEANS THE VERTICAL DISTANCE FROM THE LOCAL GRADE TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE COPING OF A FLAT ROOF OR TO THE DECK LINE OF A MANSARD ROOF OR TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE HIGHEST GABLE OF A PITCH OR HIP ROOF. FOR PURPOSES OF MEASURING THE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS, LOCAL GRADE SHALL INCLUDE FINAL GRADE OF GROUND AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE BEING MEASURED. LOCAL GRADE SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY ARTIFICIAL BERMS, MOUNDS OR OTHER TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURE ABOVE THE FINAL GRADE LINE. PLANNING & ZONING DEFINITION THE BRICKWALK RESIDENCES MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED AT 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA, IS COMPRISED OF (3) THREE EIGHT-STORY BUILDINGS WITH (5) FIVE-STORY TYPE IIIA OVER (3) THREE-STORY TYPE IA, AND (1) SIX-STORY BUILDING WITH (5) FIVE-STORY TYPE IIIA OVER (1) ONE-STORY TYPE IA. THE PROGRAM INCLUDES 407 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RESIDENTIAL LEASING AND AMENITY USES AND RETAIL AREA OF 3,249 SF. ON-SITE PARKING OF 490 SPACES FOR RESIDENTIAL USE AND 13 SPACES FOR COMMERCIAL USE. PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL 122,354 SF SUBTOTAL 97,934 SF 24,420 SF BLDG D 11,663 SF 72 DU x 60 SF = 4,320 SF BLDG C 32,744 SF 113 DU x 60 SF = 6,780 SF BLDG B 22,858 SF 107 DU x 60 SF = 6,420 SF BLDG A 30,669 SF 115 DU x 60 SF = 6,900 SF NAME COMMON OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE AREA PRIVATE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED OPEN SPACE REQUIRED 407 DU x 300 SF = 122,100 SF OPEN SPACE REQUIRED AT LEAST THREE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED, EXCEPT FOR SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO) FACILITIES. THIS AREA MAY INCLUDE PRIVATE "OPEN" BALCONIES/TERRACES AND COMMON OUTDOOR SPACES. PARKING AND LOADING AREAS (INCLUDING REQUIRED LANDSCAPING IN PARKING AND SETBACK AREAS), RECREATION/COMMUNITY ROOMS AND LAUNDRY/MECHANICAL ROOMS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED USABLE OPEN SPACE. OPEN SPACE GROSS AREA BLDG USE AREA A PARKING 62,696 SF A RESIDENTIAL 154,740 SF A RETAIL 1,878 SF 219,314 SF B PARKING 61,972 SF B RESIDENTIAL 151,668 SF B RETAIL 1,538 SF 215,178 SF C PARKING 63,606 SF C RESIDENTIAL 154,082 SF 217,688 SF D PARKING 24,694 SF D RESIDENTIAL 116,885 SF 141,579 SF TOTAL GSF 793,759 SF ATTACHMENT A - Page 2 of 31 L-9 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALL E Y D R IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHA W B L V D PH A S E L I N E D 90'-0" 149 ' - 7 " 74'-0" 285'-0 " 79'- 8 " 285' - 0 " 5'-0 " 135 ' - 7 " 8'-0 " 149 ' - 7 " 5'-0 " 135 ' - 7 " 8'-0 " 3 4 ' - 1 1 " 35'-0" 24' - 0 " 4 A_ 21 1 A_ 21 2 A_ 21 3 A_ 21 2 A_ 22 1 A_ 22 3 A_ 22 1A_ 23 2A_ 23 4A_ 23 3A_ 23 3A_24 1 A_24 2A_24 4A_24 4 A_ 22 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_01 SITE PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 3 of 31 L-10 RESIDE N T I A L ENTRAN C E A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E GA R A G E EN T R A N C E D PROGRAM LEGEND LOBBY UNITS CIRCULATION PARKING SERVICE RE S I D E N T I A L EN T R A N C E LEVEL 01 5% 3,002 SF LOBBY UNITS ELEC PARKING 555 SF TRASH ROOM 32'-2" 82 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 42'-7 3/4" 19 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 2'- 0 " 84 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 86 ' - 6 1 / 2 " CL6'-0"18'-0" 24'-0" 6 ' - 0 " 2 3 ' - 3 " 54'-0" 6'-0" 885.0 885.0 885.0 251'-0" RAMP U P 5'- 0 " 7'- 0 " 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_02 Bldg A-C LEVEL 01 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 4 of 31 L-11 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D 24 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " LEVEL 02 10 % 20 % 10 % 5% 5% 8% 16 % 8% UNITS PARKING 1,793 SF RETAIL RETAIL TRASH ROOM 898.0 895.5 898.0 19 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 19'-0"6'-0" 35'-0" 8'-2 3/4" 5'- 0 " 14 4 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 285'-0" 33'-10 1/2" 57 ' - 1 0 " 890.8 895.5 898.0 2'- 0 " 34'-5" 250'-7" RAMP D O W N RAMP U P PROGRAM LEGEND RETAIL UNITS CIRCULATION PARKING SERVICE 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_03 Bldg A-C LEVEL 02 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 5 of 31 L-12 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D GA R A G E EN T R A N C E 24 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " LEVEL 03 LEVEL 01 905.0 908.5 5% 10 % 20 % 10 % UNITS PARKING 19 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 35'-0" 8'-2 3/4" 19'-0"6'-0" 27'-5 1/2" 6 ' - 0 " 14 4 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 284'-5" 5% 19 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 21'-5" 67 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 1,449 SF RETAIL 330 SF TRASH ROOM RETAIL TRASH ROOM ELEC PARKING 905.0 907.5 905.0 2'- 0 " 84 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 5'- 0 " 86 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 100'-7" 124'-2" RAMP D O W N 908.5 PROGRAM LEGEND RETAIL UNITS CIRCULATION PARKING SERVICE RESIDE N T I A L ENTRAN C E 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_04 Bldg A-C LEVEL 03 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 6 of 31 L-13 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D RE S I D E N T I A L EN T R A N C E RESIDENTIAL ENTRANCE LEVEL 04 LEVEL 02 8,645 SF PODIUM DECK 1,606 SF AMENITY UNITS UNITS 32 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 3 2 ' - 0 " 65 ' - 0 " 35'-0" 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 133'-0" 25'-1 1/4" 35 ' - 0 " 62 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 6'- 0 " 32 ' - 0 " 13 5 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 285'-0" 35'-0" 6'-0" UNITS PARKINGUNITS 3,330 SF LOBBY 83 ' - 5 " 40'-5" 19 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 35'-0" 6'-0" 19'-0"6'-0" 22'-4 1/4"6'-0" 14 2 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 918.0 918.0 911.5 915.5 918.0 5%5% 10 % 20 % 10 % 8% 16 % 8% 919.0 919.0 918.0 RAMP D O W N RAMP UP PROGRAM LEGEND LOBBY AMENITY UNITS CIRCULATION PARKING SERVICE ROOF/PODIUM DECK 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_05 Bldg A-C LEVEL 04 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 7 of 31 L-14 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D RE S I D E N T I A L EN T R A N C E GA R A G E EN T R A N C E RES I D E N T I A L ENT R A N C E 24' - 0 " LEVEL 05 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 01 930.0 930.0 930.0 3,001 SF LOBBY UNITS PARKING 19' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 509 SF TRASH ROOM 509 SF TRASH ROOM 285'-0" 13 5 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 35'-0" 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 133'-0" 35'-0" 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 32 ' - 0 " 6'- 0 " 32 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 5% 10 % 20 % 10 % UNITS UNITS UNITS 5% 629 SF ELEC 42'-7 3 / 4 " 32'-2" 82' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 5'-0 " 86' - 6 1 / 2 " 19 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 35'-0" 6'-0" 19'-0"6'-0" 22'-4 1/4"6'-0" 285'-0 " 27'-5 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 0 " 35 ' - 0 " 62 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 6'- 0 " 32 ' - 0 " 924.5 928.5 928.5 RAMP DOWN RAM P U P RAMP UP PROGRAM LEGEND LOBBY UNITS CIRCULATION PARKING SERVICE 6'-0" 2 4 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_06 Bldg A-C LEVEL 05 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 8 of 31 L-15 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D LEVEL 06 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 02 24' - 0 " 24' - 0 " 19' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 8,793 SF PODIUM DECK 5,655 SF AMENITY UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS PARKING 24'-0" 19'-0" 6 ' - 0 " 35'-0" 8'-2 3/ 4 " 27'-5 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 0 " 19' - 0 " 90' - 6 1 / 2 " 35' - 0 " 285'-0 " 939.0 939.0 8' - 0 " 3 2 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 3 2 ' - 0 " 65 ' - 0 " 126'-4" 35'-0" 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 94'-3" 167'-5" 35 ' - 0 " 30 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 32 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 32 ' - 0 " 13 5 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 35'-0" 6'-0"33'-10 1/2" CL 32 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 4 2 ' - 1 1 / 4 " 1 4 ' - 9 3 / 4 " 4 0 ' - 1 " 32 ' - 0 " 6'- 0 " 32 ' - 0 " 13 5 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 35'-0" 6'-0" 35'-0" 133'-0" 35'-0" 6'-0" CL 35 ' - 0 " 44 ' - 6 " 18 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 0 " 32 ' - 0 " 144 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 5% 5% 10% 10% 20% 937.0 941.0 941.0 RAM P D O W N RAM P D O W N PROGRAM LEGEND AMENITY UNITS CIRCULATION PARKING SERVICE ROOF/PODIUM DECK POOL 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_07 Bldg A-C LEVEL 06 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 9 of 31 L-16 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D LEVEL 07 LEVEL 05 LEVEL 03 UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS PARKING 93 ' - 1 0 " 33'-10" 35'-0" 6 ' - 0 " 168'-0" 35'-0" 6 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 250'-7 1/2" 24 ' - 1 1 " 32 ' - 0 " 6'- 0 " 32 ' - 0 " 94 ' - 1 1 " 35'-0" 6'-0" 35'-0" 167'-5" 35'-0" 6'-0" 35'-0" 94'-3" 19' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 24' - 0 " 35'-0" 6'-0" 19'-0" 6 ' - 0 " 5% 10% 20% 10% 27'-5 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 0 " 144 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 285'-0 " 951.5 948.0 951.5 PROGRAM LEGEND UNITS CIRCULATION PARKING SERVICE 35 ' - 0 " 30 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 32 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 32 ' - 0 " 13 5 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_08 Bldg A-C LEVEL 07 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 10 of 31 L-17 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D LEVEL 08 LEVEL 06 LEVEL 04 8,645 SF PODIUM DECK 1,612 SF AMENITYUNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS 250'-7 1/2" 94 ' - 1 1 " 35 ' - 0 " 30 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 32 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 32 ' - 0 " 35'-0" 6'-0" 35'-0" 167'-5" 35'-0" 6'-0" 35'-0" 94'-3" 13 5 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 8'-0 " 3 2 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 3 2 ' - 0 " 65' - 0 " 35'-0" 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 133'-0 " 35'-0" 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 25'-1 1 / 4 " 35' - 0 " 62' - 6 1 / 2 " 6'-0 " 32' - 0 " 135 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 285'-0 " PROGRAM LEGEND AMENITY UNITS CIRCULATION SERVICE ROOF/PODIUM DECK 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_09 Bldg A-C LEVEL 08 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 11 of 31 L-18 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D ROOF LEVEL 07 LEVEL 05 50 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 15 ' - 2 " 32 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 32 ' - 0 " 85 ' - 2 " 167'-5" 34'-5" 59'-11" 35' - 0 " 30' - 6 1 / 2 " 32' - 0 " 6'-0 " 32' - 0 " 135 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 35'-0" 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 133'-0 " 35'-0" 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 285'-0 " PROGRAM LEGEND UNITS CIRCULATION SERVICE 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_ 10 Bldg A-C LEVEL 09 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 12 of 31 L-19 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D LEVEL 08 LEVEL 06 2,845 SF ROOF DECK UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS 15 ' - 2 " 32 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 32 ' - 0 " 85 ' - 2 " 133'-0" 59'-11" 84 ' - 1 " 33'-10" 32' - 0 " 6'-0 " 32' - 0 " 70' - 0 " 35'-0" 6'-0" 203'-0 " 6'-0" 35'-0" 285'-0 " PROGRAM LEGEND UNITS CIRCULATION SERVICE ROOF/PODIUM DECK 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_ 11 Bldg A-C LEVEL 10 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 13 of 31 L-20 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D ROOF LEVEL 07 32' - 0 " 6'-0 " 32' - 0 " 70' - 0 " 216'-3 " UNITS UNITS PROGRAM LEGEND UNITS CIRCULATION SERVICE 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_ 12 Bldg A-C LEVEL 11 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 14 of 31 L-21 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D LEVEL 08 32' - 0 " 6'-0 " 32' - 0 " 70' - 0 " 216'-3 " UNITS UNITS PROGRAM LEGEND UNITS CIRCULATION SERVICE 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_ 13 Bldg A-C LEVEL 12 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 15 of 31 L-22 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D ROOF 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_ 14 Bldg A-C ROOF PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 16 of 31 L-23 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D 1035.0 PARKING 1,736 SF LOBBY 24'-0" GA R A G E EN T R A N C E MECH ELEC 1035.0 24 ' - 0 " RE S I D E N T I A L EN T R A N C E LOADIN G PROGRAM LEGEND LOBBY PARKING SERVICE 729 SF TRASH ROOM 200'-0" 20 0 ' - 0 " 35'-0 " 3 4 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_ 15 Bldg D LEVEL 01 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 17 of 31 L-24 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D 4,187 SF PODIUM DECK UNITS UNITS 4,706 SF AMENITY PROGRAM LEGEND AMENITY UNITS CIRCULATION SERVICE ROOF/PODIUM DECK 35'-0 " 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 200'-0" 20 0 ' - 0 " POOL 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_ 16 Bldg D LEVEL 02 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 18 of 31 L-25 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D UNITS UNITS PROGRAM LEGEND UNITS CIRCULATION SERVICE 35'-0 " 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_ 17 Bldg D LEVEL 03 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 19 of 31 L-26 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D UNITS UNITS PROGRAM LEGEND UNITS CIRCULATION SERVICE 35'-0 " 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_ 18 Bldg D LEVEL 04-05 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 20 of 31 L-27 UNITS PROGRAM LEGEND UNITS CIRCULATION SERVICE A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_ 19 Bldg D LEVEL 06 PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 21 of 31 L-28 A B C PH A S E L I N E DEEP VALLEY DR IN D I A N P E A K R D CRENSHAW BLVD PH A S E L I N E D 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 40'-0"A_ 20 Bldg D ROOF PLAN 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 22 of 31 L-29 Bldg A LEVEL 1 885.00 Bldg A LEVEL 3 908.50 Bldg A LEVEL 4 919.00 Bldg A LEVEL 5 929.50 Bldg A LEVEL 6 940.00 Bldg A ROOF 971.50 Bldg A MAX. HEIGHT 981.50 Bldg A LEVEL 7 950.50 Bldg A LEVEL 8 961.00 Bldg A LEVEL 2 898.00 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 13 ' - 0 " 55 ' - 0 " 52 ' - 6 " 52 ' - 6 " 9'-0"48'-0"86'-6 1/2"5'-0" 149'-6 1/2" 21 3 47 56 Bldg A LEVEL 1 885.00 Bldg A LEVEL 2 RETAIL 895.50 Bldg A LEVEL 3 908.50 Bldg A LEVEL 4 919.00 Bldg A LEVEL 5 929.50 Bldg A LEVEL 6 940.00 Bldg A ROOF 971.50 Bldg A MAX. HEIGHT 981.50 Bldg A LEVEL 7 950.50 Bldg A LEVEL 8 961.00 Bldg A LEVEL 2 898.00 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 13 ' - 0 " 13 ' - 0 " 1 2335476 55 ' - 0 " 55 ' - 0 " 1 Bldg A LEVEL 1 885.00 Bldg A LEVEL 2 RETAIL 895.50 Bldg A LEVEL 3 908.50 Bldg A LEVEL 4 919.00 Bldg A LEVEL 5 929.50 Bldg A LEVEL 6 940.00 Bldg A ROOF 971.50 Bldg A MAX. HEIGHT 981.50 Bldg A LEVEL 7 950.50 Bldg A LEVEL 8 961.00 Bldg A LEVEL 2 898.00 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 13 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 55 ' - 0 " 52 ' - 6 " 52 ' - 6 " 9'-0"48'-0"86'-6 1/2"5'-0" 149'-6 1/2" 13457612 Bldg A LEVEL 4 919.00 Bldg A LEVEL 5 929.50 Bldg A LEVEL 6 940.00 Bldg A ROOF 971.50 Bldg A MAX. HEIGHT 981.50 Bldg A LEVEL 7 950.50 Bldg A LEVEL 8 961.00 6 1 174 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 52 ' - 6 " 1 EXTERIOR MATERIALS KEY 1 BUILDING COMPONENT / SPECIFICATION EXTERIOR PLASTER, FINE FINISH 2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING, VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL 3 STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM, PAINTED MULLION 4 RAILING: VERTICAL GUARDRAIL SYSTEM 5 RAILING: GLASS INSERT-METAL GUARDRAUK SYSTEM 6 CANOPY: METAL SUNSHADE SYSTEM 7 VINYL WINDOW 0' 10' 20'40' scale: 1" = 20'-0"scale I As indicated A_ 21 Bldg A ELEVATIONS 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A_ 21 Bldg A EAST ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A_ 21 Bldg A SOUTH ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A_ 21 Bldg A WEST ELEVATION 3 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A_ 21 Bldg A NORTH ELEVATION 4 ATTACHMENT A - Page 23 of 31 L-30 Bldg B LEVEL 2 918.00 Bldg B LEVEL 3 928.50 Bldg B LEVEL 4 939.00 Bldg B LEVEL 5 949.50 Bldg B LEVEL 6 960.00 Bldg B ROOF 991.50 Bldg B MAX. HEIGHT 1,001.50 Bldg B LEVEL 7 970.50 Bldg B LEVEL 8 981.00 Bldg B LEVEL 1 RETAIL 905.00 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 13 ' - 0 " 55 ' - 0 " 52 ' - 6 " 52 ' - 6 " 9'-0"48'-0"86'-6 1/2"5'-0" 149'-6 1/2" 1 3 5 4 672 Bldg B LEVEL 2 918.00 Bldg B LEVEL 3 928.50 Bldg B LEVEL 4 939.00 Bldg B LEVEL 5 949.50 Bldg B LEVEL 6 960.00 Bldg B ROOF 991.50 Bldg B MAX. HEIGHT 1,001.50 Bldg B LEVEL 7 970.50 Bldg B LEVEL 8 981.00 Bldg B LEVEL 1 907.50 Bldg B LEVEL 1 RETAIL 905.00 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 13 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 55 ' - 0 " 52 ' - 6 " 113 35467 2 Bldg B LEVEL 2 918.00 Bldg B LEVEL 3 928.50 Bldg B LEVEL 4 939.00 Bldg B LEVEL 5 949.50 Bldg B LEVEL 6 960.00 Bldg B ROOF 991.50 Bldg B MAX. HEIGHT 1,001.50 Bldg B LEVEL 7 970.50 Bldg B LEVEL 8 981.00 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 5'-0"86'-6 1/2"48'-0"9'-0" 149'-6 1/2" 2 52 ' - 6 " 52 ' - 6 " 52 ' - 6 " 1345762 Bldg B LEVEL 4 939.00 Bldg B LEVEL 5 949.50 Bldg B LEVEL 6 960.00 Bldg B ROOF 991.50 Bldg B MAX. HEIGHT 1,001.50 Bldg B LEVEL 7 970.50 Bldg B LEVEL 8 981.00 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 1 0 ' - 6 " 1 0 ' - 6 " 1 0 ' - 6 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 52 ' - 6 " 2 6 4 7 1 EXTERIOR MATERIALS KEY 1 BUILDING COMPONENT / SPECIFICATION EXTERIOR PLASTER, FINE FINISH 2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING, VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL 3 STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM, PAINTED MULLION 4 RAILING: VERTICAL GUARDRAIL SYSTEM 5 RAILING: GLASS INSERT-METAL GUARDRAUK SYSTEM 6 CANOPY: METAL SUNSHADE SYSTEM 7 VINYL WINDOW 0' 10' 20'40' scale: 1" = 20'-0"scale I As indicated A_ 22 Bldg B ELEVATIONS 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"A_ 22 Bldg B EAST ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"A_ 22 Bldg B SOUTH ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"A_ 22 Bldg B WEST ELEVATION 3 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"A_ 22 Bldg B NORTH ELEVATION 4 ATTACHMENT A - Page 24 of 31 L-31 Bldg C LEVEL 1 930.00 Bldg C LEVEL 2 941.00 Bldg C LEVEL 3 951.50 Bldg C LEVEL 4 962.00 Bldg C LEVEL 5 972.50 Bldg C ROOF 1,014.50 Bldg C MAX. HEIGHT 1,024.50 Bldg C LEVEL 6 983.00 Bldg C LEVEL 7 993.50 Bldg C LEVEL 8 1,004.00 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 0 " 9'-0"48'-0"86'-6 1/2"5'-0" 149'-6 1/2" 53 ' - 0 " 52 ' - 6 " 52 ' - 6 " 1 2 634571 Bldg C LEVEL 1 930.00 Bldg C LEVEL 2 941.00 Bldg C LEVEL 3 951.50 Bldg C LEVEL 4 962.00 Bldg C LEVEL 5 972.50 Bldg C ROOF 1,014.50 Bldg C MAX. HEIGHT 1,024.50 Bldg C LEVEL 6 983.00 Bldg C LEVEL 7 993.50 Bldg C LEVEL 8 1,004.00 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 0 " 53 ' - 0 " 6 4 7513 12 2 Bldg C LEVEL 1 930.00 Bldg C LEVEL 2 941.00 Bldg C LEVEL 3 951.50 Bldg C LEVEL 4 962.00 Bldg C LEVEL 5 972.50 Bldg C ROOF 1,014.50 Bldg C MAX. HEIGHT 1,024.50 Bldg C LEVEL 6 983.00 Bldg C LEVEL 7 993.50 Bldg C LEVEL 8 1,004.00 9'-0"48'-0"86'-6 1/2"5'-0" 149'-6 1/2" 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 0 " 52 ' - 6 " 52 ' - 6 " 53 ' - 0 " 1 1674521 Bldg C LEVEL 4 962.00 Bldg C LEVEL 5 972.50 Bldg C ROOF 1,014.50 Bldg C MAX. HEIGHT 1,024.50 Bldg C LEVEL 6 983.00 Bldg C LEVEL 7 993.50 Bldg C LEVEL 8 1,004.00 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 1 52 ' - 6 " 74 6 11 EXTERIOR MATERIALS KEY 1 BUILDING COMPONENT / SPECIFICATION EXTERIOR PLASTER, FINE FINISH 2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING, VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL 3 STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM, PAINTED MULLION 4 RAILING: VERTICAL GUARDRAIL SYSTEM 5 RAILING: GLASS INSERT-METAL GUARDRAUK SYSTEM 6 CANOPY: METAL SUNSHADE SYSTEM 7 VINYL WINDOW 0' 10' 20'40' scale: 1" = 20'-0"scale I As indicated A_ 23 Bldg C ELEVATIONS 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A_ 23 Bldg C EAST ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A_ 23 Bldg C SOUTH ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A_ 23 Bldg C WEST ELEVATION 3 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A_ 23 Bldg C NORTH ELEVATION 4 ATTACHMENT A - Page 25 of 31 L-32 Bldg D LEVEL 1 1,035.00 Bldg D LEVEL 2 1,046.00 Bldg D LEVEL 3 1,056.50 Bldg D LEVEL 4 1,067.00 Bldg D LEVEL 5 1,077.50 Bldg D LEVEL 6 1,088.00 Bldg D MAX. HEIGHT 1,108.50 Bldg D ROOF 1,098.50 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 0 " 53 ' - 0 " 61274 5 3 Bldg D LEVEL 1 1,035.00 Bldg D LEVEL 2 1,046.00 Bldg D LEVEL 3 1,056.50 Bldg D LEVEL 4 1,067.00 Bldg D LEVEL 5 1,077.50 Bldg D LEVEL 6 1,088.00 Bldg D MAX. HEIGHT 1,108.50 Bldg D ROOF 1,098.50 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 0 " 53 ' - 0 " 12 35467 Bldg D LEVEL 1 1,035.00 Bldg D LEVEL 2 1,046.00 Bldg D LEVEL 3 1,056.50 Bldg D LEVEL 4 1,067.00 Bldg D LEVEL 5 1,077.50 Bldg D LEVEL 6 1,088.00 Bldg D MAX. HEIGHT 1,108.50 Bldg D ROOF 1,098.50 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 0 " 53 ' - 0 " 1 2 74 6 5 3 Bldg D LEVEL 1 1,035.00 Bldg D LEVEL 2 1,046.00 Bldg D LEVEL 3 1,056.50 Bldg D LEVEL 4 1,067.00 Bldg D LEVEL 5 1,077.50 Bldg D LEVEL 6 1,088.00 Bldg D MAX. HEIGHT 1,108.50 Bldg D ROOF 1,098.50 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 0 " 52 ' - 6 " 7124 6 EXTERIOR MATERIALS KEY 1 BUILDING COMPONENT / SPECIFICATION EXTERIOR PLASTER, FINE FINISH 2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING, VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL 3 STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM, PAINTED MULLION 4 RAILING: VERTICAL GUARDRAIL SYSTEM 5 RAILING: GLASS INSERT-METAL GUARDRAUK SYSTEM 6 CANOPY: METAL SUNSHADE SYSTEM 7 VINYL WINDOW 0' 10' 20'40' scale: 1" = 20'-0"scale I As indicated A_24 Bldg D ELEVATIONS 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A_24 Bldg D EAST ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A_24 Bldg D SOUTH ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A_24 Bldg D WEST ELEVATION 3 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A_24 Bldg D NORTH ELEVATION 4 ATTACHMENT A - Page 26 of 31 L-33 EXTERIOR MATERIALS KEY 1 BUILDING COMPONENT / SPECIFICATION EXTERIOR PLASTER, FINE FINISH 2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING, VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL 3 STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM, PAINTED MULLION 4 RAILING: VERTICAL GUARDRAIL SYSTEM 5 RAILING: GLASS INSERT-METAL GUARDRAUK SYSTEM 6 CANOPY: METAL SUNSHADE SYSTEM 7 VINYL WINDOW 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 30'-0"A_25 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS - BLDG A 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 27 of 31 L-34 EXTERIOR MATERIALS KEY 1 BUILDING COMPONENT / SPECIFICATION EXTERIOR PLASTER, FINE FINISH 2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING, VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL 3 STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM, PAINTED MULLION 4 RAILING: VERTICAL GUARDRAIL SYSTEM 5 RAILING: GLASS INSERT-METAL GUARDRAUK SYSTEM 6 CANOPY: METAL SUNSHADE SYSTEM 7 VINYL WINDOW 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 30'-0"A_26 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS - BLDG B 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 28 of 31 L-35 EXTERIOR MATERIALS KEY 1 BUILDING COMPONENT / SPECIFICATION EXTERIOR PLASTER, FINE FINISH 2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING, VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL 3 STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM, PAINTED MULLION 4 RAILING: VERTICAL GUARDRAIL SYSTEM 5 RAILING: GLASS INSERT-METAL GUARDRAUK SYSTEM 6 CANOPY: METAL SUNSHADE SYSTEM 7 VINYL WINDOW 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 30'-0"A_27 PERSPECTIVE VIEW - BLDG C 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 29 of 31 L-36 EXTERIOR MATERIALS KEY 1 BUILDING COMPONENT / SPECIFICATION EXTERIOR PLASTER, FINE FINISH 2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING, VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL 3 STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM, PAINTED MULLION 4 RAILING: VERTICAL GUARDRAIL SYSTEM 5 RAILING: GLASS INSERT-METAL GUARDRAUK SYSTEM 6 CANOPY: METAL SUNSHADE SYSTEM 7 VINYL WINDOW 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 30'-0"A_28 PERSPECTIVE VIEW - BLDG D 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 30 of 31 L-37 EXTERIOR MATERIALS KEY 1 BUILDING COMPONENT / SPECIFICATION EXTERIOR PLASTER, FINE FINISH 2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING, VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL 3 STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM, PAINTED MULLION 4 RAILING: VERTICAL GUARDRAIL SYSTEM 5 RAILING: GLASS INSERT-METAL GUARDRAUK SYSTEM 6 CANOPY: METAL SUNSHADE SYSTEM 7 VINYL WINDOW 0' 20' 40'80' scale: 1" = 40'-0"scale I 1" = 30'-0"A_29 PERSPECTIVE VIEW - Pedestrian 655-815 DEEP VALLEY DR., ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 BRICKWALK RESIDENCES project no I 2207029.00 issue date I 12/20/23 ROLLING HILLS CAPITAL, LLC ATTACHMENT A - Page 31 of 31 L-38 MEMORANDUM TO:Planning Division, Community Development Department, City of Rolling Hills Estates FROM: Dave Rand DATE: January 8 2024 SUBJECT: Brickwalk Mixed-Use Project – Density Bonus Proposal We represent Rolling Hills Capital, LLC (the “Applicant”), which own 10.42 acres of real property located at 655-815 Deep Valley Drive (“Site”) in the City of Rolling Hills Estates (“City”). Applicant proposes a mixed-use project composing of three eight-story buildings and one six-story building with a total of 407 residential units, 3,249 square feet of retail, and 503 vehicle parking spaces, including 490 residential spaces and 13 retail spaces (“Project”). Because the Project provides 29 of its 407 units for very low- income (“VLI”) households, it qualifies for mandatory benefits under the State Density Bonus Law1 (“SDBL”), including a 30 percent density bonus, a development incentive that reduces project costs to accommodate the affordable housing component, unlimited waivers that physically accommodate the project, and reduced parking ratios. This memorandum discusses the affordable unit requirements to qualify for the SDBL and the associated mandatory benefits granted to qualifying projects. I.Background The City adopted the General Plan 2040 on April 26, 2022, which designates the Site as Commercial General.2 All Commercial General sites are subject to the Commercial District Mixed-Use Overlay, within which the permitted residential density is 30 dwelling units per acre (“du/ac”) and the permitted nonresidential intensity is 2.5 floor area ratio (“FAR”).3 The Site is zoned as CG Commercial General, which permits a density of 22 du/ac.4 Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code (“Zoning Code”) is in the process of being updated consistent with the General Plan 2040. Until the Zoning Code and General Plan are consistent, under the SDBL, the Project’s density is calculated based on the “maximum allowable residential density,” which means the greatest number of units allowed under the Zoning Code or General Plan as of the date of application. The General Plan allows 30 du/ac, which is the “greatest number of units allowed” on the Site, and therefore, is the “maximum allowable residential density.” Therefore, the 1 Government Code § 65915. 2 See Figure 2-9, Land Use Element, General Plan 2040, p. 2 -34. 3 See Table 2-5, Land Use Element, General Plan 2040, p. 2 -36. 4 See Figure 2-7, Land Use Element, General Plan 2040, p. 2 -19. ATTACHMENT B - Page 1 of 4 L-39 January 8, 2024 Page 2 30 du/ac density is used to calculate the Project’s base density, affordable unit requirements, density bonus and incentives. II.Affordable Unit Requirement and Density Bonus The SDBL requires cities to grant density bonuses and other benefits for housing projects that include a prescribed percentage of affordable housing units. The affordable unit requirement is calculated based on the number of units provided before any additional density bonus units are granted (or the “base” density).5 The granting of a density bonus shall not require or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, zone change, or other discretionary approval.6 Fractional units are rounded up to the next whole number.7 The Project proposes to utilize the 30 percent density bonus granted under the SDBL when nine percent of its base units are provided for VLI households.8, 9 As discussed above, the 10.42-acre Site is subject to a 30 du/ac base density and thus 313 units are permitted on the Site before the award of any density bonus units. Accordingly, 29 units must be provided for VLI households10 to qualify for the mandatory 30 percent density bonus, which equates to an additional 94 market rate bonus units or a total of 407 units11 altogether for the Project (inclusive of the 29 units for VLI households). III.Development Incentives and Waivers When a project provides affordable units to achieve a density bonus under the SDBL, it also qualifies for development incentives and waivers. As discussed in more detail below, both incentives and waivers may be used to modify development standards. However, they differ in two key aspects. First, the number of incentives granted is based on the number of affordable units provided, while waivers are unlimited; and second, incentives must be granted when it is demonstrated that they result in cost reductions that accommodate the affordable housing component of the project. Waivers must be granted when it is demonstrated that they are necessary to physically accommodate the density bonus and incentive(s) awarded to the project. The SDBL requires the following number of incentives/concessions be granted based on the percentage of affordable housing provided, as follows: •5% VLI – one incentive/concession •10% VLI – two incentives/concessions 5 Government Code § 65915(b). 6 Government Code § 65915(h)(5). 7 Government Code § 65915(f) and (q). 8 VLI households is defined in Health and Safety Code § 50105. 9 Government Code § 65915(b) and (f). 10 The calculation for the required VLI units is as follows: 313 units (base density) x 0.09 (VLI requirement) = 28.17 rounded up to 29 VLI units. 11 The calculation for the total density including the density bonus is as follows: 313 units (base density) x 1.3 (30% density bonus) = 406.9 rounded up to 407 total units. ATTACHMENT B - Page 2 of 4 L-40 January 8, 2024 Page 3 • 15% VLI – three incentives/concessions.12 Incentives are “reductions in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards” that create identifiable and actual cost reductions necessary to provide for affordable housing costs.13 The granting of an incentive shall not require or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, zone change, or other discretionary approval.14 Under the SDBL, the City must grant a requested incentive unless the City makes a written finding that the incentive (i) does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, (ii) would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety, the physical environment, or a historic resources, or (iii) would be contrary to state or federal law.15 As recently held by the State’s Court of Appeal, the SDBL places the burden of proof on the local jurisdiction to overcome the presumption that requested incentives will result in cost reductions.16 With the provision of 29 units set aside for VLI households (or nine percent of the base density), the Project would be entitled to one development incentive.17 In addition to incentives, an unlimited number of waivers of development standards must also be granted if it can be shown that a given regulation would physically preclude construction of a project as proposed inclusive of the density bonus and any requested incentives.18 However, the City is not required to waive development standards if the waiver would: (i) have a specific, adverse impact19 upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact; (ii) have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; or (iii) be contrary to state or federal law.20 The State’s Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the SDBL provides a developer with broad discretion regarding the design of a proposed housing development project and requests for waivers of development standards. Specifically, provided that a project is properly eligible to receive a density bonus and associated incentives, a local government must grant a waiver of a development standard that would preclude the development of the proposed project in its current form and may not demand that the applicant redesign the proposed building in an attempt to avoid the requested waiver.21 The Site is subject to a 44-foot (above final grade), or three stories height limitation, including any required parapets.22 However, the Project proposes buildings up to eight stories. Thus, to physically accommodate the Project’s 30 percent density bonus the Applicant requests a waiver of the underlying height limit to permit the proposed Project height. 12 Government Code § 65915(d)(2). 13 Government Code § 65915(k)(1). 14 Government Code § 65915(j)(1). 15 Government Code § 65915(d)(1). 16 Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549. 17 Government Code § 65915(d)(2). 18 Government Code § 65915(e). 19 See Government Code § 65589.5(d)(2). 20 Government Code § 65915(e). 21 Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755. 22 Zoning Coe § 17.30.050.F. ATTACHMENT B - Page 3 of 4 L-41 January 8, 2024 Page 4 IV. Parking Reductions Upon request from the applicant, a project that qualifies for a density bonus under the SDBL is also entitled to the following vehicle parking ratios, inclusive of guest parking: • Zero- and one-bedroom units: one onsite parking space. • Two- and three-bedroom units: one and one-half onsite parking spaces. • Four-bedroom units: two and one-half parking spaces.23 Under these standards the Project would be required to provide no more than 488 vehicle parking spaces total: • 245 one-bedroom units: 245 parking spaces.24 • 162 two- and three-bedroom units: 243 parking spaces.25 The Project will provide 490 vehicle parking spaces for the residential portion of the Project. Applicant has also proposed an additional 13 parking spaces for the retail portion of the Project. V. Conclusion With the provision of 29 units for VLI households (nine percent of the base density), the Project qualifies for a 30 percent density bonus, one development incentive and unlimited waivers, and reduced parking ratios. 23 Government Code § 65915(p)(1). 24 The calculation for the required parking spaces for the one-bedroom units is as follows: 245 x 1.0 = 245 spaces. 25 The calculation for the required parking spaces for the two-bedroom (83) and three-bedroom (79) units is as follows: 162 x 1.5 = 243 spaces. ATTACHMENT B - Page 4 of 4 L-42 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 June 6, 2023 MEMORANDUM FOR: Interested parties FROM: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director Division of Housing Policy Development SUBJECT: 2023 State Income Limits Attached are briefing materials and 2023 State Income Limits that are now in effect, replacing the previous 2022 State Income Limits. Income limits reflect updated median income and household income levels for acutely low -, extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households for California’s 58 counties. The 2023 State Income Limits are on the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-and- funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-rent-and-loan-value-limits. State Income Limits apply to designated programs, are used to determine applicant eligibility (based on the level of household income) and may be used to calculate affordable housing costs for applicable housing assistance programs. Use of State Income Limits are subject to a particular program’s definition of income, family, family size, effective dates, and other factors. In addition, definitions applicable to income categories, criteria, and geographic areas sometimes differ depending on the funding source and program, resulting in some programs using other income limits. The attached briefing materials detail California’s 2023 Income Limits and were updated based on: (1) changes to income limits the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released on May 15, 2023, for its Public Housing, Section 8, Section 202 and Section 811 programs and (2) adjustments HCD made based on State statutory provisions and its 2013 Hold Harmless (HH) Policy. Since 2013, HCD’s HH Policy has held State Income Limits harmless from any decreases in household income limits and median income levels that HUD may apply to the Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits. HUD determined its HH Policy was no longer necessary due to federal law changes in 2008 (Public Law 110-98) prohibiting rent decreases in federal or private activity bond funded projects. For questions concerning State Income Limits, please see the Questions and Answers on page 5. You can also contact HCD staff at (916) 263-2911. ATTACHMENT C - Page 1 of 14 L-43 Overview The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 50093(c), must file updates to its State Income Limits with the Office of Administrative Law. HCD annually updates these income limits based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revisions to the Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits that HUD most recently released on May 15, 2023. HUD annually updates its Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits to reflect changes in median family income levels for different size households and income limits for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households. HCD, pursuant to statutory provisions, makes the following additional revisions: (1)if necessary, increase a county’s area median income to equal California’s non-metropolitan median income, (2) adjusts area median income and household income category levels to not result in any decrease for any year after 2009 pursuant to HCD’s February 2013 Hold Harmless (HH) Policy (HCD’s HH Policy was implemented to replace HUD’s HH Policy, discontinued in 2009, to not decrease income limits and area median income levels below a prior year’s highest level), and (3) determines income limits for California’s acutely low-income and moderate-income category. Following are brief summaries of technical methodologies used by HUD and HCD in updating income limits for different household income categories. For additional information, please refer to HUD’s briefing materials at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il//il23/IncomeLimitsMethodology-FY23.pdf HUD Methodology HUD Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits begin with the production of median family incomes. HUD uses the Section 8 program’s Fair Market Rent (FMR) area definitions in developing median incomes, which means developing median incomes for each metropolitan area, parts of some metropolitan areas, and each non-metropolitan county. The 2023 FMR area definitions for California are unchanged from last year. HUD calculates Income Limits for every FMR area with adjustments for family size and for areas with unusually high or low family income or housing-cost-to-income relationships. Extremely Low-Income In determining the extremely low-income limit, HUD uses the Federal Poverty Guidelines, published by the Department of Health and Human Services. The poverty guidelines are a simplified version of the federal poverty thresholds used for administrative purposes — for instance, determining financial eligibility for certain federal programs. HUD compares the appropriate poverty guideline with 60% of the very low-income limit and chooses the greater of the two as the extremely low-income limit. The value may not exceed the very low-income level. Very Low-Income The very low-income limits are the basis for the extremely low- and low-income limits. The very low- income limit typically reflects 50 percent of median family income (MFI), and HUD's MFI figure generally equals two times HUD's 4-person very low-income limit. However, HUD may adjust the very low-income limit for an area or county to account for conditions that warrant special considerations. As such, the very low-income limit may not always equal 50% MFI. Low-Income In general, most low-income limits represent the higher level of: (1) 80 percent of MFI or, (2) 80 percent of state non-metropolitan median family income. However, due to adjustments that HUD sometimes makes to the very low-income limit, strictly calculating low-income limits as 80 percent of MFI could produce unintended anomalies inconsistent with statutory intent (e.g., very low-income limits being higher than low-income limits). Therefore, HUD’s briefing materials specify that, with some exceptions, ATTACHMENT C - Page 2 of 14 L-44 the low-income limit reflect 160 percent of the very low-income limit. HUD may apply additional adjustments to areas with unusually high or low housing-costs-to-income relationships and for other reasons. This can result in low-income limits exceeding MFI in certain counties. Median Family Income/Area Median Income HUD references and estimates the MFI in calculating the income limits. California law and State Income Limits reference Area Median Income (AMI) that, pursuant to Health & Safety Code 50093(c), means the MFI of a geographic area, estimated by HUD for its Section 8 Program. In estimating FY 2023 median family incomes, HUD uses median family income data (as opposed to median household income data) from the 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) as calculated by the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau produces two types of ACS estimates: the “one-year” data, which represent estimates as of 2021; and the “five-year” data, which represent estimates as of 2017-2021 (but are inflated to 2021 dollars). HUD would ordinarily have used the ACS 2020 data for FY 2023. However, due to interruptions to data collection caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the Census Bureau did not release special tabulations of ACS 2020 one-year data. HUD requires special tabulations of the ACS to match its custom HMFA definitions described above. HUD uses the 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) median family income data (as opposed to household income data) as the basis of FY 2023 Income Limits for all areas of California. HUD uses an inflation forecast from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in updating ACS estimates. For FY 2023, CBO has produced a forecast CPI of 303.948, which divided by annual 2021 of 270.971 is 1.122 (an increase of 12.2 percent). For additional information on MFI’s please see HUD’s briefing materials at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il23/Medians-Methodology-FY23.pdf. Adjustment Calculations HUD may apply adjustments to areas with unusually high or low family income, uneven housing-cost-to- income relationship, or other reasons. For example, HUD applies an increase if the four-person very low-income limit would otherwise be less than the amount at which 35 percent of it equals 85 percent of the annualized two-bedroom Section 8 FMR (or 40th percentile rent in 50th percentile FMR areas). The purpose is to increase the income limit for areas where rental-housing costs are unusually high in relation to the median income. In certain cases, HUD also applies an adjustment to the income limits based on the state non- metropolitan median family income level. In addition, HUD restricts adjustments, so income limits do not increase more than five percent of the previous year's very low-income figure OR twice the increase in the national MFI as measured by the American Community Survey, whichever is greater. For the 2023 income limits, the cap is twice the annualized change from ACS 2019 to ACS 2021, which is 5.92 percent. This adjustment does not apply to the extremely low-income limits. Please refer to HUD briefing materials for additional information on the adjustment calculations. Income Limit Calculations for Household Sizes Other Than 4-Persons The income limit statute requires adjustments for family size. The legislative history and conference committee report indicates that Congress intended that income limits should be higher for larger families and lower for smaller families. The same family size adjustments apply to all income limits, except extremely low-income limits, which are set at the poverty income threshold. They are as follows: Number of Persons in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Adjustments: 70% 80% 90% Base 108% 116% 124% 132% ATTACHMENT C - Page 3 of 14 L-45 Income Limit Calculations for Household Sizes Greater Than 8-Persons For households of more than eight persons, refer to the formula at the end of the table for 2023 Income Limits. Due to the adjustments HUD can make to income limits in a given county, table data should be the only method used to determine program eligibility. Arithmetic calculations are applicable only when a household has more than eight members. Please refer to HUD’s briefing material for additional information on family size adjustments. HCD Methodology State law (see, e.g., Health & Safety Code Section 50093) prescribes the methodology HCD uses to update the State Income Limits. HCD utilizes HUD’s Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits. HCD’s methodology involves: (1) if necessary, increasing a county’s median income established by HUD to equal California’s non-metropolitan county median income determined by HUD, (2) applying HCD’s HH Policy, in effect since 2013, to not allow decreases in area median income levels and household income category levels, (3) applying to the median income the same family size adjustments HUD applies to the income limits, (4) determining income limit levels applicable to California’s acutely low-income households defined by law as household income not exceeding 15 percent of county area median income, and (5) determining income limit levels applicable to California’s moderate-income households defined by law as household income not exceeding 120 percent of county area median income. Area Median Income and Income Category Levels HCD, pursuant to federal and State law, adjusts median income levels for all counties so they are not less than the non-metropolitan county median income established by HUD ($83,800 for 2023). Next, HCD applies its HH policy to ensure area median income and income limits for all household income categories do not fall below any level achieved in the prior year. Health and Safety Code section 50093 requires HCD to adjust the AMI for family size in accordance with adjustment factors adopted by HUD and illustrated on the previous page. This establishes that the MFI published by HUD equals the four- person AMI for California counties. Acutely low-Income Levels Chapter 345, Statues of 2021 (Assembly Bill 1043) established California’s acutely low-income levels. See Health & Safety Code, § 50063.5. After calculating the 4-person area median income (AMI) level as previously described, HCD sets the maximum acutely low-income limit to equal 15 percent of the county’s AMI, adjusted for family size. Moderate-Income Levels HCD is responsible for establishing California’s moderate-income limit levels. After calculating the 4- person area median income (AMI) level as previously described, HCD sets the maximum moderate- income limit to equal 120 percent of the county’s AMI, adjusted for family size. Applicability of California’s Official State Income Limits Applicability of the State Income Limits are subject to particular programs as program definitions of factors such as income, family, and household size vary. Some programs, such as Multifamily Tax Subsidy Projects (MTSPs), use different income limits. For MTSPs, separate income limits apply per provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008 (Public Law 110-289). Income limits for MTSPs are used to determine qualification levels as well as set maximum rental rates for projects funded with tax credits authorized under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). In addition, MTSP income limits apply to projects financed with tax-exempt housing bonds issued to provide qualified residential rental development under Section 142 of the Code. These income limits are available at http://www.huduser.org/datasets/mtsp.html. ATTACHMENT C - Page 4 of 14 L-46 Questions and Answers In Los Angeles, as well as several other counties in the state, why does the very low-income limit not equal 50% of the AMI (or the low-income limit not equal 80% of the AMI)? There are many exceptions to the arithmetic calculation of income limits. These include adjustments for high housing cost relative to income, the application of state nonmetropolitan income limits in low-income areas, and national maximums in high-income areas. In Los Angeles County, as well as several others, the magnitude of these adjustments results in the low-income limit exceeding the AMI. These exceptions are detailed in the FY 2023 Income Limits Methodology Document, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il23/Medians-Methodology-FY23.pdf. For further information on the exact adjustments made to an individual area of the country, please see HUD’s FY 2023 Income Limits Documentation System. The documentation system is available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2023/select_Geography.odn. Once the area in question is selected, a summary of the area’s median income, Very Low-Income, Extremely Low-Income, and Low- Income Limits are displayed. Detailed calculations are obtained by selecting the relevant links. Why don’t the income limits for my area reflect recent gains? Although HUD uses the most recent data available concerning local area incomes, there is still a lag between when the data are collected and when the data are available for use. For example, FY 2023 Income Limits are calculated using 2017-2021 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) data, and one-year 2021 data where possible. This is a two-year lag, so more current trends in median family income levels are not available. HUD estimates Median Family Income (MFI) annually for each metropolitan area and non-metropolitan county. The basis for HUD’s median family incomes is data from the American Community Survey, table B19113 - MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. A Consumer Price Index (CPI) forecast as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is used in the trend factor calculation to bring the 2021 ACS data forward to FY 2023. For additional details concerning the use of the ACS in HUD’s calculations of MFI, please see HUD’s FY 2023 Median Family Income methodology document, at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il23/Medians-Methodology-FY23.pdf Additionally, full documentation of all calculations for Median Family Incomes are available in the FY 2023 Median Family Income and the FY 2023 Income Limits Documentation System. These systems are available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2023/select_Geography.odn Why didn’t the income limits for my county change from last year? HCD’s Hold Harmless Policy likely prevented the income limits from decreasing from last year’s levels and has maintained them despite a decrease in median income and/or income limits published by HUD. Why do the income limits or area median income for my county not match what was published by HUD? HCD adjusts each county’s area median income to at least equal the state non-metropolitan county median income, as published by HUD. Further, HCD’s Hold Harmless Policy prevents any decrease in income limits or median family income published by HUD to be applied to State Income Limits. ATTACHMENT C - Page 5 of 14 L-47 Section 6932. 2023 Income Limits Number of Persons in Household:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Income Category Acutely Low 15550 17750 20000 22200 24000 25750 27550 29300 Extremely Low 31050 35500 39950 44350 47900 51450 55000 58550 Very Low Income 51800 59200 66600 73950 79900 85800 91700 97650 Low Income 78550 89750 100950 112150 121150 130100 139100 148050 Median Income 103550 118300 133100 147900 159750 171550 183400 195250 Moderate Income 124250 142000 159750 177500 191700 205900 220100 234300 Acutely Low 12050 13750 15500 17200 18600 19950 21350 22700 Extremely Low 20200 23100 26000 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 33650 38450 43250 48050 51900 55750 59600 63450 Low Income 53850 61550 69250 76900 83100 89250 95400 101550 Median Income 80200 91700 103150 114600 123750 132950 142100 151250 Moderate Income 96250 110000 123750 137500 148500 159500 170500 181500 Acutely Low 10650 12150 13700 15200 16400 17650 18850 20050 Extremely Low 19250 22000 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 32100 36700 41300 45850 49550 53200 56900 60550 Low Income 51350 58700 66050 73350 79250 85100 91000 96850 Median Income 70850 80950 91100 101200 109300 117400 125500 133600 Moderate Income 85000 97150 109300 121450 131150 140900 150600 160300 Acutely Low 9650 11000 12400 13750 14850 15950 17050 18150 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 64100 73300 82450 91600 98950 106250 113600 120900 Moderate Income 76950 87900 98900 109900 118700 127500 136300 145050 Acutely Low 10100 11550 13000 14450 15600 16750 17900 19050 Extremely Low 20050 22900 25750 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 33400 38150 42900 47650 51500 55300 59100 62900 Low Income 53400 61000 68650 76250 82350 88450 94550 100650 Median Income 67350 76950 86600 96200 103900 111600 119300 127000 Moderate Income 80800 92350 103900 115450 124700 133900 143150 152400 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 15550 17750 20000 22200 24000 25750 27550 29300 Extremely Low 31050 35500 39950 44350 47900 51450 55000 58550 Very Low Income 51800 59200 66600 73950 79900 85800 91700 97650 Low Income 78550 89750 100950 112150 121150 130100 139100 148050 Median Income 103550 118300 133100 147900 159750 171550 183400 195250 Moderate Income 124250 142000 159750 177500 191700 205900 220100 234300 Last page instructs how to use income limits to determine applicant eligibility and calculate affordable housing cost and rent Alameda County Area Median Income: $147,900 Alpine County Area Median Income: $114,600 Amador County Area Median Income: $101,200 Butte County Area Median Income: $91,600 Calaveras County Area Median Income: $96,200 Colusa County Area Median Income: $83,800 Contra Costa County Area Median Income: $147,900 ATTACHMENT C - Page 6 of 14 L-48 Number of Persons in Household:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 11950 13700 15400 17100 18450 19850 21200 22550 Extremely Low 22550 25750 28950 32150 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 37550 42900 48250 53600 57900 62200 66500 70800 Low Income 60050 68600 77200 85750 92650 99500 106350 113200 Median Income 79750 91100 102500 113900 123000 132100 141250 150350 Moderate Income 95700 109350 123050 136700 147650 158550 169500 180450 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 8950 10250 11500 12800 13800 14850 15850 16900 Extremely Low 17950 20500 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 29900 34200 38450 42700 46150 49550 52950 56400 Low Income 47850 54650 61500 68300 73800 79250 84700 90200 Median Income 59800 68300 76850 85400 92250 99050 105900 112750 Moderate Income 71750 82000 92250 102500 110700 118900 127100 135300 Del Norte County Area Median Income: $83,800 El Dorado County Area Median Income: $113,900 Fresno County Area Median Income: $83,800 Glenn County Area Median Income: $83,800 Humboldt County Area Median Income: $83,800 Imperial County Area Median Income: $83,800 Inyo County Area Median Income: $85,400 ATTACHMENT C - Page 7 of 14 L-49 Number of Persons in Household:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17650 20150 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 29350 33550 37750 41900 45300 48650 52000 55350 Low Income 46950 53650 60350 67050 72450 77800 83150 88550 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 10350 11800 13300 14750 15950 17100 18300 19450 Extremely Low 26500 30300 34100 37850 40900 43950 46950 50560 Very Low Income 44150 50450 56750 63050 68100 73150 78200 83250 Low Income 70650 80750 90850 100900 109000 117050 125150 133200 Median Income 68750 78550 88400 98200 106050 113900 121750 129600 Moderate Income 82500 94300 106050 117850 127300 136700 146150 155550 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 18400 21000 23650 26250 28350 30450 32550 34650 Extremely Low 39150 44750 50350 55900 60400 64850 69350 73800 Very Low Income 65250 74600 83900 93200 100700 108150 115600 123050 Low Income 104400 119300 134200 149100 161050 173000 184900 196850 Median Income 122500 140000 157500 175000 189000 203000 217000 231000 Moderate Income 147000 168000 189000 210000 226800 243600 260400 277200 Kern County Area Median Income: $83,800 Kings County Area Median Income: $83,800 Lake County Area Median Income: $83,800 Lassen County Area Median Income: $83,800 Los Angeles County Area Median Income: $98,200 Madera County Area Median Income: $83,800 Marin County Area Median Income: $175,000 ATTACHMENT C - Page 8 of 14 L-50 Number of Persons in Household:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 9400 10750 12100 13450 14550 15600 16700 17750 Extremely Low 17850 20400 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 29750 34000 38250 42500 45900 49300 52700 56100 Low Income 47600 54400 61200 68000 73450 78900 84350 89800 Median Income 62800 71750 80750 89700 96900 104050 111250 118400 Moderate Income 75350 86100 96900 107650 116250 124850 133500 142100 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 10050 11500 12900 14350 15500 16650 17800 18950 Extremely Low 17850 20400 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 29750 34000 38250 42500 45900 49300 52700 56100 Low Income 47600 54400 61200 68000 73450 78900 84350 89800 Median Income 67050 76650 86200 95800 103450 111150 118800 126450 Moderate Income 80450 91950 103450 114950 124150 133350 142550 151750 Acutely Low 10550 12050 13550 15050 16250 17450 18650 19850 Extremely Low 25300 28900 32500 36100 39000 41900 45420 50560 Very Low Income 42150 48200 54200 60200 65050 69850 74650 79500 Low Income 67450 77100 86750 96350 104100 111800 119500 127200 Median Income 70300 80300 90350 100400 108450 116450 124500 132550 Moderate Income 84350 96400 108450 120500 130150 139800 149400 159050 Acutely Low 13600 15550 17500 19450 21000 22550 24100 25650 Extremely Low 28050 32050 36050 40050 43300 46500 49700 52900 Very Low Income 46750 53400 60100 66750 72100 77450 82800 88150 Low Income 74700 85400 96050 106700 115250 123800 132350 140850 Median Income 90700 103700 116650 129600 139950 150350 160700 171050 Moderate Income 108850 124400 139950 155500 167950 180400 192800 205250 Monterey County Area Median Income: $100,400 Napa County Area Median Income: $129,600 Modoc County Area Median Income: $83,800 Mono County Area Median Income: $95,800 Mariposa County Area Median Income: $83,800 Mendocino County Area Median Income: $89,700 Merced County Area Median Income: $83,800 ATTACHMENT C - Page 9 of 14 L-51 Number of Persons in Household:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Acutely Low 11850 13500 15200 16900 18250 19600 20950 22300 Extremely Low 21900 25000 28150 31250 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 36500 41700 46900 52100 56300 60450 64650 68800 Low Income 58350 66700 75050 83350 90050 96700 103400 110050 Median Income 78750 90000 101250 112500 121500 130500 139500 148500 Moderate Income 94500 108000 121500 135000 145800 156600 167400 178200 Acutely Low 13400 15300 17250 19150 20700 22200 23750 25300 Extremely Low 30150 34450 38750 43050 46500 49950 53400 56850 Very Low Income 50250 57400 64600 71750 77500 83250 89000 94750 Low Income 80400 91850 103350 114800 124000 133200 142400 151550 Median Income 89450 102250 115000 127800 138000 148250 158450 168700 Moderate Income 107350 122700 138000 153350 165600 177900 190150 202400 Acutely Low 11950 13700 15400 17100 18450 19850 21200 22550 Extremely Low 22550 25750 28950 32150 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 37550 42900 48250 53600 57900 62200 66500 70800 Low Income 60050 68600 77200 85750 92650 99500 106350 113200 Median Income 79750 91100 102500 113900 123000 132100 141250 150350 Moderate Income 95700 109350 123050 136700 147650 158550 169500 180450 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17650 20150 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 29350 33550 37750 41900 45300 48650 52000 55350 Low Income 46950 53650 60350 67050 72450 77800 83150 88550 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 9950 11350 12800 14200 15350 16450 17600 18750 Extremely Low 19600 22400 25200 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 32650 37300 41950 46600 50350 54100 57800 61550 Low Income 52200 59650 67100 74550 80550 86500 92450 98450 Median Income 66150 75600 85050 94500 102050 109600 117200 124750 Moderate Income 79400 90700 102050 113400 122450 131550 140600 149700 Acutely Low 11950 13700 15400 17100 18450 19850 21200 22550 Extremely Low 22550 25750 28950 32150 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 37550 42900 48250 53600 57900 62200 66500 70800 Low Income 60050 68600 77200 85750 92650 99500 106350 113200 Median Income 79750 91100 102500 113900 123000 132100 141250 150350 Moderate Income 95700 109350 123050 136700 147650 158550 169500 180450 Acutely Low 14750 16850 18950 21050 22750 24400 26100 27800 Extremely Low 23400 26750 30100 33400 36100 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 39000 44550 50100 55650 60150 64600 69050 73500 Low Income 62350 71250 80150 89050 96200 103300 110450 117550 Median Income 98150 112150 126200 140200 151400 162650 173850 185050 Moderate Income 117750 134600 151450 168250 181700 195150 208650 222100 Plumas County Area Median Income: $83,800 Riverside County Area Median Income: $94,500 Sacramento County Area Median Income: $113,900 San Benito County Area Median Income: $140,200 Nevada County Area Median Income: $112,500 Orange County Area Median Income: $127,800 Placer County Area Median Income: $113,900 ATTACHMENT C - Page 10 of 14 L-52 Number of Persons in Household:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Acutely Low 9950 11350 12800 14200 15350 16450 17600 18750 Extremely Low 19600 22400 25200 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 32650 37300 41950 46600 50350 54100 57800 61550 Low Income 52200 59650 67100 74550 80550 86500 92450 98450 Median Income 66150 75600 85050 94500 102050 109600 117200 124750 Moderate Income 79400 90700 102050 113400 122450 131550 140600 149700 Acutely Low 12250 14000 15750 17500 18900 20300 21700 23100 Extremely Low 28950 33100 37250 41350 44700 48000 51300 54600 Very Low Income 48250 55150 62050 68900 74450 79950 85450 90950 Low Income 77200 88200 99250 110250 119100 127900 136750 145550 Median Income 81750 93450 105100 116800 126150 135500 144850 154200 Moderate Income 98100 112100 126150 140150 151350 162550 173800 185000 Acutely Low 18400 21000 23650 26250 28350 30450 32550 34650 Extremely Low 39150 44750 50350 55900 60400 64850 69350 73800 Very Low Income 65250 74600 83900 93200 100700 108150 115600 123050 Low Income 104400 119300 134200 149100 161050 173000 184900 196850 Median Income 122500 140000 157500 175000 189000 203000 217000 231000 Moderate Income 147000 168000 189000 210000 226800 243600 260400 277200 Acutely Low 10550 12050 13550 15050 16250 17450 18650 19850 Extremely Low 18450 21050 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 30700 35100 39500 43850 47400 50900 54400 57900 Low Income 49100 56100 63100 70100 75750 81350 86950 92550 Median Income 70200 80250 90250 100300 108300 116350 124350 132400 Moderate Income 84250 96300 108300 120350 130000 139600 149250 158850 Acutely Low 11850 13550 15250 16950 18300 19650 21000 22350 Extremely Low 24350 27800 31300 34750 37550 40350 45420 50560 Very Low Income 40550 46350 52150 57900 62550 67200 71800 76450 Low Income 64900 74150 83400 92650 100100 107500 114900 122300 Median Income 79150 90500 101800 113100 122150 131200 140250 149300 Moderate Income 95000 108550 122150 135700 146550 157400 168250 179100 Acutely Low 18400 21000 23650 26250 28350 30450 32550 34650 Extremely Low 39150 44750 50350 55900 60400 64850 69350 73800 Very Low Income 65250 74600 83900 93200 100700 108150 115600 123050 Low Income 104400 119300 134200 149100 161050 173000 184900 196850 Median Income 122500 140000 157500 175000 189000 203000 217000 231000 Moderate Income 147000 168000 189000 210000 226800 243600 260400 277200 Acutely Low 11250 12900 14500 16100 17400 18700 19950 21250 Extremely Low 31050 35500 39950 44350 47900 51450 55000 58550 Very Low Income 51800 59200 66600 73950 79900 85800 91700 97650 Low Income 82950 94800 106650 118500 128000 137500 146950 156450 Median Income 75100 85850 96550 107300 115900 124450 133050 141650 Moderate Income 90150 103000 115900 128750 139050 149350 159650 169950 Santa Barbara County Area Median Income: $107,300 San Diego County Area Median Income: $116,800 San Francisco County Area Median Income: $175,000 San Joaquin County Area Median Income: $100,300 San Luis Obispo County Area Median Income: $113,100 San Mateo County Area Median Income: $175,000 San Bernardino County Area Median Income: $94,500 ATTACHMENT C - Page 11 of 14 L-53 Number of Persons in Household:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Acutely Low 19050 21750 24500 27200 29400 31550 33750 35900 Extremely Low 37450 42800 48150 53500 57800 62100 66350 70650 Very Low Income 62450 71400 80300 89200 96350 103500 110650 117750 Low Income 96000 109700 123400 137100 148100 159050 170050 181000 Median Income 126900 145050 163150 181300 195800 210300 224800 239300 Moderate Income 152300 174050 195800 217550 234950 252350 269750 287150 Acutely Low 13950 15900 17900 19900 21500 23100 24700 26250 Extremely Low 34600 39550 44500 49400 53400 57350 61300 65250 Very Low Income 57650 65900 74150 82350 88950 95550 102150 108750 Low Income 92500 105700 118900 132100 142700 153250 163850 174400 Median Income 92950 106250 119500 132800 143400 154050 164650 175300 Moderate Income 111550 127500 143400 159350 172100 184850 197600 210350 Acutely Low 9400 10750 12100 13450 14550 15600 16700 17750 Extremely Low 17650 20200 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 29400 33600 37800 42000 45400 48750 52100 55450 Low Income 47050 53800 60500 67200 72600 78000 83350 88750 Median Income 62850 71850 80800 89800 97000 104150 111350 118550 Moderate Income 75450 86200 97000 107750 116350 125000 133600 142250 Acutely Low 9450 10800 12150 13500 14600 15650 16750 17800 Extremely Low 18900 21600 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 31500 36000 40500 45000 48600 52200 55800 59400 Low Income 50400 57600 64800 72000 77800 83550 89300 95050 Median Income 63000 72000 81000 90000 97200 104400 111600 118800 Moderate Income 75600 86400 97200 108000 116650 125300 133900 142550 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 11850 13500 15200 16900 18250 19600 20950 22300 Extremely Low 24050 27450 30900 34300 37050 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 40050 45800 51500 57200 61800 66400 70950 75550 Low Income 64050 73200 82350 91500 98850 106150 113500 120800 Median Income 78800 90100 101350 112600 121600 130600 139600 148650 Moderate Income 94550 108100 121600 135100 145900 156700 167500 178350 Acutely Low 13450 15350 17300 19200 20750 22250 23800 25350 Extremely Low 26450 30200 34000 37750 40800 43800 46850 50560 Very Low Income 44050 50350 56650 62900 67950 73000 78000 83050 Low Income 70500 80550 90600 100650 108750 116800 124850 132900 Median Income 89650 102500 115300 128100 138350 148600 158850 169100 Moderate Income 107600 122950 138350 153700 166000 178300 190600 202900 Siskiyou County Area Median Income: $83,800 Solano County Area Median Income: $112,600 Sonoma County Area Median Income: $128,100 Santa Clara County Area Median Income: $181,300 Santa Cruz County Area Median Income: $132,800 Shasta County Area Median Income: $89,800 Sierra County Area Median Income: $90,000 ATTACHMENT C - Page 12 of 14 L-54 Number of Persons in Household:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Acutely Low 9750 11100 12500 13900 15000 16100 17250 18350 Extremely Low 17750 20250 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 29550 33800 38000 42200 45600 49000 52350 55750 Low Income 47250 54000 60750 67500 72900 78300 83700 89100 Median Income 64800 74100 83350 92600 100000 107400 114800 122250 Moderate Income 77750 88900 100000 111100 120000 128900 137750 146650 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 10250 11700 13200 14650 15800 17000 18150 19350 Extremely Low 18550 21200 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 30850 35250 39650 44050 47600 51100 54650 58150 Low Income 49350 56400 63450 70450 76100 81750 87400 93000 Median Income 68400 78150 87950 97700 105500 113350 121150 128950 Moderate Income 82100 93800 105550 117250 126650 136000 145400 154750 Acutely Low 13000 14850 16700 18550 20050 21500 23000 24500 Extremely Low 27900 31900 35900 39850 43050 46250 49450 52650 Very Low Income 46500 53150 59800 66400 71750 77050 82350 87650 Low Income 74400 85000 95650 106250 114750 123250 131750 140250 Median Income 86450 98800 111150 123500 133400 143250 153150 163000 Moderate Income 103750 118550 133400 148200 160050 171900 183750 195600 Tehama County Area Median Income: $83,800 Trinity County Area Median Income: $83,800 Tulare County Area Median Income: $83,800 Tuolumne County Area Median Income: $97,700 Ventura County Area Median Income: $123,500 Stanislaus County Area Median Income: $92,600 Sutter County Area Median Income: $83,800 ATTACHMENT C - Page 13 of 14 L-55 Number of Persons in Household:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Acutely Low 11950 13700 15400 17100 18450 19850 21200 22550 Extremely Low 22050 25200 28350 31450 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 36750 42000 47250 52450 56650 60850 65050 69250 Low Income 58750 67150 75550 83900 90650 97350 104050 110750 Median Income 79800 91200 102600 114000 123100 132250 141350 150500 Moderate Income 95750 109450 123100 136800 147750 158700 169650 180600 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Instructions: Eligibility Determination: Use household size income category figures in this chart. Determine eligibililty based on actual number of persons in household and total of gross income for all persons. Determination of Income Limit for Households Larger than Eight Persons: Per person (PP) adjustment above 8: (1) multiply 4-person income limit by eight percent (8%), (2) multiply result by number of persons in excess of eight, (3) add the amount to the 8-person income limit, and (4) round to the nearest $50. E X A M P L E 4 persons 8% PP Adj + 8 person =9 persons E X A M 4 persons 8 person +8% Adj x 2 =10 persons Acutely Low 12,550 1004 16,550 17,550 12,550 16,550 2008 18,550 Extremely Low 30,000 2400 50,560 52,950 Extremely 30,000 50,560 4800 55,350 Very Low Income 41,250 3300 54,450 57,750 Very Low 41,250 54,450 6600 61,050 Lower Income 65,950 5276 87,100 92,400 Lower Inco 65,950 87,100 10552 97,650 Moderate Income 100,550 8044 132,750 140,800 Moderate 100,550 132,750 16088 148,850 Calculation of Housing Cost and Rent: Refer to Heath & Safety Code Sections 50052.5 and 50053. Use benchmark household size and multiply against applicable percentages defined in H&SC using Area Median Income identified in this chart. Determination of Household Size: For projects with no federal assistance, household size is set at number of bedrooms in unit plus one. For projects with federal assistance, household size may be set by multiplying 1.5 by the number of bedrooms in unit. HUD Income Limits release: 5/15/2023 HUD FY 2023 California median incomes: State median income: $109,200 Metropolitan county median income: $110,000 Non-metropolitan county median income: $83,800 Note: Authority cited: Section 50093, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 50063.5, 50079.5, 50093, 50105 and 50106, Health and Safety Code. Nine Person Calculation - Example County Ten Person Calculation - Example County Yolo County Area Median Income: $114,000 Yuba County Area Median Income: $83,800 ATTACHMENT C - Page 14 of 14 L-56 City Council Staff Report – March 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 27525 Norris Center Drive 1 STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 12, 2024 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: WHITNEY BERRY, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 230516 PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND AMENITIES PROPOSED UNDER THE CITY’S BONUS LEVEL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR A PROPOSED 90-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT APPLICANT: RYAN ASH ON BEHALF OF VESTAR LOCATION: 27525 NORRIS CENTER DRIVE OVERVIEW The following is a request for the City Council to conduct a preliminary review of the community benefits and amenities proposed under the City’s Bonus Level Development Program for a proposed 90-unit residential development on a 2-acre portion of the Peninsula Shopping Center, near the corner of Norris Center Drive and Silver Spur Road. The project would include bonus level development consisting of fifteen (15) additional residential units, which is equivalent to a fifty percent (50%) density bonus. In exchange for this bonus level development, the applicant is proposing to provide (1) public parking, (2)affordable housing, and (3) public streetscape improvements. This preliminary review of the proposed community amenities or benefits is solely for the purposes of determining whether the project qualifies for bonus level development, and if so, establishing a stable project description for the entire project as requ ired under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This preliminary determination as to the proposed bonus level development will not create a binding commitment on the part of the City with respect to the review and approval of the proposed proje ct, including the bonus level development and the associated development agreement that will be considered as part of the project review and approval process. BACKGROUND On October 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 744 which created the City’s Bonus Level Development Program . This ordinance made amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 17.30 (Commercial-General District) to establish a process for CC AGENDA MARCH 12, 2024 ITEM NO. 8E M-1 City Council Staff Report – March 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 27525 Norris Center Drive 2 providing bonus level development (i.e. greater density and potential increase and reduction in other development standards) in exchange for a project providing desirable community amenities or benefits as defined on a Council adopted list. These community amenities or benefits are intended to address identified community needs, including some that may result from the effect of the increased development intensity on the surrounding community. On March 14, 2023, the City Council conducted a “first look” meeting to consider a proposal for the development of a 90-unit residential apartment development that includes: (1) public parking, (2) affordable housing, and (3) public streetscape improvements. These are community benefits or amenities that are on the approved list (Attachment B). During this meeting, the City Council discussed the issues, provided input and stated a preference for more affordable units than the proposed five percent (5%) moderate-income units in the project. Since that time, the applicant has revised the project description to reserve fifteen percent (15%) of units, excluding the bonus level units, or nine (9) units total, to be rent-restricted for moderate-income households. An applicant’s proposal for community amenities and benefits is subject to a preliminary review by City Council at a noticed public hearing prior to consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council of the development agreement and applicable conditional development permit or approval, pursuant to Section 17.30.090(F). This preliminary review is to ensure that the amenities or benefits will be included in the project description for purposes of environmental review under CEQA. DISCUSSION The City’s Bonus Level Development Program permits an applicant for a development project in the Commercial General (C-G) district to seek (1) an increase in the maximum coverage ratio, building height, or number of residential units, or (2) a decrease in any other applicable development standards, by providing community amenities or benefits (Section 17.30.080(A)). To qualify for bonus level development, a community amenity or benefit must be significant and clearly beyond what would otherwise be required for the project under applicable code provisions, conditions of approval, and environmental review mitigation measures. All applications for bonus level development are processed as part of an application for a development agreement, pursuant to Chapter 17.82. The proposed project would demolish an existing 7,000 square foot (SF) building and construct a 90-unit residential apartment complex with site improvements. The building would be a five-story podium structure with a maximum overall height of 68 feet. The residential units would be a mix of one- and two-bedroom units. The project would provide a total of 240 parking spaces, with 85 spaces provided as shared public/private parking on the ground floor. M-2 City Council Staff Report – March 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 27525 Norris Center Drive 3 Bonus Level Development The project proposes to construct 90 units on a two-acre site, resulting in a density of 45 du/acre. This is a fifty percent (50%) density increase above the base density of 30 du/acre permitted by right in the Commercial-General (C-G) district. As part of the implementation of the new 2040 General Plan, staff have been working on the comprehensive zoning code update, including the creation of a new Commercial District Mixed-Use Overlay, which will permit residential development to be constructed by right (without the need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit), in areas with the Commercial General (C-G) land use and zoning designation, and increase the allowable base density from 22 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to 30 du/acre. The implementation of these measures, along with the City’s bonus level development program, allow developers to build up to 45 du/acre for projects that provide extraordinary community benefits or amenities. Community Amenities and Benefits The applicant proposes the following community amenities and benefits as part of this development: 1.Parking: The proposed development would provide 240 parking spaces, which exceeds the number of spaces required by the City’s municipal code (Section 17.37.040(F), see table 1 below). A total of 85 stalls on the ground floor will be provided as shared public/private parking for the community. Table 1. Parking Ratios and Counts Unit Type No. of Units City Parking Ratio City Parking Req’t 1 BD / 1BA 57 1/unit 57 2 BD / 2 BA 33 2/unit 66 Guest Spaces 1 per 3 units 30 Total Required 153 Total Provided 240 2.Affordability: The proposed development would reserve 15% of units, excluding the bonus level units, or nine (9) units total, for moderate income households. This would provide much-needed affordable workforce housing in the community and make significant progress toward meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. State Income Limits reflecting median income and household income levels for moderate-income households for California are determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and are based on federal income limits published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban M-3 City Council Staff Report – March 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 27525 Norris Center Drive 4 Development (HUD). Typically, the moderate-income limit is not more than 110% of the area median income (AMI) 1. The 2023 AMI for Los Angeles County for a 4- person household is $98,2002. Affordable rental units must be restricted by an agreement which sets maximum incomes and rents for those units. For moderate income households, rent may not exceed 30% of the moderate-income limit (110% AMI) adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit. The initial rents for the affordable units in the proposed project will be determined at a later date. 3.Connectivity. The proposed development would construct a public plaza with pedestrian amenities on the corner of Norris Center Drive and Deep Valley Drive, and new sidewalk along the private roadway that will provide a pedestrian connection between the Peninsula Center and the Promenade Mall. Figure 1. Schematic Site Plan with Corner Plaza and Sidewalk Improvements Value of Bonus Level Development and Value of Amenities or Benefits Municipal Code §17.30.090(D) requires that the value of the community benefits to be provided should equal at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the fair market value of the additional gross floor area and/or additional residential units resulting from the bonus level development (“bonus development value”). The applicant has provided, at their expense, an appraisal performed by a licensed appraisal firm that establishes the fair market value of the additional residential units and the estimated costs of constructing the proposed community benefits (Attachment C). The appraisal determined that the value of the 1 Health and Safety Code § 50052.5 and § 50053 2 HCD Multifamily Housing Programs 2023 MTSP Rent Limits, gross rent including utility allowance. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/2023-mtsp-regular-limits.pdf#page=27 M-4 City Council Staff Report – March 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 27525 Norris Center Drive 5 proposed community benefits significantly exceeds twenty-five percent (25%) of the value of the bonus development. Other Increases or Decreases to Development Standards An applicant for a bonus level development may, in addition to seeking an increase in the number of residential units, request an increase in the maximum coverage ratio and building height and a decrease in other applicable development standards in exchange for the community benefits and amenities pursuant to Municipal Code §17.30.080. The applicant has requested the following increases or decreases in development standards as part of this project: 1.Additional Height. The proposed development would be five stories with a maximum overall height of 68 feet. This is one (1) additional story above the four (4) story maximum permitted by right in the C-G district. 2.Increased Lot Coverage: The proposed development would have 67% lot coverage, which exceeds the maximum allowable lot coverage of 35% in the C-G district. 3.Reduced Open Space: The proposed development would provide 197.78 SF of open space per unit, which is less than the required 300 SF per unit in the C-G district. These changes in applicable development standards will be included in the project description for purposes of environmental review under CEQA, if the Council gives preliminary approval of the bonus level development for purposes of further review of the proposed project. CONCLUSION This preliminary determination as to the proposed bonus level development will not create a binding commitment on the part of the City with respect to the review and approval of the proposed project, including the bonus level development and the associated development agreement that will be considered as part of the project review a nd approval process. Should the City Council wish to move this project forward and determine that the proposed benefits qualify for bonus level development, staff will proceed with environmental review under CEQA with the environmental consultant. Staff will coordinate the draft development agreement with the applicant. The draft development agreement will be presented to the Planning Commission, and subsequently the City Council, for consideration at a noticed public hearing at the time the final project and environmental review are considered. M-5 City Council Staff Report – March 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 27525 Norris Center Drive 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Open the Public Hearing; 2) Receive any public testimony; 3) Discuss the issues; 4) Close the Public Hearing; and 5) Provide a preliminary determination that the proposed community benefits qualify for bonus level development pursuant to the City’s Bonus Level Development Program (Section 17.30.090). Attachments: A.Project Plans B.City’s Approved List of Benefits and Amenities C.Appraisal Valuation Report M-6 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA RESIDENCES AT PENINSULA CENTER ATTACHMENT A M-7 RESIDENCES AT PENINSULA CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA PROJECT DATA MAY 15TH, 2023PROJECT NUMBER: 2021-10224 .GEN-01 M-8 N O R R I S C E N T E R D R I V E S I L V E R S P U R R O A D 1 0 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " ± 965' ± 970' ± 966' ± 965' ± 960' ± 969' ± 965' ± 967' ± 968' ± 967' ± 963' 25 ' - 0 " 25' - 0" 25 ' - 0 " ± 965' ± 967' UP STORAGE MEP MEP MEP STORAGE RESIDENTIAL GUEST PARKING COMMERCIAL PARKING DN 5% UP 5% ± 965' COMMERCIAL ENTRY COMMERCIAL ENTRY RESIDENT/GUEST ENTRY RESIDENT/GUEST ENTRY STORAGE LEASING/AMENITY ± 962' 3 A3-1 PATIO CORNER PLAZA 20 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 9' - 0" 25' - 0" 20' - 0"25' - 0" 20 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 2 5 ' - 0 " 58' - 6" LOADING STOP SIGN RESIDENT ACCESS GATE L O A D I N G 15% 0' N 10' 20' 40'80' SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" (FULL SIZE: 22" X 34")RESIDENCES AT PENINSULA CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA SITE PLAN MAY 15TH, 2023PROJECT NUMBER: 2021-10224 A0-1 M-9 DN POOL WELL STORAGE RESIDENTIAL PARKING OPEN TO BELOW 3 A3-1 15% 0' N 10' 20' 40'80' SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" (FULL SIZE: 22" X 34")RESIDENCES AT PENINSULA CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA LEVEL 2 PLAN MAY 15TH, 2023PROJECT NUMBER: 2021-10224 A1-2 M-10 POOL AMENITY 1 BD 1 BD 1 BD1 BD 1 B D 1 B D 1 B D 1 B D 1 B D 1 B D 1 B D 2 BD 2 BD 2 BD 2 B D 2 B D 2 BD 2 BD 2 B D 2 B D 2 B D 2 BD 1 BD 1 B D 1 BD 1 B D 3 A3-1 PODIUM ± 987' ROOF ± 999' PARAPET ± 1018' ROOF ± 1005' ROOF ± 986' ROOF ± 998' 1 B D 1 B D 1 BD 1 BD 0' N 10' 20' 40'80' SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" (FULL SIZE: 22" X 34")RESIDENCES AT PENINSULA CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA LEVEL 3 PLAN MAY 15TH, 2023PROJECT NUMBER: 2021-10224 A1-3 M-11 1 BD 1 BD1 BD 1 B D 1 BD 1 B D 1 B D 1 B D 1 B D 1 B D 1 B D 2 BD 2 BD 2 B D 2 B D 2 BD 2 B D 2 BD 2 B D 2 B D 2 B D 2 BD 2 BD 2 B D 1 BD 1 B D 1 BD 1 B D 1 B D 3 A3-1 1 B D 1 B D 1 BD 1 BD 0' N 10' 20' 40'80' SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" (FULL SIZE: 22" X 34")RESIDENCES AT PENINSULA CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA LEVEL 4 PLAN MAY 15TH, 2023PROJECT NUMBER: 2021-10224 A1-4 M-12 4-STORY 4-STORY 1 BD 1 BD1 BD 1 BD 1 B D 1 B D 1 B D 1 B D 1 B D 1 B D 2 BD 2 BD 2 B D 2 BD 2 B D 2 BD 2 B D 2 BD 2 B D 1 BD 1 B D 1 BD 1 B D 1 B D 3 A3-1 1 B D 1 BD 1 BD 0' N 10' 20' 40'80' SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" (FULL SIZE: 22" X 34")RESIDENCES AT PENINSULA CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA LEVEL 5 PLAN MAY 15TH, 2023PROJECT NUMBER: 2021-10224 A1-5 M-13 3 A3-1 0' N 10' 20' 40'80' SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" (FULL SIZE: 22" X 34")RESIDENCES AT PENINSULA CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA ROOF PLAN MAY 15TH, 2023PROJECT NUMBER: 2021-10224 A1-9 M-14 N RESIDENCES AT PENINSULA CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA MAY 10TH, 2023 A1-4 PODIUM COURTYARD • see sheet L.4 CORNER PLAZA • see sheet l.3 EXISTING TREE • to remain NORRI S C E N T E R D R I V E S I L V E R S P U R R O A D AMENITY LEASING BELOWBANK COMMERCIAL OFFICE L.1 0’0’COMPOSITE LANDSCAPE PLAN 30’10’20’ M-15 N RESIDENCES AT PENINSULA CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA MAY 10TH, 2023 A1-4 L.2 LANDSCAPE IMAGERY M-16 N RESIDENCES AT PENINSULA CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA MAY 10TH, 2023 A1-4 LEASING / AMENITY PARKING GARAGE STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE MEP MEP T T ENTRY PLAZA • fountain • seating • specimen tree • potter y • bench NORRI S C E N T E R D R I V E S I L V E R S P U R R O A D STEPS TO R.O.W. EXISTING TREE • to remain L.3 0’0’GROUND LANDSCAPE PLAN 30’10’20’ M-17 N RESIDENCES AT PENINSULA CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA MAY 10TH, 2023 A1-4 AMENITY POOL COURTYARD • 12’ x 40’ pool • 12’ x 10’ spa • chaise lounge chairs • umbrellas • daybeds • soft seating • cabanas SPECIMEN TREE • low stone wall • soft seating w/ umbrellas FIRESIDE • lounge seating w/ firepit • pergola DINNER PARTY • private dining pavilions with bbqs • tile carpets • olive grove • fountain POOLSIDE LOUNGE • double sided fireplace • lounge seating on tile carpet GATHER • chef ’s table • outdoor kitchen with pizza oven • lounge seating • umbrella • festival lighting L.4 0’0’PODIUM LANDSCAPE PLAN 20’5’10’ M-18 N RESIDENCES AT PENINSULA CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA MAY 10TH, 2023 A1-4 L.5 0’0’PLANT PALETTE AND NOTES EXISTING TREE NOTE: SHRUBS TO BE MAINTAINED AT MAXIMUM 24" HIGH WITHIN LINE OF SIGHT AT STREET INTERSECTIONS. LINE-OF-SIGHT NOTE: IRRIGATION ZONES: IRRIGATION HYDRO-ZONES SHALL HAVE PLANTS GROUPED with SIMILAR WATERING REQUIREMENTS. DEPTH OF IRRIGATION LINES: ALL ON-GRADE LATERAL LINES SHALL BE BURIED TO A DEPTH OF 18" MIN. ALL ON-GRADE MAINLINES SHALL BE BURIED TO A DEPTH OF 24" MIN. BACKFLOW PREVENTER: BACKFLOW PREVENTER SHALL BE A REDUCED PRESSURE PRINCIPLE BACKFLOW PREVENTER (FEBCO 825Y OR EQUAL) TYPE AS APPROVED BY WATER PURVEYOR and SCREENED with LANDSCAPING from PUBLIC VIEW. IRRIGATION EMITTERS: ALL SHRUB AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED USING DRIP TYPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL TREES SHALL BE IRRIGATED USING BUBBLER AND/OR DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL GROUNDCOVER AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED USING DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. IRRIGATION CONTROLLER: CONTROLLER SHALL BE AUTOMATIC WITH MULTIPLE PROGRAMMING CAPABILITY. CONTROLLER TO BE REPROGRAMMED SEASONALLY TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF AND OVER WATERING. "SMART" CONTROLLER WEATHER TRACKING DEVICES SHALL BE UTILIZED TO CONTROL IRRIGATION CYCLES ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS. CLASS OF IRRIGATION PIPE: ALL MAINLINE SHALL BE CLASS 315 PVC. ALL LATERAL LINE SHALL BE CLASS 200 PVC. THE IRRIGATION DESIGN SHALL COMPLY with THE CRITERIA of CITY'S WATER CONSERVATION POLICIES and REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: A. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE SELECTED FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND DROUGHT TOLERANCE; ADAPTABILITY AND RELATIONSHIP TO ROLLING HILL'S ESTATES E ENVIRONMENT; COLOR, FORM and PATTERN; ABILITY TO PROVIDE SHADE; SOIL RETENTION, FIRE RESISTIVENSS, ETC. THE OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE INTEGRATED WITH ALL ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT, SUCH AS BUILDINGS, PARKING LOTS AND STREETS, TO ACHIEVE DESIRABLE MICRO-CLIMATE AND MINIMIZE ENERGY DEMAND AND WATER USE. B. WHERE SHRUBS OR LOW-LEVEL VEGETATION ARE USED, VEGETATIVE MATTER AT MATURITY SHALL COVER AT LEAST 75% OF ACTUAL PLANTED AREA. C. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AND THE ARBORICULTURAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS ON FILE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. PURPOSE: TO PROVIDE THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT STAFF A MECHANICAL DEVICE TO DISTRIBUTE WATER AND ENSURE PLANT SURVIVAL IN THE MOST EFFICIENT MANNER AND WITHIN A TIME FRAME THAT LEAST INTERFERES WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RESIDENTS. CONCEPT: THE SYSTEM WILL UTILIZE DRIP and BUBBLER IRRIGATION COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA BEING WATERED AND INFILTRATION RATES OF THE SOIL. THE SYSTEM WILL BE CONTROLLED BY A 'WEATHER TRAK' or 'SMART' CONTROLLER. VALVES PROGRAMMED FROM AUTOMATIC CONTROLLERS WILL MAXIMIZE EFFICIENT WATER APPLICATION. TO AVOID WATER RUNOFF, THE CONTROLS WILL BE OVERSEEN BY A FLOW MONITOR THAT WILL DETECT ANY BROKEN BUBBLER HEADS or DRIP TUBING TO STOP THAT STATION'S OPERATION, ADVANCING TO THE NEXT WORKABLE STATION. IN THE EVENT OF PRESSURE SUPPLY LINE BREAKAGE, IT WILL COMPLETELY STOP THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM. ALL MATERIAL WILL BE NON-FERROUS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE BRASS PIPING INTO AND OUT OF THE BACKFLOW UNITS. ALL WORK WILL BE IN THE BEST ACCEPTABLE MANNER IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS PREVAILING IN THE INDUSTRY. IRRIGATION CONCEPT STATEMENT WATER CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES ALL ABOVE-GROUND UTILITY EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW WITH A MINIMUM 3' WIDE PLANTING AREA. PROPOSED SCREEN SHRUB WILL BE 15 GALLON SIZE SPACED TO SCREEN 75% OF UTILITY AT THE TIME OF PLANTING. SCREENING OF UTILITY EQUIPMENT: CONCEPTUAL PLANS DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT SATISFIES THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES. 1. PROVIDES VISUAL SCREENING, PRIVACY, AND NATURAL SURVEILLANCE, WHERE NEEDED 2. DEFINES PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS AND OPEN SPACE AREAS WITH LANDSCAPE MATERIALS WHERE APPROPRIATE. 3. PROVIDES FOCAL POINTS WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT, SUCH AS SPECIMEN TREES, HEDGES, FLOWERING PLANTS, AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES. 4. USES A COMBINATION OF PLANTS FOR YEAR-LONG COLOR AND INTEREST 5. USE LANDSCAPE TREATMENTS TO ENHANCE THE SCREENING OF OUTDOOR STORAGE AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AREAS, AND ENHANCE GRADED AREAS SUCH AS EARTH BERMS LANDSCAPE DESIGN PRINCIPLES LANDSCAPE PLANS WILL ADHERE TO THE CITY'S WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (WELO) NOTE NO EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN ON-SITE DUE TO PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE 1. THE OBJECTIVE OF THE OVERALL LANDSCAPING CONCEPT IS TO PROVIDE A DISTINCT VISUAL IMPRESSION AND COMMUNITY IDENTITY, SOFTEN THE URBAN EXPERIENCE, PROVIDE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF AESTHETIC STANDARDS COMPLIMENTED BY THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING MATERIALS THAT WILL ASSURE AN ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF LIFE AMONG ITS RESIDENTS AND VISITORS. 2. THE LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION CONCEPT FOR THE SITE WILL BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE THE MOST EFFICIENT AND CONSERVING MEANS TO DISTRIBUTE IRRIGATION WATER AND PROVIDE THE PROPERTY MANAGER WITH THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY FOR WATER CONSERVATION. 3. THE FOLLOWING PLANT MATERIAL AS SELECTED IS COMPLIANT WITH CITY OF ROLLING HILL'S ESTATES GREEN INITIATIVES OR CAL GREEN EQUIVALENT INCLUDING CONSIDERATION FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND NON-INVASIVE SPECIES. PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE NOTES: ACCENT/COLOR SHRUBS AEONIUM X `MINT SAUCER`MINT SAUCER AEONIUM 5 GAL LOW AGAVE ATTENUATA FOXTAIL AGAVE 5 GAL LOW ALOE PLICATILIS FAN ALOE 5 GAL LOW ALOE X SPINOSISSIMA ALOE 5 GAL LOW GRASSES CAREX DIVULSA BERKELEY SEDGE 1 GAL MODERATE FESTUCA GLAUCA BLUE FESCUE 1 GAL LOW LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA MAT RUSH 5 GAL LOW MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS PINK MUHLY GRASS 5 GAL MODERATE PENNISETUM SPATHIOLATUM RYE PUFFS 5 GAL MODERATE SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS AUTUMN MOOR GRASS 1 GAL MODERATE SISYRINCHIUM BELLUM BLUE EYED GRASS 1 GAL LOW LARGE SHRUBS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS MANZANITA `DR. HURD`DR. HURD MANZANITA 5 GAL LOW FREMONTODENDRON X `KEN TAYLOR`FLANNEL BUSH 15 GAL VERY LOW MEDIUM SHRUBS CEANOTHUS SP.CALIFORNIA LILAC 5 GAL LOW GREVILLEA X `PEACHES AND CREAM`GREVILLEA 5 GAL LOW LEUCADENDRON DISCOLOR `POM POM`POM POM LEUCADENDRON 15 GAL LOW LEUCOSPERMUM CORDIFOLIUM `FLAME GIANT` GIANT ORANGE NODDING PINCUSHION 15 GAL LOW PITTOSPORUM CRASSIFOLIUM `NANA`KARO PITTOSPORUM 5 GAL MODERATE ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `TUSCAN BLUE` TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL VERY LOW WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL LOW SMALL SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS AJUGA REPTANS CARPET BUGLE 1 GAL MODERATE ASPARAGUS DENSIFLORUS `MYERS`MYERS ASPARAGUS 5 GAL MODERATE ASTER LAEVIS SMOOTH BLUE ASTER 1 GAL LOW ERIGERON GLAUCUS `WAYNE RODERICK` SEASIDE DAISY 1 GAL LOW IRIS DOUGLASIANA DOUGLAS IRIS 5 GAL LOW PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS `MARGARITA BOP` BEARD TONGUE 1 GAL LOW PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM `GOLF BALL` GOLF BALL TAWHIWHI 5 GAL MODERATE ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `PROSTRATUS` ROSEMARY 5 GAL VERY LOW SALVIA X `MRS. BEARD`SAGE 5 GAL LOW TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS GERMANDER 5 GAL LOW ZEPHYRANTHES CANDIDA ZEPHYRLILY 1 GAL MODERATE VINES/CLIMBING SHRUBS CLEMATIS LASIANTHA PIPESTEM CLEMATIS 5 GAL VERY LOW CLEMATIS LIGUSTICIFOLIA WESTERN WHITE CLEMATIS 5 GAL LOW CLEMATIS MACROPETALA CLEMATIS 5 GAL MODERATE LONICERA HISPIDULA HONEYSUCKLE 5 GAL LOW ROSA DAVID AUSTIN `CLAIRE AUSTIN`ENGLISH ROSE 15 GAL MODERATE ROSA X `CECILE BRUNNER`CECILE BRUNNER CLIMBING ROSE 15 GAL MODERATE WISTERIA SINENSIS CHINESE WISTERIA 15 GAL MODERATE COMMON NAME CONT WUCOLSBOTANICAL NAME SHRUBS - GROUND LEVEL AND PODIUM - 3' O.C. SPACING 1. MAINTAIN SHRUBS AT 24" HIGH INSIDE OF STREET AND DRIVEWAY LINE OF SIGHT. 2. SECURITY PLANTING MATERIALS WILL BE UTILIZED ALONG WALL AND PROPERTY LINES AND UNDER VULNERABLE WINDOWS AND BALCONIES. 3. ROOT BARRIERS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL TREES WITHIN 5' OF ANY HARDSCAPE SURFACE. 4. PLANT MATURITY - SHRUBS WILL REACH MATURITY IN 3 YEAR / TREES WILL REACH MATURITY IN 5 YEARS GENERAL PLANTING NOTES: PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE COMMON NAME CONT WUCOLSBOTANICAL NAME TREES - GROUND LEVEL AND PODIUM - 3' O.C. SPACING 36" BOX MODERATE MULTI-TRUNK TREES CERCIDIUM X `DESERT MUSEUM`THORNLESS PALO VERDE 36" BOX LOW ARBUTUS X `MARINA`MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE 48" BOX LOW OLEA EUROPAEA `SWAN HILL` TM FRUITLESS SWAN HILL OLIVE EVERGREEN TREES 36" BOX MODERATE 36" BOX LOW MELALEUCA LINARIIFOLIA FLAXLEAF PAPERBARK DECIDUOUS TREES 24" BOX MODERATE CERCIS CANADENSIS `FOREST PANSY` TM FOREST PANSY REDBUD 36" BOXPLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA LONDON PLANE TREE ARBUTUS X `MARINA`MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE ACCENTS/VERTICAL 24" BOX MODERATE DRACAENA DRACO DRAGON TREE 24" BOXELAEOCARPUS DECIPIENS TM JAPANESE BLUEBERRY TREE 24" BOX LOW LAURUS X `SARATOGA`SARATOGA HYBRID LAUREL LOW MODERATE 36" BOXMETROSIDEROS EXCELSA NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE MODERATE 36" BOXPINUS ELDARICA AFGHAN PINE MODERATE 24" BOXTRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX MODERATE 48" BOX LOW QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK MULTI-TRUNK 24" BOXALOE BAINSII ALOE TREE LOW Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo)37.44 ETAF for MAWA 0.55 Plant Irrigation Irrigation ETAF Landscape ETAF x Area Factor (PF)Methodb Efficiency (PF/IE)Area (sq. ft.) (IE)c Regular Landscape Areas 0.300 drip 0.81 0.37 5,601 2,074 0.30 drip 0.81 0.37 1,383 512 0.50 drip 0.81 0.62 1,580 975 0.50 drip 0.81 0.62 1,598 986 0.81 Totals 10,162 4,548 Special Landscape Areas 1.00 1.00 1.00 Totals ETWU Total Maximum Allowed Water Allowance (MAWA)e HYDROZONE 1: N/E GROUND HYDROZONE 2: S/W GROUND HYDROZONE 3: N/E FACING COURTYARD HYDROZONE 3: S/W FACING COURTYARD WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET Hydrozone # /Planting Descriptiona aHydrozone #/Planting Description E.g 1.) front lawn 2.) low water use plantings 3 ) di t l ti bIrrigation Method cIrrigation Efficiency overhead spray 0.75 for spray head or drip 0.81 for drip dETWU (Annual = Eto x 0.62 x ET where factor t ih 2023.05.11_Vestar Rolling Hills_Water Calcs.xlsx printed 5/12/2023 M-19 PARCEL "A" REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE REC. 6/6/2019 INST. NO. 20190528128, O.R. LOT 1 ( P O R T I O N ) TRACT N O . 2 4 2 0 7 M.B. 63 5 / 7 0 - 7 2 LOT 2 (PO R T I O N ) PARCEL "B" REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE REC. 6/6/2019 INST. NO. 20190528128, O.R. 1 Engineering, Inc. Civil Engineering/Land Surveying/Land Planning M-20 Engineering, Inc. Civil Engineering/Land Surveying/Land Planning M-21 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 2531 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES ESTABLISHING AN APPROVED LIST OF COMMUNITY AMENITIES OR BENEFITS FOR BONUS LEVEL DEVELOPMENT UNDER MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 17.30 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds as follows: A.The City of Rolling Hills Estates has adopted Sections 17.30.080 and 17.30.090 of the City's Municipal Code, which establish a process for seeking bonus level development in the City's Commercial-General District. B.Specifically, Section 17.30.090 states in relevant part that: 'The city council has adopted by resolution the identified community amenities or benefits that may be provided in exchange for bonus level development." C.The purpose of this resolution is to adopt the types of community amenities or benefits that the City Council would be most likely to consider as part of an application for bonus level development under Sections 17 .30.080 and 17 .30.090, including such other community amenities or benefits that may be proposed by an applicant that are significant and substantially beyond normal development requirements as determined by the City Council through the development agreement process. SECTION 2. Approved List. The list of community amenities or benefits for bonus level development under Municipal Code Chapter 17.30 is approved as set forth on Exhibit A. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of the competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. Certification. The City Clerk is directed to certify to the passage of this RESOLUTION. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 2525 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills Estates at a regular meeting held on the 111h day of October, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: HUFF, SCHMITZ, STEGURA, ZERUNYAN, ZUCKERMAN NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE RESOLUTION NO. 2531 List of Community Amenities and Benefits ATTACHMENT B M-22 M-23 Client: Vestar RESTRICTED APPRAISAL REPORT Fair Market Value of Bonus Level Development and Value or Cost of Community Amenities or Benefits Proposed Residences at Peninsula Center 27570 Norris Center Drive Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274 Worth File No. 24-LA-0285 ATTACHMENT C M-24 Worth Valuations 1150 South Olive Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90015 WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 Date of Report: March 6, 2024 Ryan Ash, CFA Vice President of Development Vestar 2415 East Camelback Road Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85016 RE: Restricted Appraisal Report Fair Market Value of Bonus Level Development and Value or Cost of Community Amenities or Benefits Proposed Residences at Peninsula Center 27570 Norris Center Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274 Worth Valuations File No: 24-LA-0285 Mr. Ash: At the request and authorization of Vestar, Worth Valuations (“Worth”) has prepared an appraisal to determine the fair market value of the referenced property and presented our analysis in the following Restricted Appraisal Report. The reader is advised that the opinions and conclusions may not be properly understood without additional information contained in the appraiser’s work file. Based on the intended use and in consideration of the subject’s physical and economic characteristics, we have prepared an appropriate scope of work that will provide a credible market value opinion. The subject is an approximate 2-acre irregular-shaped site west of the Silver Spur Road and Norris Center Drive intersection in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The site is improved with a 1983-built, 6,985 SF commercial building that is currently vacant. It is identified as Assessor Parcel Number 7589-005-020. The subject site is zoned C-G, Commercial General, and within a CDMU, Commercial District Mixed-Use, Overlay. The existing building will be demolished for redevelopment into the Residences at Peninsula Center, a five-story, 90-unit apartment (inclusive of 9 affordable units restricted to Moderate Income households). The apartment will include 240 parking spaces, comprised of 155 resident spaces, and the replacement of 85 spaces for public use. The project requests waivers to development standards for: • Additional height of plus one-story • Lot coverage increase • Open space reduction The owner/developer proposes the following community amenities and/or benefits to obtain approval for a Bonus Level Development, per the Municipal Code. • Parking - 85 spaces on the ground floor for public use • Connectivity – adding new sidewalk and landscaped plaza at the intersection of Deep Valley Drive • Affordability – provide 9 affordable units restricted to Moderate Income households M-25 WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 The purpose of the appraisal is to: (1) establish a fair market value in cash of the gross floor area and/or additional residential units resulting from the bonus level development, and (2) establish a fair market value or estimated costs of constructing or providing the proposed community amenities or benefits. The definition of market value comes from California Revenue and Taxation Code section 110(a) and is as follows: “full cash value” or “fair market value” means the amount of cash or its equivalent that property would bring if exposed for sale in the open market under conditions in which neither buyer nor seller could take advantage of the exigencies of the other, and both the buyer and the seller have knowledge of all of the uses and purposes to which the property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used, and of the enforceable restrictions upon those uses and purposes. The intended use of the report is to assist the client in compliance in the applications for a bonus level development. Per Ordinance No. 744, the appraisal process would be subject to direction and oversight by the City of Rolling Hills Estates Community Development Department. There are no other intended uses. The following table presents the conclusions developed in this appraisal: DESCRIPTION NO. PER SPACE/UNIT TOTAL Parking Construction Cost - 85 Public Stalls 85 $52,095 $4,428,075 Public Corner Plaza & Sidewalk Cost $773,486 Moderate Income Affordable Units 9 $345,499 $3,109,489 Total Cost of Community / Amenity Benefits $8,311,050 DENSITY BONUS UNITS - MARKET RATE 1BR/1BA 12 $493,560 $5,922,715 2BR/2BA 9 $601,820 $5,416,381 Fair Market Value of Density Bonus Units 21 $539,957 $11,339,096 COMMUNITY BENEFITS / FMV OF DENSITY BONUS UNITS 73% COMMUNITY BENEFITS / AMENITY COST SUMMARY The value of the community amenities or benefits to be provided approximates 73% of the fair market value of the additional gross floor area and/or additional residential units resulting from the bonus level development ("bonus development value"). This Restricted Appraisal Report has been prepared in accordance of the current edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), the state of California’s current laws and regulations, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act), applicable sections of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. M-26 WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 Extraordinary Assumptions An Extraordinary Assumption is an assignment-specific assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions. We have relied upon the following Extraordinary Assumptions: • The subject has been valued based on the development plans submitted by the ownership. The improvements are proposed. Were the development plans to change, there could be a material impact on the conclusions presented within this report. • The analysis assumes all governmental approvals are obtained for the proposed development. • It is an extraordinary assumption that the land and building areas (from the MVE + Partners architectural plans provided by Vestar) used in this report are correct. There is a discrepancy in the land area from the Assessor records. **The use of these extraordinary assumptions may have impacted the assignments results.** Hypothetical Conditions A Hypothetical Condition is a condition directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results but is used to the purpose of analysis. We have relied upon the following Hypothetical Conditions: • The Residences at Peninsula Center is a proposed apartment development and as such, is not built. Thus, the As Stabilized value conclusion is hypothetical as it assumes completion and stabilization of the multifamily property as of the current date of value. **The use of these hypothetical conditions may have impacted the assignments results.** If there are any specific questions or concerns regarding the attached appraisal report, or if Worth Valuations can be of additional assistance, please contact the individuals listed below. Respectfully Submitted, WORTH VALUATIONS Pedro Chin Principal | Managing Director Certified General Real Estate Appraiser California License No. AG024011 Expiration Date 7/8/2025 213-610-7992 pedro.chin@worth-vas.com George Koiso, MAI Principal | Senior Managing Director Certified General Real Estate Appraiser California License No.AG044733 Expiration Date 2/9/2025 (310) 701-7045 george.koiso@worth-vas.com M-27 TABLE OF CONTENTS WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Scope of Work ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9 Valuation__________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11 Reconciliation of Value Conclusions _____________________________________________________________________________ 17 Certification _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 18 ADDENDA 20 Appraiser Qualifications M-28 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 M-29 PROPOSED PROJECT EXHIBITS WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 M-30 PROPOSED PROJECT EXHIBITS WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 West View from Norris Center Drive North View from Deep Valley Drive intersection M-31 SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 North view from Norris Center Drive East view of Norris Center Drive West view of Norris Center Drive Future public plaza site North view of Peninsula Center driveway South view of Peninsula Center driveway M-32 PROPOSED PROJECT EXHIBITS WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 North view of development site (west end) North Northeast view of development site North view of development site from driveway Southwest view of existing building Northwest view of development site West view of development site M-33 PROPOSED PROJECT EXHIBITS WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 East view of development site north border Southwest view of development site Southeast view of development site Southwest view of development site Southwest North view of Silver Spur Road South view of Silver Spur Road M-34 IDENTIFICATION OF ASSIGNMENT WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 The client of this specific assignment is Vestar. The intended use of the report is to assist the client in compliance in the applications for a bonus level development. Per Ordinance No. 744, the appraisal process would be subject to direction and oversight by the City of Rolling Hills Estates Community Development Department. The Intended User is the client, Vestar, and the City of Rolling Hills Estates Community Development Department. No other users are identified. Appraiser’s identification of the intended users of the appraisal is to determine the type and extent of research, analysis and reporting appropriate for the assignment. It is specifically not an acknowledgement or granting of permission by the Appraiser that such parties will or may rely on the appraisal The purpose of the appraisal is to: (1) establish a fair market value in cash of the gross floor area and/or additional residential units resulting from the bonus level development, and (2) establish a fair market value or estimated costs of constructing or providing the proposed community amenities or benefits. Current Owner The subject title is currently recorded in the name of Vester Peninsula LLC. The most recent transfer occurred in March 2013, as part of the larger Peninsula Center retail shopping center. Three-Year Sales History We are not aware of any other sale transactions, listings, pending or recent contracts for sale that have occurred within the last three years. This is based on a search utilizing Loopnet, CoStar, public records, MLS and various other sources. Exposure time is influenced by price. That is, a prudent buyer could be enticed to acquire the property in less time if the price were less. Hence, the time span cited below coincides with the value opinion formed herein. USPAP Standard rule 1-2(c)(iv) requires an opinion of exposure time, not marketing time, when the purpose of the appraisal is to estimate market value. Exposure Time The exposure time associated with this definition of market value is 6 months for the estimate of value. The definition of market value comes from California Revenue and Taxation Code section 110(a) and is as follows: “full cash value” or “fair market value” means the amount of cash or its equivalent that property would bring if exposed for sale in the open market under conditions in which neither buyer nor seller could take advantage of the exigencies of the other, and both the buyer and the seller have knowledge of all of the uses and purposes to which the property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used, and of the enforceable restrictions upon those uses and purposes. The property rights appraised constitute the fee simple interest. M-35 IDENTIFICATION OF ASSIGNMENT WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 Fee Simple Interest Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power and escheat.1 APPRAISAL DATES Date of Report March 1, 2024 Date of Inspection February 9, 2024 Value Scenario Effective Date of Value Hypothetical As Stabilized February 9, 2024 The Residences at Peninsula Center is a proposed apartment development and as such, is not built. Thus, the As Stabilized value conclusion is hypothetical as it assumes completion and stabilization of the multifamily property as of the current date of value. This is a Restricted Appraisal Report that is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2 of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a Restricted Appraisal Report. As such, it presents limited discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser’s opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses has been retained in the appraiser’s file. The depth o f discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use. The reader is advised that the opinions and conclusions may not be properly understood without additional information contained in the appraiser’s work file. Worth Valuations, LLC. completed the following steps for this assignment: The appraisal analyzes legal and physical features of the subject including site size, proposed improvement size, site zoning, easements, encumbrances, site access and site exposure. In selecting applicable approaches to value, the appraisers considered the agreed upon appraisal scope and assessed the applicability of each traditional approach given the subject’s characteristics and the intended use of the appraisal. As a result, this appraisal utilizes the Cost approach (to derive the parking, sidewalk and public plaza benefits), and Income (Direct Capitalization) approach to value the Density Bonus Units. The assignment was prepared as a Restricted Appraisal Report in accordance with USPAP Standard Rule 2, with the analysis stated within the document and representing a brief level of analysis. Nick Smith provided real property appraisal assistance to the appraisers signing this certification. Assistance provided includes miscellaneous administrative assistance, such as file and exhibit preparation, as well as data entry relating to area descriptions and other routine non-valuation related duties. Mr. Smith assisted under the direct supervision of the appraisers signing this report in compliance with State regulations. Pedro Chin inspected the subject site and the surrounding environs on February 9 2024. 1 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, Appraisal Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 2022 M-36 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 (information below from MVE + Partners plans) M-37 VALUATION WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 The proposed development is the Residences at Peninsula Center, a five-story, 90-unit apartment (inclusive of 9 affordable units restricted to Moderate Income households). The owner/developer proposes the following community amenities and/or benefits to obtain approval for a Bonus Level Development, per the Municipal Code. • Parking - 85 spaces on the ground floor for public use • Connectivity – adding new sidewalk and landscaped plaza at the intersection of Deep Valley Drive • Affordability – provide 9 affordable units restricted to Moderate Income households The following establishes a fair market value or estimated costs of constructing or providing the proposed community amenities or benefits. The Marshal Valuation Service publishes cost data for determining replacement costs of buildings and other improvements; it has been recognized as an authority in the appraisal field since 1932. Parking costs for 85 stalls were estimated assuming average size of 345 SF per stall (includes common areas) within a concrete frame above-grade parking garage. The parking spaces total 29,325 SF and the MVS cost is $151 PSF, which yields a parking cost of $4,428,075 or $52,095 per stall. Corner plaza and sidewalk construction costs of $773,486 were provided by Vestar. The proposed project will provide 9 affordable units restricted to Moderate Income households. Vestar reported the affordable units will be 1-bedroom/1-bathroom floorplans. The Direct Capitalization Summary presents a value of $342,781 per Moderate Income affordable unit, or $3,109,489 in total. The community amenities and/or benefits total $8,311,050 as presented in a following summary chart. The following establishes a fair market value in cash of the gross floor area and/or additional residential units resulting from the bonus level development, The cost approach is based on the understanding that market participants relate value to cost. The property value is derived by adding the opinion of land value to the estimated current cost of constructing the improvements. Developer profit is included in the value indication. The subject property is proposed construction, which makes the Cost Approach useful as a test of financial feasibility. The cost approach is applicable to the subject’s valuation, but not utilized because limited emphasis would be placed on this analysis as a value indicator; the proposed project will be an income generated property. The Income Approach is based on the premise that properties are purchased for their income producing potential. The net income is the balance of potential income remaining after vacancy and collection loss, and operating expenses. This net income is then capitalized at an appropriate rate to derive an estimate of value or discounted by an appropriate yield rate over a typical projection period in a discounted cash M-38 VALUATION WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 flow analysis. Thus, two key steps are involved: (1) estimating the net income applicable to the subject and (2) choosing appropriate capitalization rates and discount rates. The appropriate rates are ones that will provide both a return on the investment and a return of the investment over the life of the particular property. The two fundamental methods of this valuation technique include Discounted Cash Flow and Direct Capitalization. The Direct Capitalization method of the Income Approach is used in this analysis. This valuation technique best represents the decision-making process of an investor. The proposed subject will be a leased investment property making this valuation technique particularly applicable. The Direct Capitalization method is used in this analysis. The value of the proposed apartment units were determined via an income approach analysis as shown in the following pages. M-39 VALUATION WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 1 BED UNITS AVERAGE ASKING NET COMP TYPE UNIT SIZE RENT/UNIT RENT/SF ADJ 2 Highridge - 1BR/1BA 900 $2,679 $2.98 4 Vista Catalina - 1BR/1BA 841 $2,667 $3.17 4 Vista Catalina - 1BR/1BA 941 $3,258 $3.46 5 Palos Verdes Victoria Apartments - 1BR/1BA 900 $2,545 $2.83 6 The Highlands - 1BR/1BA 790 $2,875 $3.64 7 Kaia - 1BR/1BA 652 $3,183 $4.88 7 Kaia - 1BR/1BA 739 $3,390 $4.59 7 Kaia - 1BR/1BA 744 $3,637 $4.89 7 Kaia - 1BR/1BA 825 $3,795 $4.60 8 Avana Rancho Palos Verdes - 1BR/1BA 775 $2,662 $3.43 HIGH 941 $3,795 $4.89 AVG 811 $3,069 $3.85 MED 808 $3,029 $3.55 LOW 652 $2,545 $2.83 UNIT TYPE ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS TYPE UNIT SIZE DEVELOPER $/UNIT DEVELOPER $/SF MARKET $/SF MARKET $/UNIT 1BR/1BA 775 $0 $0.00 $3.87 $3,000 1BR/1BA - Moderate Income 775 $0 $0.00 $3.05 $2,364 2 BED UNITS AVERAGE ASKING NET COMP TYPE UNIT SIZE RENT/UNIT RENT/SF ADJ 1 58-Unit Apartment/Condo - 2BR/2BA 1,181 $3,650 $3.09 2 Highridge - 2BR/2BA 1,200 $3,379 $2.82 3 83-Unit Apartment / Condo - 2BR/2BA 1,071 $4,000 $3.73 3 83-Unit Apartment / Condo - 2BR/2BA 1,071 $3,400 $3.17 4 Vista Catalina - 2BR/2BA 1,260 $3,475 $2.76 4 Vista Catalina - 2BR/2BA 1,298 $2,980 $2.30 4 Vista Catalina - 2BR/2BA 1,339 $4,495 $3.36 5 Palos Verdes Victoria Apartments - 2BR/2BA 1,225 $2,925 $2.39 6 The Highlands - 2BR/2BA 1,020 $3,675 $3.60 7 Kaia - 2BR/2BA 1,056 $4,246 $4.02 7 Kaia - 2BR/2BA 1,061 $4,301 $4.05 7 Kaia - 2BR/2BA 1,086 $4,246 $3.91 7 Kaia - 2BR/2BA 1,203 $4,720 $3.92 7 Kaia - 2BR/2BA 1,233 $5,051 $4.10 7 Kaia - 2BR/2BA 1,291 $5,180 $4.01 8 Avana Rancho Palos Verdes - 2BR/1.5BA 1,100 $2,885 $2.62 8 Avana Rancho Palos Verdes - 2BR/1.5BA 1,125 $3,270 $2.91 8 Avana Rancho Palos Verdes - 2BR/2BA 1,100 $3,386 $3.08 8 Avana Rancho Palos Verdes - 2BR/2BA 1,145 $3,369 $2.94 HIGH 1,339 $5,180 $4.10 AVG 1,161 $3,823 $3.30 MED 1,145 $3,650 $3.17 LOW 1,020 $2,885 $2.30 UNIT TYPE ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS TYPE UNIT SIZE DEVELOPER $/UNIT DEVELOPER $/SF MARKET $/SF MARKET $/UNIT 2BR/2BA 1,135 $0 $0.00 $3.35 $3,800 M-40 VALUATION WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 The 9 affordable units restricted to Moderate Income households (1-Bedroom/1-Bathroom) will be of the same construction quality and of similar finishes as the market rate units. The concluded monthly rent was modeled on California Housing and Community Department (HCD) 2023 rent figures for 100% AMI in the chart below. The concluded market rent for each unit type is shown in the Direct Capitalization chart. The total rental income is based on concluded pro forma monthly rents. The following table summarizes the other revenue projections for the subject property. OTHER REVENUE CONCLUSIONS OTHER INCOME %PRR $/SF NRA $/UNIT TOTAL COMMENT Other Income 1.4%$0.60 $540 $48,600 This is forecasted based on $50 per month per 81 market-rate units. RUBS 2.1%$0.89 $810 $72,900 RUBS (common area utility reimbursement)are forecasted at $75 per month per 81 market-rate units. Parking Income 0.0%$0.00 $0 $0 Parking is included (1 space per bedroom) with the gross rent. TOTAL OTHER INCOME 3.5% $1.49 $1,350 $121,500 The potential gross revenue equals the total apartment rent revenue plus all other sources for miscellaneous revenue. Market participants typically expect a vacancy and credit loss of 3% to 5% of potential gross income for apartments. The range is an expectation of the probable vacancy during the economic life of the property and not necessarily the current or short-term vacancy. Based on current and perceived long-term market conditions a vacancy and credit loss of 5% is concluded. M-41 VALUATION WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 The following table presents operating expenses from comparable properties. EXPENSE COMPARABLES COMPARABLE LOW HIGH Units 33 84 Net Rentable Area 34,488 83,206 Average Unit Size 825 1,045 EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME $45.51 $47,562 $40.46 $40,078 $40.24 $33,882 $37.15 $30,633 $30,633 $47,562 $38,101 OPERATING EXPENSES $/SF $/UNIT $/SF $/UNIT $/SF $/UNIT $/SF $/UNIT LOW HIGH $/Unit Taxes $8.89 $9,291 $6.65 $6,587 $6.84 $5,759 $5.69 $4,692 $4,692 $9,291 $5,679 Insurance $0.43 $449 $0.47 $466 $0.75 $632 $0.49 $404 $404 $632 $454 Administrative & General $0.40 $418 $1.36 $1,347 $0.78 $657 $0.45 $371 $371 $1,347 $500 Repairs & Maintenance $0.78 $815 $2.12 $2,100 $1.22 $1,027 $2.45 $2,020 $815 $2,100 $1,625 Utilities $1.56 $1,630 $1.85 $1,833 $1.82 $1,532 $1.48 $1,220 $1,220 $1,833 $1,575 Management Fees $1.33 $1,390 $1.21 $1,199 $1.46 $1,229 $1.07 $882 $882 $1,390 $1,143 % EGI 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.6% 3.6% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.6%3.0% Payroll -- $2.07 $2,050 $1.32 $1,111 $1.82 $1,501 $1,111 $2,050 $1,600 Non-Revenue Units --------$0 $0 $400 Advertising --------$0 $0 $250 Reserves $0.43 $449 $0.20 $198 $0.30 $253 $0.24 $198 $198 $449 $250 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $13.85 $14,443 $15.96 $15,779 $14.53 $12,201 $13.72 $11,289 $11,289 $15,779 $13,475 TOTAL OP EXP w/o RE TAX $4.96 $5,152 $9.31 $9,192 $7.69 $6,441 $8.03 $6,597 $6,597 $6,488 $7,797 90 SUBJECT 81,630 907 72 8233 34,488 60,624 67,616 1045 991 842 825 84 83,206 COMP 1 COMP 4COMP 3COMP 2 Operating expenses for each unit type was adjusted where applicable for unit size (property taxes, insurance, repairs & maintenance, utilities) while some expenses are modeled on a per unit basis. The chart below summarizes comparable sales data, and capitalization rate: Year No. Avg. Unit Actual Sale Adjusted Price/ Price/NOI/ No. Property Name Type Date Built Units Size Price Sale Price Unit SF Occ Unit OER OAR 1 31-Unit Apartment Pending Dec-23 1988 31 825 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $435,484 $528 97% $18,524 35.0% 4.25% 1 1400 Venice Boulevard 1 Los Angeles, California 90291 2 The Oliver Recorded Aug-23 2016 30 1,157 $29,250,000 $29,250,000 $975,000 $842 97% $45,152 30.8% 4.63% 2 11955 Washington Boulevard 2 Culver City, California 90066 3 20-Unit Apartment Recorded Mar-23 1971 20 1,068 $10,550,000 $11,000,000 $550,000 $515 95% $25,215 27.8% 4.58% 3 11930 Gorham Avenue 3 Los Angeles, California 90049 4 Picasso Brentwood Recorded Mar-23 2019 81 674 $42,500,000 $42,500,000 $524,691 $778 100% $25,984 39.7% 4.95% 4 12035 Wilshire Boulevard 4 Los Angeles, California 90025 5 18-Unit Apartment Recorded Mar-23 2019 18 1,179 $15,000,000 $15,000,000 $833,333 $707 94% $41,349 31.1% 4.96% 5 3675 Dunn Drive 5 Los Angeles, CA 90034-5003 6 LC by CLG Recorded Jan-23 2015 84 991 $46,500,000 $46,500,000 $553,571 $559 96%$26,397 38.0% 4.77% 6 710 North El Centro Avenue 6 Los Angeles, California 90038 Sub Proposed Residences at Peninsula Center --90 907 ------ --95% $24,626 35.4% 4.75% 27570 Norris Center Drive Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274 Transaction SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE SALES The data from the comparable sales are the best indicator from buyers and sellers within the market. M-42 VALUATION WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 The proposed subject will be a leased investment property, and this valuation technique best represents the decision-making process of an investor. The value derived from the Direct Capitalization Method is shown below. DIRECT CAPITALIZATION UNIT MIX 1BR/1BA Moderate 2BR/2BA TYPE UNITS CATEGORY Unit SF $/UNIT $/YEAR $/UNIT $/UNIT $/UNIT 1BR/1BA 48 1 Bed 775 $3,000 $1,728,000 $3,000 1BR/1BA; Moderate Income 9 1 Bed 775 $2,364 $255,312 $2,364 2BR/2BA 33 2 Bed 1135 $3,800 $1,504,800 $3,800 UNIT MIX SUBTOTAL 90 -907 $3,230 $3,488,112 $3,000 $2,364 $3,800 RENTAL INCOME $/UNIT $/YEAR $/YEAR $/YEAR $/YEAR Total Multifamily Income $38,757 $3,488,112 $36,000 $28,368 $45,600 POTENTIAL RENTAL INCOME $38,757 $3,488,112 $36,000 $28,368 $45,600 OTHER INCOME (MISCELLANEOUS)%GOP Other Income -$540 $48,600 $540 $540 $540 RUBS $810 $72,900 $810 $810 $810 TOTAL OTHER INCOME (MISCELLANEOUS)$1,350 $121,500 $1,350 $1,350 $1,350 POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME $40,107 $3,609,612 $37,350 $29,718 $46,950 ALL VACANCY LOSS %PGI $/UNIT $/YEAR $/YEAR $/YEAR $/YEAR Vacancy 4.0%($1,604)($144,384)($1,494)($1,189)($1,878) Credit Loss 1.0%($401)($36,096)($374)($297)($470) TOTAL VACANCY & CREDIT LOSS 5.0%($2,005)($180,481)($1,868)($1,486)($2,348) EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME $38,101 $3,429,131 $35,483 $28,232 $44,603 OPERATING EXPENSES %GOP %EGI $/UNIT $/YEAR $/YEAR $/YEAR $/YEAR Taxes (14.16%)14.9%($5,679)($511,073)($4,852)($4,852)($7,106) Insurance (1.13%)1.2%($454)($40,815)($388)($388)($568) Administrative & General (1.25%)1.3%($500)($45,000)($500)($500)($500) Repairs & Maintenance (4.05%)4.3%($1,625)($146,250)($1,389)($1,389) ($2,033) Utilities (3.93%)4.1%($1,575)($141,750)($1,346)($1,346)($1,971) Management Fees (2.85%)3.0%($1,143)($102,874)($1,064)($847)($1,338) Payroll (3.99%)4.2%($1,600)($144,000)($1,600)($1,600)($1,600) Non-Revenue Units (1.00%)1.0%($400)($36,000)($400)($400)($400) Advertising (0.62%)0.7%($250)($22,500)($250)($250)($250) Reserves 0.6%0.7%($250)($22,500)($250)($250)($250) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES (33.60%)35.4%($13,475)($1,212,762) ($12,038)($11,821) ($16,016) NET OPERATING INCOME $24,626 $2,216,370 $23,444 $16,411 $28,586 Capitalization Rate 4.75%4.75%4.75%4.75% Capitalized Value $46,660,415 $493,560 $345,499 $601,820 FEBRUARY 09, 2024 $518,889/Unit $46,700,000 Number of Bonus Units 30 12 9 9 FAIR MARKET VALUE OF BONUS UNITS $5,922,715 $3,109,489 $5,416,381 HYPOTHETICAL AS STABILIZED The Capitalized Value line item is the per unit value for each floorplan – 1-bed/1-bath market rate and Moderate Income affordable, and 2-bed/2-bath market rate. M-43 RECONCILIATION OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 The purpose of the appraisal is to: (1) establish a fair market value in cash of the gross floor area and/or additional residential units resulting from the bonus level development, and (2) establish a fair market value or estimated costs of constructing or providing the proposed community amenities or benefits. The following table presents the conclusions developed in this appraisal: DESCRIPTION NO. PER SPACE/UNIT TOTAL Parking Construction Cost - 85 Public Stalls 85 $52,095 $4,428,075 Public Corner Plaza & Sidewalk Cost $773,486 Moderate Income Affordable Units 9 $345,499 $3,109,489 Total Cost of Community / Amenity Benefits $8,311,050 DENSITY BONUS UNITS - MARKET RATE 1BR/1BA 12 $493,560 $5,922,715 2BR/2BA 9 $601,820 $5,416,381 Fair Market Value of Density Bonus Units 21 $539,957 $11,339,096 COMMUNITY BENEFITS / FMV OF DENSITY BONUS UNITS 73% COMMUNITY BENEFITS / AMENITY COST SUMMARY The value of the community amenities or benefits to be provided approximates 73% of the fair market value of the additional gross floor area and/or additional residential units resulting from the bonus level development ("bonus development value"). M-44 CERTIFICATION WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 18 We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions of the signers are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. The signers of this report have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. Pedro Chin has performed no services, specifically as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. The signers are not biased with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. The engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. The compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as set forth by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. Pedro Chin inspected the property that is the subject of this report. George Koiso, MAI did not inspect the property. Nick Smith provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the appraisers signing the certification. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this report, Pedro Chin has completed the Standards and Ethics Requirements for Candidates/Practicing Affiliates of the Appraisal Institute. As of the date of this report, George Koiso, MAI has completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute. Pedro Chin Certified General Real Estate Appraiser California License No. AG024011 Expiration Date 7/8/2025 George Koiso, MAI Certified General Real Estate Appraiser California License No.AG044733 Expiration Date 2/9/2025 M-45 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 Information presented in this report has been obtained from reliable sources, and it is assumed that the information is accurate. This analysis assumes that the information provided for this appraisal accurately reflect the current condition of the subject property. This report shall be used for its intended purpose only, and by the party to whom it is addressed. Possession of this report does not include the right of publication. The appraisers may not be required to give testimony or to appear in court by reason of this appraisal, with reference to the property in question, unless prior arrangements have been made. The statements of value and all conclusions shall apply as of the dates shown herein. There is no present or contemplated future interest in the property by the appraisers which is not specifically disclosed in this report. Without the written consent or approval of the authors neither all, nor any part of, the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media. This applies particularly to value conclusions and to the identity of the appraisers and the company with which the appraisers are connected. This report must be used in its entirety. Reliance on any portion of the report independent of others, may lead the reader to erroneous conclusions regarding the property values. Unless approval is provided by the authors no portion of the report stands alone. We assume no responsibility for matters legal in character, nor do we render any opinion as to title, which is assumed to be marketable. All existing liens, encumbrances, and assessments have been disregarded, unless otherwise noted, and the property is appraised as though free and clear, under responsible ownership, and competent management. The appraisal has provided exhibits to assist the client(s)/intended user(s) to understand from a graphical standpoint some of the salient issues which impact the subject property. We have made no survey of the property and if further verification is requi red, a survey by a registered surveyor is advised. The appraisers assume no responsibility for determining if the property requires environmental approval by the appropriate governing agencies, nor if it is in violation thereof, unless otherwise noted herein. This analysis assumes that no asbestos or other h azardous materials are stored or found in or on the subject property. If evidence of hazardous materials of any kind occurs, the reader should seek qualified professional assistance. If hazardous materials are discovered and if future market conditions indicate an impact on value and increased perceived risk, a revision of the concluded values may be necessary. The valuation stated herein assumes professional management and operation of the buildings throughout the lifetime of the improvements, with an adequate maintenance and repair program. The liability of Worth Valuations, its principals, agents, and employees is limited to the client. Further, there is no accountability, obligation, or liability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone other than the client, the client shall make such party aware of all limiting conditions and assumptions of the assignment and related discussions. The appraisers are in no way responsible for any costs incurred to discover or correct any deficiency in the property. The appraisers are not qualified to detect the presence of toxic or hazardous substances or materials which may influence or be associated with the property or any adjacent properties, has made no investigation or analysis as to the presence of such materials, and expressly disclaims any duty to note the degree of fault. Worth Valuations and its principals, agents, employees, shall not be liable for any costs, expenses, assessments, or penalties, or diminution in value, property damage, or personal injury (including death) resulting from or otherwise attributable to toxic or hazardous substances or materials, including without limitation hazardous waste, asbestos material, formaldehyde, or any smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids, solids or gasses, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. The appraisers assume no responsibility for determining if the subject property complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Worth Valuations, its principals, agents, and employees, shall not be liable for any costs, expenses, assessments, penalties or diminution in value resulting from non-compliance. This appraisal assumes that the subject meets an acceptable level of compliance with ADA standards; if the subject is not in compliance, the eventual renovation costs and/or penalties would negatively impact the present value of the subject. If the magnitude and time of the cost were known today, they would be reduced from the reported value conclusion. Unless otherwise noted herein, a detailed soils study was not provided for this analysis. The subject's soils and sub -soil conditions are assumed to be suitable based upon a visual inspection of the subject property and surrounding properties, which did not indicate evidence of excessive settling or unstable soils. No certification is made regarding the stability or suitability of the soil or sub-soil conditions. M-46 ADDENDA WORTH VALUATIONS 24-LA-0285 20 M-47 © 2022 Worth Valuations 213.610.7992 pedro.chin@worth- vas.com 1150 S. Olive Street, 10th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90015 Clients Represented •AIG •Banc of California •Bank of Hope •Bank OZK •Bank of the West •Berkadia •Calmwater Capital •Capital One •Cathay Bank •CBRE •Citibank •Comerica Bank •CTBC Bank Corp. •Deutsche Bank •East West Bank •First Republic Bank •Hanmi Bank •HomeStreet Bank •JLL •JP Morgan Chase •Manufacturers Bank •Mesa West Capital •MetLife •MUFG Union Bank •PNC Bank •Preferred Bank •Thorofare Capital •Walker & Dunlop Experience Pedro K. Chin is a Principal and Managing Director for Worth Valuations. Mr. Chin has been a licensed appraiser for almost 30 years and has established a reputation as one of Southern California’s leading professionals for handling complex real estate valuations across a wide spectrum of property types. Mr. Chin regularly provides consultation services to owners, developers, brokers, attorneys, and other appraisers throughout Southern California, particularly as it relates to land, residual land valuation, ground leases, and feasibility issues. Prior to co-founding Worth Valuations, Mr. Chin spent over 30 years at CBRE’s Valuation and Advisory Services department in the Los Angeles office. After graduating from the University of Southern California with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration with an emphasis in Real Estate, he was a practicing appraiser for 20 years focusing on a wide variety of income-producing property types, including retail, office, industrial, multifamily, residential subdivisions, and land valuations. In his last 10 years at CBRE, Mr. Chin has narrowed his practice to specialize in complex multifamily residential valuation assignments, both existing and proposed. He also served as the former co-head of the apartment team, a team he helped grow to become CBRE's largest team nation-wide. Mr. Chin has appraised some of Southern California’s most iconic residential assets, including Oceanwide Plaza, 9900 Wilshire, The Century, 10000 Santa Monica, Hollywood Palladium, Beverly Hills Hilton (redevelopment), Queen Mary, Dodger Stadium (land), Columbia Square (former CBS Studios), Los Angeles Center Studios (land), The Village at Santa Monica, the House of Blues redevelopment, The Lorenzo student housing, LEVEL Furnished Living, and several multi-use master-planned communities. Mr. Chin also has extensive experience with adaptive reuse conversions to mixed-use multifamily (rental and for-sale) with ground floor commercial or to creative office, properties with boat slips, properties impacted by regulatory restrictions (i.e. LIHTC’s, HUD, Mills Act, Coastal Commission, split-zones, conservation land, etc.), and ground- leased assets. Education •University of Southern California —Bachelor of Science in Business Administration with an emphasis in Real Estate •Appraisal Institute Coursework Professional Affiliations / Accreditations •Appraisal Institute, Practicing Affiliate •State of California, Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, BREA No. AG024011 Pedro Chin Principal | Managing Director M-48 M-49 © 2022 Worth Valuations 310.701.7045 George.Koiso@Worth-vas.com Worth-vas.com 1150 S. Olive St, 10th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90015 Clients Represented Pacific Premiere Bank First Foundation Bank First Republic Bank Walker & Dunlop Manufactures Bank JP Morgan Chase MUFG Union Bank East West Bank Hunt Mortgage Group HomeStreet Bank Mesa West Capital DP Private Wealth Mortgage Voya Investment Management Wells Fargo Morgan Stanley PNC Bank Lincoln National Life Insurance MB Financial Bank Banner Bank Experience George Koiso, MAI, is a Principal and Senior Managing Director for Worth Valuations. With 20 years of valuation experience and having managed the production of thousands of appraisals, Mr. Koiso has established a reputation for being one of the most trusted appraisers in the Southern California region. Prior to co-founding Worth Valuations, Mr. Koiso spent 14 years with CBRE’s Valuation and Advisory Services department. He began his career as a trainee and was eventually promoted to the head of the Los Angeles apartment team. Under his leadership, the team was regularly the fastest growing in the region and eventually grew to be the largest team nationwide, a status it maintained for many years. Mr. Koiso specializes in multifamily residential properties. He has significant experience with Class A institutional-quality assets, both existing and proposed, having worked on many of the highest-profile assets in Southern California. Mr. Koiso also specializes in affordable housing, Small Balance Loan (SBL) apartments (including value-add/bridge loan assignments), and has an exceptional record for managing very large portfolio assignments. He has also served as an expert witness for property tax appeal purposes, having been involved with over 100 tax appeal cases. Mr. Koiso also conducts external appraisal reviews for various financial institutions and was previously a Review Appraiser for JP Morgan Chase, where he achieved the highest internal employment rating. He has been a frequent guest speaker to various financial institutions on topics ranging from current apartment market trends to valuation methodologies for large versus small apartment assets. Mr. Koiso brings a unique perspective to the industry, focusing on team building and continuous personal development within his staff, all while striving to maintain the industry’s highest standards. He has mentored individuals throughout his career and under his leadership, 7 professionals under 30 years old have obtained their California Certified General appraisal license. While his teams have always been high performing, humanity in the workplace has remained an important core value. Education University of California, Berkeley —Bachelor of Arts Appraisal Institute Coursework Professional Affiliations / Accreditations Designated Member (MAI) of the Appraisal Institute Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of California George Koiso, MAI Principal | Senior Managing Director M-50 M-51 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 1 STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 2024 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: WHITNEY BERRY, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 230516 CONSIDERATION OF A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN (SCH NO. 2021050450) FOR A 90-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A 2-ACRE SITE APPLICANT: RYAN ASH ON BEHALF OF VESTAR LOCATION: 27525 NORRIS CENTER DRIVE (APN 7589-005-020) OVERVIEW The following is a request to consider a Precise Plan of Design, a Commercial District Mixed-Use Permit, a Development Agreement and an Addendum to the General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (GP EIR) for a 90-unit apartment project on a 2-acre site located at 27525 Norris Center Drive. The project would provide 85 shared public/private parking spaces, nine (9) affordable units for moderate-income households, and public streetscape improvements in exchange for bonus level development. The bonus level development would consist of fifteen (15) additional residential units, one additional story, and open space reduction. BACKGROUND On October 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 744 (Attachment F) which created the City’s Bonus Level Development Program. This ordinance made amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 17.30 to establish a process for providing bonus level development (i.e., greater density and potential increase and reduction in other development standards) in exchange for a project providing desirable community amenities or benefits as defined by the Council adopted list in Resolution No. 2531 (Attachment G). These community amenities or benefits are intended to address identified community needs, including some that may result from the effect of the increased development intensity on the surrounding community. N-1 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 2 On March 14, 2023, the City Council conducted a “first look” meeting to consider a proposal for the development of a 90-unit residential apartment development that includes: (1) public parking, (2) affordable housing, and (3) public streetscape improvements (Attachment H). These are community benefits or amenities that are on the Council adopted list in Resolution No. 2531. During this meeting, the City Council discussed the issues, provided input and stated a preference for more affordable units than the proposed five percent (5%) moderate-income units in the project. Since that time, the applicant has revised the project description to reserve fifteen percent (15%) of units, excluding the bonus level units, or nine (9) units total, to be rent restricted for moderate-income households. On March 12, 2024, the City Council provided a preliminary determination that the community benefits and amenities proposed by the applicant qualify for bonus level development pursuant to the City’s Bonus Level Development Program (Attachment I). Pursuant to RHEMC §17.30.090(D), this determination was based on an appraisal, provided at the applicant’s expense, which established that the fair market value of the proposed community amenities and benefits significantly exceeded twenty-five percent (25%) of the fair market value of the additional residential units resulting from the bonus level development (Attachment K). On July 9, 2024, the City Council conducted a second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 749 approving amendments to RHEMC Title 17 – Zoning to establish consistency with the General Plan 2040 (Attachment J). As part of this action, the entirety of the Commercial District was redesignated from the Commercial General (C-G)/Mixed-Use Overlay (MU) zoning district to the Commercial General Mixed-Use (CGMU) District. On August 5, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed project, at which time all parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence (Attachment K). After considering public testimony and a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the September 3, 2024, Planning Commission meeting requesting that the applicant consider a number of concerns and requested revisions. The applicant subsequently made two modifications to the proposed Development Agreement, agreeing to extend the term for deed-restriction of the affordable units to thirty-five years and modifying the term for public parking spaces to better clarify the proposed use of said spaces. On October 7, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed project, at which time all parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence (Attachment L). Planning Commissioners made comments regarding the role of the Planning Commission in the City’s Bonus Level Development Program, the accuracy and validity of the appraisal valuation, and the high-quality design and finishes of the project. After considering public testimony and a lengthy discussion as summarized in the meeting minutes (Attachment M), the Planning Commission was unable to reach a majority consensus on whether to recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the Project to the City Council, and consequently made no recommendation regarding the Project to the City Council. N-2 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 3 DISCUSSION The CGMU District allows residential development to be constructed by right and permits 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) in alignment with the City’s General Plan. The City’s Bonus Level Development Program permits an applicant for a development project in the CGMU zoning district to seek (1) an increase in the maximum coverage ratio, building height, or number of residential units, or (2) a decrease in any other applicable development standards, by providing community amenities or benefits (Section 17.30.080(A)). To qualify for bonus level development, a community amenity or benefit must be significant and clearly beyond what would otherwise be required for the project under applicable code provisions, conditions of approval, and environmental review mitigation measures. To qualify for bonus level development, a community amenity or benefit must be significant and clearly beyond what would otherwise be required for the project under applicable code provisions, conditions of approval, and environmental review mitigation measures. The value of community amenities or benefits to be provided should equal at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the fair market value of the additional residential units resulting from the bonus level development. The value must be calculated by a licensed appraisal firm that established a fair market value in cash of the additional residential units and the fair market value or estimated cost of constructing or providing the proposed community amenities of benefits (Section 17.30.090(D)). The form and content of the appraisal must be approved by the Community Development Director, and the cost paid entirely by the applicant. All applications for bonus level development are subject to procedures set forth in RHEMC sections 17.30.080 through 17.30.090 and are processed as part of an application for a Precise Plan of Design, pursuant to Chapter 17.58, a Commercial District Mixed-Use Development Permit, pursuant to Chapter 17.30, and a Development Agreement, pursuant to Chapter 17.82. Project Summary The project proposes to construct 90 units on a two-acre site, resulting in a density of 45 du/acre. This is a fifty percent (50%) density increase above the base density of 30 du/acre permitted by right in the CGMU district. The project would demolish an existing 7,000 square foot (SF) building and construct a 90-unit residential apartment building with site improvements. The building would be a five-story podium structure with four and five- story portions, a maximum overall height of 68 feet and overall size of 206,514 SF. The residential units would be a mix of one- and two-bedroom units. The unit count would consist of 57 one-bedroom/one-bathroom units, averaging 775 SF, and 33 two- bedroom/two-bathroom units, averaging 1,135 SF, resulting in a total of 81,630 SF of livable space. Each unit would have 60 SF of private deck space. The project would contain 3,500 SF of common amenity space and 11,225 SF of pool deck space on the third level. The project would also provide a 3,600 SF lobby area and 1,175 SF ground floor leasing plaza area. A project with this unit mix would require 153 parking spaces; the project is proposing to exceed these requirements by providing 155 spaces, as shown in Table 1 below. An additional 85 spaces would be provided as shared N-3 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 4 public/private parking on the ground floor, resulting in a total project count of 240 parking spaces. Figure 1. Rendering of Project, View Facing North Community Amenities and Benefits The applicant’s proposal for community amenities and benefits was subject to a preliminary review by the City Council at a noticed public hearing, pursuant to RHEMC Section 17.30.090(F). On March 12, 2024, the City Council provided a preliminary determination that the community benefits and amenities proposed by the applicant qualify for bonus level development pursuant to the City’s Bonus Level Development Program (Attachment I). Pursuant to RHEMC §17.30.090(D), this determination was based on an appraisal valuation, the form and content of which was approved by the Community Development Director and the cost paid entirely by the applicant (Attachment K). This appraisal report established that the fair market value of the proposed community amenities and benefits significantly exceeded twenty-five percent (25%) of the fair market value of the additional residential units resulting from the bonus level development. The definition of market value comes from California Revenue and Taxation Code section 110(a).1 The applicant proposes the following community benefits and amenities as part of this development: 1. Parking: The proposed development would provide 240 parking spaces, which exceeds the number of spaces required by the City’s municipal code (Section 17.37.040(F), see Table 1 below). A total of 85 stalls on the ground floor will be provided for public use, including such public uses as city-sponsored events such as the holiday parade and street fair, community organizations like the PV 1 Revenue and Taxation Code §110(a) N-4 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 5 Performing Arts (PVPA) or other events that require temporary reservation of these spaces. Vestar has accommodated parking requests for PVPA season events in the past and has confirmed that they will continue to accommodate PVPA requests for parking at the Peninsula Shopping Center the best they can as a good neighbor. PVPA confirms their need for this parking arrangement and supports the proposed project (Attachment O). Public parking on private property within the commercial district is an identified community amenity on the City Council-approved list of amenities and benefits associated with the City’s Bonus Level Development Program (Attachment G). At its March 12, 2024, meeting, the City Council made a preliminary determination that the proposed public parking spaces would be a valuable community amenity. The appraisal report prepared for the City concluded that the estimated costs of constructing the 85 public parking stalls would be $4,428,075 (Attachment P). The value of this community amenity is over thirty-nine percent (39%) of the bonus development value, exceeding the twenty-five percent (25%) required by RHEMC Section 17.30.090(D). Table 1. Parking Ratios and Counts Unit Type No. of Units City Parking Ratio City Parking Req’t Stalls 1 BD / 1BA 57 1/unit 57 2 BD / 2 BA 33 2/unit 66 Guest Spaces 1 per 3 units 30 Total Required 153 Total Provided 155 Proposed Community Amenity – Shared Parking 85 Total Provided for Project 240 2. Affordable Housing: The proposed development would reserve 15% of the base units excluding the bonus level units, or nine (9) units total, for moderate income households. This would provide much-needed affordable workforce housing in the community and make significant progress toward meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Deed restricted affordable units are an identified community amenity on the City Council-approved list of amenities and benefits associated with the City’s Bonus Level Development Program (Attachment G). At their March 12, 2024, meeting, the City Council made a preliminary determination that the proposed nine (9) affordable units would be a benefit to the community. The appraisal report concluded that the estimated value of the moderate-income affordable units would be $3,109,489. The appraisal used an income approach analysis, relying on Direct Capitalization methods 2, to value the affordable units and the bonus level units. The appraisal determined that the affordable units 2 See pages 15 through 18 of the appraisal report (Attachment K) N-5 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 6 present a value of $345,499 per unit, relying on the 2023 monthly rent figures provided by HCD for 100% AMI in Los Angeles County 3. The appraisal determined that the bonus level units present a fair market value of $601,820 per unit, relying on rent comparables within the South Bay. The affordable rental units will be restricted by an agreement that sets maximum incomes and rents for those units. For moderate income households, affordable rent, including a reasonable utility allowance, may not exceed 30% of the moderate-income limit adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit 4. The initial rents for the affordable units in the proposed project will be determined at a later date. 3. Connectivity. The proposed development would construct a public plaza with pedestrian amenities on the corner of Norris Center Drive and Deep Valley Drive, and new sidewalk along the private roadway that will provide a pedestrian connection between the Peninsula Center and the Promenade Mall. Public infrastructure such as sidewalks, benches and plazas are an identified community amenity on the City Council-approved list of amenities and benefits associated with the City’s Bonus Level Development Program (Attachment G). At their March 12, 2024, meeting, the City Council made a preliminary determination that the proposed public plaza and pedestrian amenities would be a valuable community amenity. The appraisal report concluded that the estimated costs of constructing the public plaza and sidewalks would be $773,486. Other Increases or Decreases to Development Standards The applicant has requested the following increases or decreases in development standards as part of this project: 1.Additional Height. The proposed development would be five stories with a maximum overall height of 68 feet. This is one (1) additional story beyond the four (4) story maximum permitted by right in the CGMU district. 2. Reduced Open Space: The proposed development would provide 197.78 SF of open space per unit, which is less than the required 300 SF per unit in the CGMU district. PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN (PPD-240299) AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICT MIXED- USE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (MUD-230517) Approval of a Precise Plan of Design (PPD) is required for residential and residential mixed-use projects that utilize the City’s Bonus Level Development Program. Chapter 3 2023 MTSP Regular Income, Rent and Loan Limits. CA Department of Housing and Community Development. 4 Health and Safety Code § 50053(b)(5) N-6 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 7 17.58 indicates that the purpose of a Precise Plan of Design (PPD) is to balance the controlled, orderly growth as required by the City's general plan, while also affording applicants enjoyment of property rights as afforded by zoning regulations while at the same time imposing a uniformity of regulations and conditions to protect the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. The Commercial District Mixed-Use Development Permit (MUD) is the administrative design review process for residential and mixed-use projects within the Commercial District. The review is substantially similar to the analysis required for a PPD and is typically processed administratively. Staff analysis for both the PPD and MUD permit is outlined below. In approving a PPD, the commission must include in its consideration whether: A. All provisions of the zoning ordinance are complied with. The project has been reviewed against the provisions of the zoning ordinance and the development standards for residential and residential mixed-use projects within the CGMU district (Table 30-C, Chapter 17.30). The project’s conformance with applicable provisions and development standards is discussed in Table 2 below. Table 2. Conformance with Zoning Provisions and Development Standards Applicable Development Standard Conformance with the Standard Yard Area Between Buildings and Property Lines: Primary street, 5 feet Secondary street, 5 feet Interior side yard, 5 feet Conforms. The building has a minimum setback of 5 feet from the property line along Norris Center Drive, the primary street, and a minimum setback of 45 feet from the property line along Silver Spur Road, the secondary street. The building has interior side yards ranging from 14.4 feet to 31.9 feet from the interior side property line. Yard Area: Structured parking on primary street, 10 feet from curb face Structured parking on secondary street, 6-foot landscaping setback required between sidewalk and parking structure. Interior side yard, 5 feet Conforms. Structured parking on the first and second level of the project is setback over 15 feet from Norris Center Drive, and over 90 feet from Silver Spur Road. The project includes a landscaping setback between sidewalk and parking structure that exceeds six feet. The structured parking has interior side setbacks ranging from 14.4 feet to 31.9 feet. Height: 50 feet, 3-4 stories. Increase requested pursuant to 17.30.080. The Applicant has requested an increase to the allowable height in the N-7 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 8 Applicable Development Standard Conformance with the Standard CGMU district. The Project proposes 5 stories with an overall maximum height of 68 feet. The building would have 4 and 5 story portions that, along with variation in façade materials and upper story articulation, minimize the appearance of bulk and mass. Lot Coverage: Maximum 75% Conforms. The project proposes 58,800 SF coverage on the 87,139 SF lot, resulting in a 67% lot coverage. Open Space: 300 SF of usable open space per dwelling unit; may include private balconies/terraces and common open space. Decrease requested pursuant to 17.30.080. The Applicant has requested a 30% decrease to this open space requirement. The project proposes 17,800 SF of overall open space, including private decks, outdoor plaza and pool deck space. This results in approximately 197 SF of usable open space per dwelling unit. Fences, Hedges, and Walls: Maximum 42 inches high in areas within any required primary street yard or secondary street yard. For corner visibility, fences, hedges and walls must conform to the visibility requirements in section 12.08.040. Conforms. The project does not propose any fences, hedges or walls taller than 42 inches in the primary or secondary street yards, and no fences, hedges or walls would obstruct visibility at corners and/or intersections of project driveways and other rights-of-way. Required Off-Street Parking: Studio & one-bedroom units: 1 space Two- & three-bedroom units: 2 spaces Guest parking: one space per every three units. Conforms. As discussed above, the project would exceed the parking requirements in the municipal code and provide 85 parking spaces for public use. Loading and Unloading: A minimum parking space dedicated to loading/unloading or pick-up/drop-off activities (i.e., service, shuttle, taxi, rideshare service) must be provided per building and must be directly accessible from the building. The dedicated parking space may be in a surface parking lot area or inside a parking structure. Conforms. The project includes two designated loading/unloading areas, both internal to the site and both directly accessible from the building. One loading space is located in front of the proposed lobby and amenity space along the east side of the building. The second loading space is located on the north side of the building. N-8 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 9 B. The following are so designed and/or arranged that traffic congestion is avoided, pedestrian and vehicular safety and welfare are provided and no adverse effect on surrounding property will result: 1. Buildings, structures and improvements, 2. Vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation, 3. Setbacks, 4. Height of buildings, 5. Location of services, 6. Walls and fences, 7. Landscaping, 8. Lighting, and 9. Signing. The building is designed in a Spanish architectural style with terra cotta tile roofs, stucco walls, and curved forms in arched windows and arcades. The project uses natural colors and materials including stone and brick accents that reference existing buildings in the Commercial District, such as 627 Deep Valley Drive, 550 Silver Spur Road, 734 Silver Spur Road, 961 Silver Spur Road and the Peninsula Shopping Center. The overhangs, balconies, arcades and windows cast deep shadows and soften the appearance of large massing and indicate a human scale. In conformance with the City’s setback requirements, the building is sited close to the sidewalk, thereby reducing the perceived scale of the street. This setting is more comfortable for pedestrians, and also impacts drivers who perceive the space as tighter and drive slower. Landscaping on the site will provide shade, privacy, and screening of outdoor equipment areas and storage, as well as provide focal points within the development. The development will adhere to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, and landscaping will be provided in the form of trees, hedges, and groundcovers in the setback areas at ground level. The pool courtyard on the third level will also include drought-tolerant landscaping and shade trees. The project has four points of entry for vehicles, with three driveways internal to the site and one driveway along Norris Center Drive. Vehicular access directly to the project site will be provided by two driveways for residents only, one along Norris Center Drive and another from Deep Valley Drive on the west side of site. There will also be two entries situated at the rear of the site, providing access to the public parking stalls on the ground floor. The project is subject to specific fire requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department and City’s engineering design standards for driveway and sidewalk widths, turning radii, and sight distance for vehicles and pedestrians to ensure safety and provide adequate emergency access. The proposed development would be five stories with a maximum overall height of 68 feet. This is one (1) additional story beyond the four (4) story maximum permitted by right in the CGMU district. As discussed above, the City’s Bonus Level Development Program permits an applicant for a development project in the CGMU zoning district N-9 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 10 to seek an increase in the building height, or number of residential units, by providing community amenities or benefits (Section 17.30.080(A)). The proposed five stories accommodate two levels of podium parking, including 85 public stalls, and 45 du/ac density. This aligns with the market study conducted for the General Plan Update, which concluded that a 40-60-unit density generally would make multi-family residential development more feasible, especially with affordable units. The upper floors of the building are setback, reducing the appearance of high density despite the building’s dense form. The third and fourth floors are setback ten feet, and the fifth floor is setback further along the primary and secondary street sides of the building. As discussed in the section above, the project conforms to the setback requirements for Residential Development in the CGMU District. All mechanical equipment will be located on the rooftop and screened from view. The project would comply with the requirements of the most current and applicable Title 24 standards, including the requirements of the CALGreen Code such as those related to the installation of high-efficiency lighting, energy-efficient appliances, electric vehicle charging stations and water-efficient landscaping. All proposed signage is subject to the requirements of RHEMC Chapter 17.60 (Signs) and a determination by the Community Development Director. The City required that the applicant prepare a non-CEQA Supplemental Transportation Assessment (STA) for the project (Attachment Q). This analysis identified the effects of the proposed project on the surrounding transportation system in accordance with the City’s Transportation Assessment Guidelines. The STA analyzed four intersections including Norris Center Drive and Silver Spur Road, Norris Center and Deep Valley Drive, Norris Center and Indian Peak Road, and Silver Spur and Hawthorne Boulevard. Based on the trip generation estimates of the project, the STA concluded that all study intersections would continue to operate at level of service (LOS) D or better which meets the City’s non-CEQA analysis criteria for signalized intersections. Therefore, the STA did not recommend any intersection improvements as a condition of approval for this project. The City’s Traffic Engineer reviewed the report for compliance with the City’s assessment criteria and has concurred with the conclusions of the STA. Staff has determined that items 1 through 9 have been adequately designed and/or addressed as part of the proposals and meet the required development standards as shown in Table 2 above. C. The project has been designed to meet all the development standards of the city and would be consistent with the City's General Plan. The project would further the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan including, but not limited to, Housing Element policies and quantitative objectives for more affordable housing that meets workforce housing needs, Commercial District Area Vision Plan goals for infill development on underutilized lots and redevelopment of the Commercial District to transform into a vibrant, walkable, and inviting town center. As shown in Table 3 below, the proposed project would be consistent with many of the City’s General Plan Goals for the Commercial District. N-10 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 11 Table 3. General Plan Conformance Applicable General Plan Policy Consistency with Policy LU Policy 2.1.1: Ensure that future development and major renovations are compatible with and comply with adopted land use plans and standards. HE Policy 4.1.1: Ensure that new housing is compatible in character with existing development, and consistent with existing architectural, landscape and development conformity standards developed by the City. Consistent. The proposed project is compatible with and complies with adopted land use plans and standards, including but not limited to size, scale, design and architectural appearance as discussed above. The project also addresses local and regional housing needs by providing affordable housing for moderate income households. LU Policy 2.3.1: Encourage the concentration of mixed-use development, retail, commercial, and higher-density residential uses in the Commercial District. Consistent. The proposed multi-family residential development will contribute to the concentration of uses in the Commercial District and will provide a rental housing type that will serve current and future residential needs of the City within the Commercial District. LU Policy 2.4.1: Ensure that new development or significant changes to existing development encourage walkability. Consistent. The proposed project includes construction of pedestrian connections at the intersection of Norris Center Drive and Deep Valley Drive to encourage connectivity between the PV Promenade, the Peninsula Center and other existing development in the Commercial District. LU Policy 2.4.2: Strive to improve parking quality, efficiency, and convenience in the Commercial District. Consistent. The proposed project will include 85 public parking spaces that will provide efficient and convenient parking for public uses in the Commercial District. LU Policy 2.4.3: Strive to create multi- generational family-friendly public spaces and affordable family-friendly neighborhoods. HE Goal 3: Promote Housing Assistance for those with limited incomes or special needs. HE Goal 4: Ensure that all residents have equal housing opportunities, consistent with state and fair housing laws. Consistent. The proposed multi-family residential project will include affordable units reserved for Moderate Income households. The City’s review of this proposed project is an example of implementing housing policies and programs in a manner that affirmatively further fair housing for residents and the community. N-11 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 12 The project meets all PPD criteria as outlined above, and therefore staff supports the PPD as proposed. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA-240243) Development agreements provide additional opportunities to vest private development rights through a contract (development agreement) between the City and a property owner or developer. Development agreements allow the City and applicants to negotiate, among other things, limits on changes in general plan, zoning code and other City policies and fees in place at the time of execution of the development agreement, as an incentive for providing additional community benefits beyond standard fees and mitigation of impacts. Development agreements are generally used for projects that may develop in phases or take multiple years to develop and the project proponent would like to lock in current general plan and zoning regulations as well as existing fees early in the development process. A development agreement must be approved by ordinance, which provides additional public comment and review opportunities. RHEMC Chapter 17.82 provides a framework for the consideration of development agreements upon a request from an applicant which essentially tracks the provisions of the Development Agreement Law 5. The proposed Development Agreement (Attachment C) contains the following required and other terms: Table 4. Development Agreement Terms Required Terms Proposed Development Agreement Term Duration of the agreement Ten years from effective date, with option for two five-year extensions, or the completion of the project, whichever is earlier. Permitted uses of the property Multi-family residential project consisting of 90 dwelling units and ancillary uses, as shown in the plans approved in conjunction with the Precise Plan of Design. Density or intensity of use 45 dwelling units to the acre (45 du/ac), with a total of 90 units in the project. Maximum height and size of proposed buildings Maximum height of 68 feet and building size of 206,514 SF as shown in the plans approved in conjunction with the Precise Plan of Design. Provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes Reservation of plaza area, sidewalks for connectivity, and eighty-five (85) parking spaces for public use. 5 Government Code § 65864 - §65869.5 N-12 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 13 Other Terms Proposed Development Agreement Term Community Benefits Contribution 1) eighty-five (85) parking spaces on the ground floor will be deed restricted for public use. 2) Nine (9) dwelling units will be deed restricted for rental by Moderate Income Households for a term of thirty-five (35) years. 3) New landscaped plaza and sidewalk will be constructed at the intersection of Deep Valley Drive and Norris Center Drive, consistent with the plans approved in conjunction with the Precise Plan of Design. Timing of Project Construction and Completion No requirement for the Developer to initiate or complete development of the project within any particular period of time, except as provided in the Development Agreement or subsequent project approvals. Development Fees Any fee, exaction or charge that is intended to offset or reimburse the City for increased costs on the City’s public improvements due to development may be applied to the Project. Environmental Mitigation An Addendum was prepared for the Project pursuant to CEQA and the City agrees to use the Addendum in connection with the processing of any Subsequent Approval to the maximum extent allowed by law and not to impose on the Project any mitigation measures or other conditions of approval other than those specifically imposed by the Project Approvals or specifically required by Applicable Law unless consented to by Developer. Pursuant to RHEMC Chapter 17.82, the City Council must make the following findings in order to approve a development agreement: 1. Is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and any applicable zoning ordinance(s). This finding has been met because the Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the Rolling Hills Estates 2040 General Plan. As shown in Table 3 above, the Project is N-13 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 14 consistent with the Commercial General/Commercial District Mixed-Use General Plan Land Use designation because it will further the goals and policies of the General Plan including Land Use policies, Housing Element policies and quantitative objectives for more affordable housing that meets workforce housing needs, Commercial District Area Vision Plan goals for infill development on underutilized lots and redevelopment of the Commercial District to transform into a vibrant, walkable, and inviting town center. The project conforms to the development standards of the CGMU zoning district as described in Table 2 above. 2. Conforms with public convenience, general welfare and good land-use practices. This finding has been met because the project is consistent with General Plan policies regarding land use, including the vision for the Commercial District, and the zoning ordinance as discussed in the section above. The project includes several community benefits and amenities that contribute to public convenience and general welfare. 3. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare. This finding has been met because the Development Agreement memorializes project approvals, including the Precise Plan of Design and Commercial District Mixed-Use Development Permit discussed above. The Development Agreement also confirms that the project must obtain permits, clearances and approvals required by the City and as may be required by other governmental agencies. In addition, as documented in the Addendum prepared for the project, mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR have been included to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels. 4. Will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values. This finding has been met because the proposed Development Agreement includes provisions to facilitate the orderly development of the project and provision of community benefits and amenities over the term of the agreement. 5. Is consistent with the Development Agreement Law. This finding has been met because the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with RHEMC Chapter 17.82, Government Code Section 65864 through 65869.5 and provides assurances that the applicant may proceed with the multi- year project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations in return for the provision of community benefits and amenities. 6. Is consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 17 of this Code. N-14 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 15 This finding has been met because the Development Agreement is consistent with the applicable provisions of Section 17.30 - CGMU District and Chapter 17.58 – Precise Plan of Design and conforms to development standards of the zoning ordinance as outlined in Table 2 above. 7. Will result in the provision of economic, environmental, recreational, cultural or social benefits to the city that would not be attainable without approval of the development agreement. This finding has been met because the project will provide a number of community amenities and benefits, including 85 public parking spaces, nine (9) moderately affordable units, and pedestrian connectivity that would not be attainable without the proposed Development Agreement. The provision of permanent housing units will contribute to the City’s share of regional housing growth needs as well as the City’s General Fund. The proposed project meets all criteria as outlined above, and therefore staff supports the Development Agreement as proposed. CEQA The Project was reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 and following: “CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15000 and following). The City has prepared an Addendum to the City’s 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GP EIR, SCH No. 2021050450) (Attachment A), finding that none of the conditions/circumstances warranting greater subsequent or supplemental review, as outlined in Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162, are present. The previously certified GP EIR (Attachments R, S and T) serves as the primary environmental compliance document for the project, and this Addendum provides minor changes and additions to the GP EIR. The environmental impacts presented by a “medium site” development project type, consisting of 60 to 125 residential units on sites of approximately two to three acres, were addressed through the GP FEIR, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program, as adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2496 (Attachment U). The proposed Project is representative of the buildout analyzed for the “medium site” development project type in the GP EIR. Based on the analysis presented in the Addendum and the previously certified GP EIR, the proposed Project would not result in substantial changes requiring major revisions to the previously certified GP EIR, would not result in any new significant environmental impacts that were not discussed in the GP EIR, and would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. Project-level analysis in the Addendum determined that the proposed Project would contribute to, but not increase the severity of, significant and unavoidable impacts to VMT, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources that were identified in the GP EIR. The Project will be N-15 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 16 required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR as identified in Chapter 4 of the Addendum. No new mitigation measures are required as a result of implementing the proposed Project. PLANNING COMMISSION On October 7, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed project which had been continued from the August 5, 2024, meeting. The staff report included discussion, clarification and confirmation of the concerns and revisions requested by the Planning Commission at the August 5th meeting (Attachment L). The Planning Commission considered public testimony and discussed the project expressing the following concerns and requests. Staff responses are italicized following each discussion topic below. • Commissioner’s expressed concerns about the Planning Commission’s role in the City’s Bonus Level Development Program and whether it allows for discretion on the part of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission plays a central role in the planning process in three important ways 6. First, it acts as an advisory board to the City Council on all planning and development issues. Second, the commission assures that the general plan and zoning ordinance is implemented by reviewing development applications on a case-by-case basis. Third, the commission functions as a decision-making body for many proposals, including, but not limited to, Conditional Use Permits, Precise Plans of Design and Variances. In the context of the City’s Bonus Level Development Program, the Planning Commission’s role is to act in its advisory capacity to the City Council and to review the application for conformance with the general plan and zoning ordinance. Under the Development Agreement Law, development agreements must be approved by ordinance and therefore the City Council is the decision-making body for all applications under the City’s Bonus Level Development Program. • There was a request to update the conditions of approval to explicitly state that the costs of any necessary improvements for utilities serving the project will be borne by the applicant. Resolution No. 2588 has been updated to include conditions that explicitly state that all costs associated with utility infrastructure required to serve the development will be borne by the applicant. • Commissioner’s expressed concerns that the appraisal report was incorrect, the values inappropriately weighted or inflated and that the valuation did not reflect the value to the community as a whole. The form and content of the appraisal valuation was reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Attorney’s Office, and the cost paid entirely by the applicant (Attachment P). The appraisal was conducted by 6 The Institute for Local Government’s Planning Commissioner Handbook. (2021). The Planning Commissioner’s Role. Retrieved October 28, 2024, from https://www.ilgplanninghandbook.org/planning-commissioners-role . N-16 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 17 Worth Valuations, LLC, in accordance with Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), the California Code of Civil Procedure, State Licensing Laws and the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. Worth Valuations, LLC, is based in Los Angeles and specializes in the valuation of residential and commercial real estate. This appraisal report established that the fair market value of the proposed community amenities and benefits significantly exceeded twenty-five percent (25%) of the fair market value of the additional residential units resulting from the bonus level development. The definition of market value comes from California Revenue and Taxation Code section 110(a) 7 and is as follows: "full cash value" or "fair market value" means the amount of cash or its equivalent that property would bring if exposed for sale in the open market under conditions in which neither buyer nor seller could take advantage of the exigencies of the other, and both the buyer and the seller have knowledge of all of the uses and purposes to which the property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used, and of the enforceable restrictions upon those uses and purposes.” • All commissioners confirmed that the project has many good qualities, including good architectural design and fit for the location, and would be a net benefit to the community. Staff agrees with these statements which align with staff’s analysis of the project, which can be found in Planning Commission staff reports for August 5, 2024, and October 7, 2024 (Attachments K and L). • There was a request to extend the deed restriction term for the affordable units to forty (40) years. At their August 7, 2024, meeting, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant consider extending the proposed twenty (20) year term to a minimum thirty (30) year term in order to provide a better community benefit balance meeting the intent of the City’s Bonus Level Development Program. Subsequently, the applicant agreed to extend the term to thirty-five (35) years as is reflected in the development agreement. Staff believes that the applicant has negotiated in good faith and has made reasonable efforts to modify their project to accommodate a thirty-five-year deed restriction term for the affordable units. There was one community member present at the meeting to give public comment on the project. This speaker supported the project, expressing delight that this type of project would be located at this location and generate vitality and dynamism in the area. This commenter also expressed support for a longer term and more affordable units. Following the discussion, the Planning Commission made a motion to adopt Resolution No. PA-230516 recommending approval to the City Council as recommended by staff, 7 Revenue and Taxation Code §110(a). N-17 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 18 with the modification that the term of the deed restriction for the moderately affordable units be extended to forty (40) years. The subsequent vote was three (3) in favor, three (3) against, and one (1) abstention, and therefore the motion did not pass. The Planning Commission was unable to reach a majority consensus whether to recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the Project to the City Council, and consequently made no recommendation regarding the Project to the City Council. CONCLUSION Staff is of the opinion that the revised terms of the Development Agreement have addressed several of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. The applicant made two modifications to the proposed Development Agreement following Planning Commission feedback, including extending the term for deed-restriction of the affordable units to thirty-five years and modifying the term for public parking spaces to better clarify the proposed use of said spaces. Additionally, Resolution No. 2588 has been modified to include conditions regarding the cost of utility infrastructure serving the project being borne by the applicant following Planning Commission feedback. Resolution No. 2588, the draft Development Agreement (Attachment C) and draft Ordinance No. 750 (Attachment D) have been revised to address these modifications. Based on the discussion above, and the analysis provided in previous Planning Commission staff reports, staff supports the Development Agreement, the Precise Plan of Design and the Commercial District Mixed-Use Development Permit as proposed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Open the Public Hearing; 2) Take public testimony; 3) Discuss the issues; 4) Close the Public Hearing; 5) Adopt Resolution No. 2588, approving a Commercial District Mixed-Use Development Permit (MUD-230517) and a Precise Plan of Design (PPD-240299), and adopting the Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021050450); and 6) Re-open the Public Hearing 7) Introduce for first reading, Ordinance No. 750; 8) Continue the Public Hearing for a second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 750, to the City Council meeting of December 10, 2024. Attachments: A. Addendum to the General Plan Final EIR B. Resolution No. 2588 C. Draft Development Agreement D. Draft Ordinance No. 750 N-18 City Council – November 12, 2024 City of Rolling Hills Estates – PA-230516 19 E. Plans F.Ordinance No.744 G.Resolution No. 2531 H.Link to Item 4A, Adjourned City Council Meeting of March 14, 2023 I.Link to Item 7A, Regular City Council Meeting of March 12, 2024 J.Ordinance No. 749 K.Link to Item 7B, Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting of August 5, 2024 L.Link to Item 8B, Planning Commission Meeting of October 7, 2024 M.Link to Meeting Minutes for Item 8B, Planning Commission Meeting of October 7, 2024 N.Public Comment received through October 30, 2024 O.Letter from Norris Theater/PV Performing Arts P.Restricted Appraisal Report, March 6, 2024 Q.Supplemental Transportation Assessment, September 2023 R.Final General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #202105450) S.Volume I – Draft General Plan EIR T.Volume II – Appendices to the Draft General Plan EIR U.Link to Resolution No. 2496 N-19