[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98,110],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6683901,"mediaKeyId","5054980-72de257a026cfb3459b4fd1def524027","parentId",5054980,"title","Council pauses on tennis‑court renovation contract, asks staff for clearer cost breakdown","audioSeconds",653,"startMs",10537000,"endMs",11190000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5054980-72de257a026cfb3459b4fd1def524027&start=10537&end=11190","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5054980-72de257a026cfb3459b4fd1def524027/thumbnail_10537000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6683901/Rolling-Hills-Estates/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-pauses-on-tenniscourt-renovation-contract-asks-staff-for-clearer-cost-breakdown","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6683901-d2fe957ebcfaf59488c444ff16ada33c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188438&Signature=ah8wz4K-PBJRGty~EKR7PxzBtzp93u75FVX58xYAWNvjXZyomTZtllihLYkupTAzZyhNQIKX~ohOO7hkWg3lOaiRDwh9gg4c44FtZhvnBjR0MVbTHoNzkx8Bke03CwASE2gE4WjTTI9ugAUwojkIUnZzyRD3A-oXfxglXPxt70f9SNLMXtG3nFEsjbISbHj1ym4jBQ7vt17CW0DquvU8YRMXpVoxyKW3-GhdXxvtxB-G2Vf5O9dOEQLbbT0rwtg3xHO9DElFcKJ9pgNH5Ol-3~8e8aeYP4AhP97yWixyfbiVNYWEIEDWksk5Q1GqrlM7Vn-k4Md0u6dZLSU35ouQ7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-24T06:21:41Z","article","City staff presented a recommendation to award a construction contract for tennis‑court and adjacent site improvements to the apparent low bidder, Fidelity Builders, for a base bid plus allowances and a not‑to‑exceed total of $783,506.25 (including a 10% contingency). Staff said the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) has committed to pay 50% of the construction cost under the lease terms, but that the city’s current capital balance, after previously appropriated amounts and consultant invoices, would require an additional appropriation of roughly $210,800 from general‑fund reserves to complete the project.

The city manager noted the bid bonds and the contractor’s 90‑day bid‑validity period and said the construction schedule would be approximately six months. Council members asked for a clearer financial summary that reconciles: (a) the construction contract and contingency, (b) consultant and construction‑management costs already incurred (the staff report listed a construction‑management contract and prior consultant invoices), and (c) the RHCA cost‑share and what line items the association will cover.

Council did not approve the contract on Tuesday. Instead members asked staff for a clear chart showing each cost element and which party (city or RHCA) is responsible for each item, and to confirm whether the RHCA’s 50% contribution applies to consultant and construction‑management fees as well as the contractor bid. Staff asked for time to assemble the reconciliation and return at the next meeting; several council members said they wanted to be present for the final vote.

Formal action: Council tabled consideration of awarding the construction contract and asked staff to return with a detailed, itemized budget and confirmation of RHCA’s agreed cost responsibilities. No contract was awarded.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting June 23, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Staff presented a low‑bid construction contract for tennis‑court and adjacent site improvements and said the city lacks sufficient remaining funds; council asked for a clearer line‑item budget and for confirmation of community association cost‑share responsibilities before proceeding.","taxTitle","Rolling Hills Estates, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",77661,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6683905,"Council reintroduces residential height limits; sets house ridge at 21 feet, barn ridge at 23 feet for next hearing",3687,6783000,10470000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5054980-72de257a026cfb3459b4fd1def524027&start=6783&end=10470","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5054980-72de257a026cfb3459b4fd1def524027/thumbnail_6783000.jpg","/articles/6683905/Rolling-Hills-Estates/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-reintroduces-residential-height-limits-sets-house-ridge-at-21-feet-barn-ridge-at-23-feet-for-next-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6683905-87666511c55f25bcda9abe7e2878a180/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188438&Signature=eiE9GteLGZLkbsPm5kqGcU5aRpo1~25k~SvjlNgOFYDHUo8irW0MO9quQu3nMveKIssaoWCyoaX~qKNEw7Aa2Sr~Q-GbT0Ix5kuJG7dEUuZyAjr2Pepvy4IcuG7GPvPvhNLrr7Gc-fNIN37yYiOpIqEa-LMl9sjiJXTJPMrtVtW-bTTth4mWXhFbYaQdiMKWAbTH5erGujnpPpPaa8MWveNEKHjfOtHIrdfRIuX8JugmSV0asvUBfbHdnCqk-xXvABYBjv4Bz3nIB3wQK9j7vENXm2PYhm9RiUG1cpaaelW2huBbPCn-HWzlxTXTazn1FbAVG5WLkWqdOiSat4vVZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Rolling Hills Estates City Council on Tuesday reintroduced changes to Chapter 17.16 of the municipal code that set maximum ridge heights for single‑story residential buildings and accessory barns, and clarified language about lofts and other architectural exceptions. After a lengthy discussion about neighborhood character, view impacts and HOA differences, the council settled on a draft that sets a 21‑foot maximum ridge height for single‑story residences and a 23‑foot maximum for stables and barns, and sent the ordinance back for a second reading at the next meeting.

City staff presented revised ordinance language drafted with the city attorney to reduce ambiguity in the code’s measurement rules (finished floor to finished grade, averaging rules across the lot, and maximum permitted differences). Council members debated the tradeoffs between allowing roof and plate height for flexible design and preventing larger single‑story masses that could block views. Several council members said they favored having a clear city‑wide standard to avoid ad hoc or inconsistent outcomes under differing CC&Rs.

Council member discussion noted that some homeowners’ association covenants historically set heights of 25 feet for many properties while others set no limit, producing inconsistent expectations for applicants and neighbors. Planning‑commission analysis and a city excerpt of recent built ridge heights were referenced in the discussion.

The council voted to reintroduce the ordinance as amended and to place the draft on the next meeting agenda for a second reading. The motion included the city attorney’s clarifying language tying loft/storage exceptions specifically to the one‑story limitation (so the exception does not add to the absolute maximum ridge height).

Formal action: By roll call vote the council approved reintroduction of the amended ordinance language and the 21‑foot house / 23‑foot barn ridge‑height figures for a second reading. The roll call recorded four votes in favor and one no; the ordinance will return for the required second reading and final action at the next council meeting.","After extended debate over views, massing and HOA rules, the council reintroduced an amendment to municipal code height limits and set a proposed ridge height of 21 feet for single‑story residences and 23 feet for stables/barns for final consideration at a subsequent meeting.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6683907,"Resident raises nuisance concerns about nearby waste transfer truck; council says matter will be discussed in closed session",246,159000,405000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5054980-72de257a026cfb3459b4fd1def524027&start=159&end=405","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5054980-72de257a026cfb3459b4fd1def524027/thumbnail_159000.jpg","/articles/6683907/Rolling-Hills-Estates/Los-Angeles-County/California/Resident-raises-nuisance-concerns-about-nearby-waste-transfer-truck-council-says-matter-will-be-discussed-in-closed-session","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6683907-ec8d03f59f150c2a456098533e4ac8ca/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188438&Signature=XxxkHm87FpjOq9AR8VKGbrmCRG5V-o19-4wosjUuK6yUGZwocxQGgz11K4gNJqMvJJ0dgxKBLKiDfLZxY6Eocre3oTSUgM5hFYZDWbAsnKX~WZIDRZiuebNJ5UCzh-VD~SUVE3pyG0y~HnX8AD66XAl6cDvJdIKj74goe9OSKd3LRrkNhUxRdBJo7dB50z~CMws2-NW9bsWfjFxx3UK5XiYhRpLtwGwBb1D9NfYK8eN29l4VizX4WMcPeFhoK0GvVFvF-1ZUJ0AL2vAo55WVawcs4eAPHf70Jwlao~VNztDaZJfO1R5xEsyzR26dnEdrDIVITwKwUfrzMhE3w6xppA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Rolling Hills Estates resident told the city council during public comment that operations at a nearby waste transfer site are causing persistent noise, odor and other nuisance impacts and asked when the issue would return to the public agenda.

Robert Tund, who identified himself as a resident at 2 Roadrunner Road, said he has observed the truck activity next to his house and described “noise and odor, disturbances and pollution” that he said “exceeds community norms.” He said the truck was operating early in the morning and that the activity intensified after a nearby relocation of the transfer operation.

Mayor Piper responded that the city had received a letter from the company’s lawyers and that the council would address the matter in closed session with legal counsel. “We're gonna discuss that in closed session because your lawyers have sent us a nice letter,” Piper said on the record. City staff confirmed that residents would be notified when the item appears on a public agenda.

Outcome: No formal action was taken during public comment; staff noted the matter would be discussed in closed session consistent with government code procedures and the council indicated it would notify the resident when the item returns to a public agenda.","A Rolling Hills Estates resident told council the weekly operation of a waste transfer truck near his home creates noise, odor and pollution nuisances; council said the matter is the subject of a legal communication and would be handled in closed session.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6683910,"Planning commission-approved pergola, pool and nonexempt grading for 16 Caballeros reviewed, council receives report",5536,474000,6010000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5054980-72de257a026cfb3459b4fd1def524027&start=474&end=6010","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5054980-72de257a026cfb3459b4fd1def524027/thumbnail_474000.jpg","/articles/6683910/Rolling-Hills-Estates/Los-Angeles-County/California/Planning-commission-approved-pergola-pool-and-nonexempt-grading-for-16-Caballeros-reviewed-council-receives-report","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6683910-1664f0cda7210c276cfd08424ebcb20c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188438&Signature=ZUiYG0Gk~BGND25AuCe0Ftr4Hq8n2HwhEJiajiRO7mv2gRZbPQBSYogAjzX2eAa7ldU8eSvI3SRujAI~z2EywLl~b~~mTQf9Xd1Lewnkw44NM3mWXy27K4GI0pg3FJ0~3tlQKRzcZkw2bqr35GNJHKYaZUSazqVSltw2PZFjOxaYdVJjdWmxAnAvyXaCYWLqVXtcUVZS6QwJY2iZNlZxn8VnqSNqQe21nIBav9dc5MEtP80pyWKkmJzX13jVB0xr-ZDwMnoAh7Wyj9O-z2YMWiew80QR~WVdPmxxLecATuKLyU6bVK2MKtI3eXfSuj~Bp90a6KXqkVYdkOkDc7ZTzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff on Tuesday presented a site plan review and conditional use permit for 16 Caballeros Road, describing a proposed secondary building pad with a detached pergola and swimming pool and nonexempt grading, and the council voted to receive and file the item.

Planner Stephanie (last name not given in the record) told the council the project was reviewed and unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on May 20 (4–0, one commissioner absent) for nonexempt grading and the pergola conditional use permit. The project includes a 480‑square‑foot pool (administratively approved as under 800 sq ft), pool equipment, a 636‑square‑foot detached pergola that requires the CUP, and grading for excavation and stairway work. The nonexempt grading totals 54 cubic yards of cut and 54 cubic yards of fill (108 cubic yards), exceeding the city exemption threshold of 50 cubic yards.

Stephanie said most retaining walls are 3 feet or less, but a small corner of a deck required site plan review because a portion of wall reached 3 feet 6 inches; the stairway includes a maximum cut of 5 feet. The secondary buildable pad is 4,252 square feet; all proposed development was presented as meeting setback and coverage standards on the existing pad. She said most site work will be balanced on‑site and that the project is categorically exempt under CEQA categorical exemption class 15303 (new construction of accessory structures).

A neighboring resident at 14 Caballeros raised a concern but later told staff by phone on June 18 that the pergola would not affect their view, the planner said. After brief public comment the council member moved to receive and file the report; the motion was seconded and carried on an aye vote recorded on the meeting audio.

Formal action: Motion to receive and file the staff report on zoning case 24‑015 (16 Caballeros Road) passed (motion seconded; vote: all in favor). No permits were issued by the council; the project will proceed through final administrative and permit steps consistent with planning commission approval.","Staff summarized the Planning Commission’s approval of a conditional use permit for a 636 sq ft pergola, a 480 sq ft pool and nonexempt grading totaling 108 cubic yards at 16 Caballeros Road; council voted to receive and file the report.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6683912,"City Council weighs voluntary FEMA buyout program, directs staff to collect homeowner data",5526,1424000,6950000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5054980-72de257a026cfb3459b4fd1def524027&start=1424&end=6950","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5054980-72de257a026cfb3459b4fd1def524027/thumbnail_1424000.jpg","/articles/6683912/Rolling-Hills-Estates/Los-Angeles-County/California/City-Council-weighs-voluntary-FEMA-buyout-program-directs-staff-to-collect-homeowner-data","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6683912-15b66bd30eb42ac16ff943572048fad3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188438&Signature=AtSoXSWYNd7rMzf63AlY-JYA9OMszYtlZgEKzMMRRqFPK3d-G6-ojvVtRUnuWokGiK0Q~yIyKZV6MC2sf7tg6uIAqJQCX5q7rrCoU3Bjj50-IyRXlaux-HPD6mpAwDrag1UzEarBihtCBKjR52TtPiZkAN3oF-t~utqeCFUJsgmERt0D~08n-WF8erFDU496~aRGQwMBs0BwZzr8VAsa8b6DW-qELlvJTEy2n7fp~3Yrr78A7O-uwgQgPv~NKZKHcwrbqIm143Ca~A-wlD4JxO57cb9OuREtuW3BMt0wCPyoAt8VILsCx4EKyixukxNcOf5SRlH8VoAY23N-4jcUYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Rolling Hills Estates City Council on Tuesday received a presentation on voluntary property buyouts administered by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and funded in part through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and directed staff to work with Cal OES to collect homeowner data and run preliminary cost–benefit checks.

The discussion followed a presentation by Samantha Crew, the city’s management analyst, and Robin Fenig, assistant director for hazard mitigation at Cal OES. Fenig laid out how reimbursement normally works under HMGP, including FEMA’s 75% federal share of appraised home value and eligible expenses, and noted a recent return to a higher federal discount rate that reduces the present value of long-term benefits used in FEMA’s benefit–cost analysis.

“This change effectively reduces the calculated value of future benefit in the benefit cost analysis,” Fenig said, describing how the Office of Management and Budget’s discount‑rate change from about 3.1% back to 7% makes many buyout projects harder to meet FEMA’s cost‑effectiveness threshold. She added that the state and federal hazard‑mitigation landscape has been shifting rapidly and that some grant programs have been scaled back or reallocated nationally.

Why it matters: buyouts permanently remove structures at risk from future hazards (flooding, landslide/land movement) and place deed restrictions on the property for open‑space use, but they can require up‑front local administration costs and supporting geological and appraisal work. Crew said Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) had moved quickly on a similar program and provided local lessons: the RPV program received roughly $42 million in state funding for its effort, drew 85 notices of interest and awarded 23 buyouts, and set aside $10 million in local funds to front several properties while seeking FEMA reimbursement.

Council members and residents probed details including who bears upfront costs, what constitutes eligibility, and whether properties must already be red‑tagged to qualify. “A lot of the crucial piece of information that RPV has is what imminent risk looks like,” Fenig said, noting that benefit–cost analyses are sensitive to both the discount rate and to the probability that a structure will experience a catastrophic failure during the analysis period.

Residents from Centring and Quail Ridge described recent pipe breaks, hillside movement and flooding at properties on Century and Quail Ridge roads and asked the council to pursue buyouts. Resident Matthew Fournier said multiple pipe failures dumped tens of thousands of gallons under his property and that his family relocated after damage and safety concerns.

Council direction and next steps: without making any commitment to a full program, the council voted to receive and file the presentation and instructed staff to work with Cal OES to identify the narrowest set of homeowner data needed to run preliminary “back‑of‑the‑envelope” benefit–cost calculations. Staff said Cal OES can run straw analyses if homeowners provide necessary appraisal, damage and geologic information; council members asked staff to limit initial outreach to a small set of properties to avoid unnecessary expense.

Formal action: A motion to receive and file the state presentation passed (motion seconded; vote recorded as unanimous on the record). The council did not approve any program funding, and staff said any further steps—fronting consultant or demolition costs—would require separate council action and clear agreements about reimbursement risk.

Context and constraints: Fenig cautioned that FEMA requirements vary by hazard type and by property: HMGP typically reimburses 75% of appraised pre‑event fair market value and 75% of eligible transaction and demolition costs, while the applicant (city or subapplicant) must provide the 25% nonfederal cost share (cash or allowable in‑kind contributions). She also advised that projects involving preexisting, mapped landslide footprints are more complicated to document and that precise appraisal dates and geological evidence matter to FEMA’s reviewers.

What the council asked staff to collect (examples): current appraisals or assessor values; any geology or slope‑stability reports homeowners have; whether a structure has been red‑ or yellow‑tagged; approximate dates of observed damage; and owner willingness to share documents with Cal OES for screening. Councilmembers emphasized starting small — one to a few properties — to see whether any plausible path to funding exists before committing significant local resources.","Council heard a detailed presentation from state hazard mitigation staff about voluntary buyouts tied to FEMA and Cal OES funding, discussed changing federal discount-rate rules and local feasibility, and directed staff to gather targeted homeowner data for a preliminary cost–benefit analysis.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council pauses on tennis‑court renovation contract, asks staff for clearer cost breakdown

Council reintroduces residential height limits; sets house ridge at 21 feet, barn ridge at 23 feet for next hearing

Resident raises nuisance concerns about nearby waste transfer truck; council says matter will be discussed in closed session

Planning commission-approved pergola, pool and nonexempt grading for 16 Caballeros reviewed, council receives report

City Council weighs voluntary FEMA buyout program, directs staff to collect homeowner data