MEMORANDUM
To: Eric Scherer, Community Development Director
Candice Bowcock, Principal Planner
CC: Jesse Duff, Interim City Manager
Bob Kress, City Attorney
From: Lisa Kranitz, Assistant City Attorney
Date: October 21, 2022
Subject: Consequences of Not Adopting a Housing Element ______________________________________________________________________
This memo is to address the question of what happens if the City does not adopt a Housing Element in compliance with state law.
Failure to adopt a housing element leaves the City open to lawsuits, will prevent the City from receiving certain funding, subjects the City to fines, and allows affordable development to be built anywhere in the City regardless of zoning. Attached you will find a memo from HCD which discusses the pitfalls of not adopting a housing element.
A number of cities , including Claremo nt, have already been sued by Californians for Homeownership, a non-profit arm of the California Association of Realtors, for failure to adopt a housing element. Many cities have already settled these lawsuits as there seems to be no legal argument against a failure to adopt.
Government Code section 65589.5(d) provides that a city cannot disapprove a n affordable housing development project or an emergency shelter unless it makes certain findings. One such finding is that the project is inconsistent with the City ’s zoning and general plan land use designation. But in order to use this exception, the housing element must have been adopted and found to be in substantial compliance with Housing Element law. Recently, preliminary housing applications were submitted to Santa Monica under the authority of Government Code section 65941.1 which provides a vested right to develop. Santa Monica did not have a compliant housing element at the time of submission and HCD determined th at the build er had the right to proceed, despite the fact that the city then adopted a compliant housing element. Based on this failure, Santa Monica will now have to allow thousands of additional units from the 1 5 submitted projects. Other cities are also facing projects being approved due to the builder’s remedy.
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
Housing Element Compliance
Incentives
Incentives for Housing Element Compliance: Various state grant and loan programs require an HCD-certified housing element. Examples of active state funding sources that require housing element compliance for eligibility include the following:
Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA): Helps cities and counties increase the supply of housing for households at or below 60% of area median income, increase assistance to affordable owner-occupied workforce housing, assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness, facilitate housing affordability, meet RHNA requirements, and ensure geographic equity in fund distribution.
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC):
:
:
:
:
:
:
The AHSC Program funds land-
use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to support infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. Funding for the AHSC Program is provided from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), an account established to receive Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds.
SB 1 Planning Grants State-funded Sustainable Communities grants help cities pay for local transportation improvements.
CalHOME Program The purpose of the CalHOME Program is to enable low- and very low- income households to become or remain homeowners through grants to local public agencies and nonprofit developers to assist individual first-time homebuyers through deferred-payment loans for down payment assistance, home rehabilitation, including manufactured homes not on permanent foundations, acquisition and rehabilitation, homebuyer counseling, self-help mortgage assistance, or technical assistance for self-help homeownership.
Infill Infrastructure Grants (IIG) IIG provides grant assistance, available as gap funding for infrastructure improvements necessary for specific residential or mixed-use infill development projects or areas.
Prohousing Designation Program Prohousing designated jurisdictions will be awarded preference points on competitive funding applications (e.g. IIG, AHSC, Transformative Climate Communities (TCC), etc.). Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) and Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grants can be utilized to establish prohousing policies for the purposes of eventually earning a Prohousing Designation.
Local Housing Trust Fund Program (LHTF) The LHTF Program provides matching funds to local and regional housing trust funds dedicated to the creation, rehabilitation, or preservation of affordable housing, transitional housing and emergency shelters.
Regional Tr
ansportation Funding Transportation funding for some regions depend on local jurisdiction housing element compliance (e.g. One Bay Area Grant funding (OBAG), SANDAG’s Active Transportation Grant Program, etc.).
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
Housing Element Noncompliance
Consequences
Penalties and Consequences of Housing Element Noncompliance HCD is authorized to review any action or failure to act by a local government that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or housing element law. This includes failure to implement program actions included in the housing element. HCD may revoke housing element compliance if the local government’s actions do not comply with state law. Examples of penalties and consequences of housing element noncompliance:
General Plan Inadequacy
: The housing element is a mandatory element of the General Plan.
When a jurisdiction’s housing element is found to be out of compliance, its General Plan could be found inadequate, and therefore invalid.
Local governments with an invalid General Plan can
no longer make permitting decisions.
:
:
Legal Suits and Attorney Fees Local governments with noncompliant housing elements are vulnerable to litigation from housing rights’ organization, developers, and HCD. If a jurisdiction faces a court action stemming from its lack of compliance and either loses or settles the case, it often must pay substantial attorney fees to the plaintiff’s attorneys in addition to the fees paid by its own attorneys. Potential consequences of lawsuits include: mandatory compliance within 120 days, suspension of local control on building matters, and court approval of housing developments.
Loss of Permitting Authority Courts have authority to take local government residential and nonresidential permit authority to bring the jurisdiction’s General Plan and housing element into substantial compliance with State law. The court may suspend the locality’s authority to issue building permits or grant zoning changes, variances, or subdivision map approvals – giving local governments a strong incentive to bring its housing element into compliance.
Newer Consequences of Housing Element Noncompliance
Financial Penalties: Court-issued judgement directing the jurisdictions to bring its housing element in substantial compliance with state housing element law. If a jurisdiction’s housing element continues to be found out of compliance, courts can multiply financial penalties by a factor of six.
Court Receivership: Courts may appoint an agent with all powers necessary to remedy identified housing element deficiencies and bring the jurisdiction’s housing element into substantial compliance with housing element law.
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
1 To: City of La Verne City Council, City of La Verne Planning Department From: Cynthia Gabaldon, Resident 2529 Amherst Street
Date: 10/17/2022
RE: Comments on Housing Element
One of the first questions that comes to mind is: would the City being doing this if it wasn't forced to do so? Think about that. The second question is: has there been any effort to push for lower RHNA numbers as so many other municipalities are doing? SCAG is currently leading a process to pursue RHNA reform.
The 6th Cycle RHNA triggered SCAG to pursue reform of the RHNA process. Several issues have been raised by stakeholders related to the regional determination methodology, the use of land planning factors in the SCAG RHNA methodology, and basis for RHNA appeals. Comments were due on August 12. Did the City submit any comments? Is the City participating? In October 2021, the California State Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved an emergency audit to examine Housing and Community Department (HCD) regional determination process.
The request for an audit was based on an assertion that the public had limited information on the formula that HCD uses to calculate the RHNA regional determination numbers, and cited confusion and mistrust among regional planning bodies and jurisdictions, and the need for an independent and objective review of the process.
Find the Audit report here: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2021-125.pdf
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
• HCD made several errors regarding data calculations and does not have sufficient management review process. This means that the QA/QC was poor concerning the math. There were double-counts.
• HCD could not demonstrate consistency and work group recommendations regarding several factors, including jobs housing balance and housing destroyed during state of emergency, and Inconsistent application of comparable regions, as required by statute.
The state-mandated RHNA allocations do not take into consideration the need for additional services and facilities such as water, schools, fire stations, police, and parks to support these additional housing units. An overcount of 200,000 + in Los Angeles County alone has been found. Also, the projections used by SCAG were also found to have major faults. Why is no one at the City publicly questioning any of this?
Does anyone on staff or on Council know what the City’s “overcrowding” and “cost burden” numbers are in the 6th Cycle RHNA calculations. Those two factors alone are causing over November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
Gabaldon Housing Comment Memo
10/17/2022
2 calculations of 300%. For example, we all probably think that vacancy need is the primary factor for housing calculations. That is not true. Using SCAG’s own example – where County- wide vacancy need is at 178,869, the “overcrowding” factor is at 459,917 and “cost burden” is at 117,505. These two factors alone add up to 557,422. The 5th Cycle RHNA number for the entire region was 409,060.
Where are these two new factors really coming from? Why has the City Council and staff not QUESTIONED these same numbers for the City? (the PPT showing this data is one of the SCAG links at end of this memo)
Total 5th Cycle RHNA cycle – 409,060
Total 6th Cycle RHNA cycle – 1.341 million
Do we really know how much housing is needed? What is our true vacancy need? Shouldn’t this be the goal?
The City has been provided the information and opportunity to participate in a key municipal task forces to analyze data, share technical and legal resources and to participate in proactive legal actions.
The key goal of these groups is for the cities to preserve local control. https://catalystsca.org/
https://www.livablecalifornia.org/
In March, City legal counsel confused the Livable California petition (which has been stopped at this time) with the “BRAND-HUANG-MENDOZA TRIPARTISAN LAND USE INITIATIVE” Resolution.
This City Council can, and SHOULD, take up the Land Use Initiative Resolution.
The City needs to stand up for pro-City autonomy housing needs and zoning rights. "We" should not be deferring to the State for our local land use laws or decisions.
This is the most pro- property ownership and pro- City autonomy resolution that can be stated at this time.
Microsoft Word - Our Neighborhood Voices - Sample Resolution - Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative.docx
Taking up the Housing Element without considering these factors and at a minimum including a statement on the RHNA Audit is not representing the residents of La Verne.
These housing elements are being used as the baseline conditions for changes to our General Plans and Zoning Plans. These housing elements must be taken very seriously, and YOU must be certain that the numbers are correct.
La Verne is losing its essence. Increased density is not pro-La Verne.
The words and numbers used in this document do not reflect the City’s mission statement.
The long-term consequences of this document as currently stated will be detrimental to La Verne.
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
Gabaldon Housing Comment Memo
10/17/2022
3 Specific Housing Element comments
Edit –
Figure 3- 2 – is referencing Lawndale “Figure 3–2: Median Home Price for Existing Homes in Lawndale” General comment on outreach –
Only 440 emails went out notifying on the workshops. Again, why didn’t the City use mail or other noticing means to reach out to everyone in the City. Relying on social media is not sufficient either.
Item specific comments -
H
P -12: 8. Monitor City-
Owned Mobile Home Parks Shouldn’t the City make a direct statement that re-zoning of the Mobile Home Parks is not an option? Anything less will leave an open door to re- development.
T
here is redevelopment “along Foothill Boulevard” included in the statement. What is this planned redevelopment?
HP-13:
10. Partnerships with Housing Organizations, and Service Providers, and Faith -B
ased Groups
Considering redevelopment of church properties will be the demise of these religious institutions.
How is this approach pro-family, pro-faith and pro-neighborhoods? Isn’t this discriminatory against faith-based property owners?
T
he language used within the “schedule” paragraph sounds more like annual land development bullying on these property owners. It is pushing the churches out.
HP-16: Multi- family Development Standards. The statement that the City will be reducing constraints development height, lot coverage, and parking requirements is very anti- neighborhood. If the City is reducing the constraints, how are the neighbors supposed to have a voice. This is extremely contradictory to La Verne’s own Mission Statement.
HP -18: 16. Accessory Dwelling Units In meetings with Planning Staff concerning SB9, we have been told that ADUs won’t be an issue in town as “not many have been requested”. In this section there is a goal of 92 ADUs with over half being low to very low income. Why would the City downplay ADUs in other discussions but now in this document state that almost 100 units are the goal? SB9 WILL IMPACT neighbors to these properties.
Areas of highest opportunity are found in north La Verne? Where exactly? HP-19: 18. Lot Consolidation Shouldn’t this section be reviewed against the City’s Mission Statement? It is obvious that that the intent of the City is to make as many developable sites as possible. When do the resident’s voices get heard on this? Shouldn’t this only be limited to very specific locations.
Shouldn’t specific qualifiers be included before something like this approved. How can the City ensure that adjacent properties don’t start getting bought, torn down and converted into apartments. What about the NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
Gabaldon Housing Comment Memo
10/17/2022
4 HP-21: 21. Adequate Sites to Accommodate the RHNA There is zero mention of the neighborhoods that would be affected by this action. In this section there is a statement “in response to developer inquires”; where are the voices of the neighborhoods included? P
age 83 Housing Element Background Report - Water Capacity “The RHNA falls within the service area projections of the two UWMPs. In addition, water facilities and infrastructure are reported to be in good operating condition. Therefore, it is determined that the City has enough capacity to meet the 2021
-2
029 RHNA.” How can this be true when this year the existing residents of La Verne were forced to water rationing. More analysis is needed to provide thorough data on water capacity. If the UWMPs include the additional residences and population, why did the residents have to ration this year?
P
age 86 Housing Element Background Report – UNITS APPROVED/ENTITLED TO BE DEVELOPED DURING THE PLANNING PERIOD The Amherst project is listed as being counted towards RHNA. The City planning staff, Council Members and Mayor told the residents of Amherst in specific meetings that this project was NOT going to be included in the RHNA numbers. It appears that the residents were lied to, again.
density residential. It is noted that the City actually used the Mobile Home densities to compare to and NOT the adjacent single- family homes. This project is zoned as Medium Density residential.
Reference is the current La Verne General Plan – Table LU-2 Page 38
A little additional information:
• BRAND-HUANG-MENDOZA TRIPARTISAN LAND USE INITIATIVE - Glendora now added to the list of endorsing cities. San Dimas was already on the list. San Gabriel Valley COG has also signed on.
As we know, recent reports showed that the State has lost approximately 250,000 residents and LA Co lost approximately 176,000 in 2020- 2021
(https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/04/california-population-decline/ )
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
Gabaldon Housing Comment Memo
10/17/2022
5 This is important as the RHNA numbers and housing legislation was based on much higher numbers - not a loss like this. The City should seriously consider reducing the planned development density.
• I have previously confirmed that Anthony Portantino is part of a group legislators pushing to recalculate the RHNA numbers.
• If you haven't figured out yet, many of these new developments end up not being used for low income. For example, the apartments on Bonita and Garey are going for over $2000 to over $4000 a month. ( https://www.apartmentguide.com/apartments/California/Pomona/The- Gabriel/100058759/)
• The cities in San Diego County started pulling together who the owners were and it was usually corporate owned buildings; they are looking at ways to stop this ( https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/california-lawmaker-proposes-25-tax-on-real- estate-investors-to-level-playing-field/2890895/ ) This is not what we need for housing. The housing you have approved, that will be severely impacting Amherst St. for example, are not affordable. Lower density IS ALWAYS the better solution. It is likely that many of higher density developments will be owned by corporations. Do you know that many of the homes on Hartshorn Ranch Place and Oak Leaf Lane are now owned as rental units by multiple corporations? [2 LLCs and 2 Corporations].
• Other articles -
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1078968784/amid-a-housing-crisis-renters-challenge-firms-they-say- are-being-exploitative
• https://www.housingwire.com/articles/investors-are-buying-up-single-family-homes-across-the- us/
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-sell-a-house-these-days-the-buyer-might-be-a-pension-fund- 11617544801
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/12/01/buyer-demand-reaches-record-high- investors-snap-up-homes/
SCAG Page to report and powerpoint:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/rhna_reform_powerpoint.pdf?1657915707
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/rhna_reform_twg_powerpoint_072122.pdf?1658273214
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 4:31 PM Eric Scherer <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi City Council and Planning Commission Members:
I have been asked by Planning Commissioner Jeff Allred if I will be responding to Ms. Gabaldon’s email (attached) regarding the City’s Housing Element Update or addressing it at the Planning Commission meeting on November 2nd.
As many of you know, I have already addressed many of the issues raised in the email with Ms.
Gabaldon in the past, but she has not been satisfied with my responses. So that you all have the same information, here are my concise answers to her concerns:
1. City staff was advised by our Deputy City Attorney (Lisa Kranitz) that challenging the City’s RHNA numbers would most likely be unsuccessful and cost the City money in the process. In July, the appellate court held that California courts do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving objections to the RHNA (lawsuit brought by City of Coronado against the San Diego Association of Governments). Ultimately about 50 agencies appealed to SCAG to reduce their numbers, and only 2 jurisdictions had their numbers reduced which resulted in an increase for all other local agencies as the numbers had to be redistributed as the state refused to lower SCAG’s RHNA allocation. All of this is moot anyways as La Verne can accommodate our RHNA numbers and is not re-zoning any property. A reduction of our numbers would NOT have an impact on any program set forth in the draft Housing Element.
2. Adopting any resolution of support for any cause (as the resolution is mostly symbolic as it has no weight or authority) is a City Council decision. Ms. Gabaldon has repeatedly asked the Council to do so, and not one Council Member has asked to put it on an agenda for consideration. Furthermore, the resolution was to support the initiative measure that has been stopped. It is unknown what the version for the 2024 ballot will look like.
3. Any typos or minor errors will be addressed by our consultant prior to the public hearings. We have confirmed that there were no substantial errors in the draft Housing Element Update document.
I do not plan to respond to her directly; we will simply identify her email and attachment as public comment. Otherwise, Staff, our Consultant (Amanda Tropiano), and Deputy City Attorney will be available at the meeting to answer any questions the Council members and Commissioners may have after your respected public hearings are closed.
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
November 1, 2022
Candice Bowcock. Principal Planner
City of LaVerne
3660 “D” Street
La Verne, CA 91750
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of La Verne’s 2021-2029 Housing Element Update – General Plan Update, Item 1
Dear Candice Bowcock;
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Carpenters” or “SWRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments for the City of La Verne’s (“City”) November 2, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting for the 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update - General Plan Update (“Project”).
The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing 57,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.
The Southwest Carpenters expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project. Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199- 1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.
The Southwest Carpenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
City of La Verne – Housing Element Update - General Plan Update November 1, 2022
Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).
Moreover, the Southwest Carpenters requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”) (Gov. Code, §§ 65000–65010). California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and California Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
I. THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL
WORKFORCE TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY’S ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT
The City should require the Project to be built using a local workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California, have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state-approved apprenticeship training program, or who are registered apprentices in a state-approved apprenticeship training program.
Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
City of La Verne – Housing Element Update - General Plan Update November 1, 2022
Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost —and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.
1 Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions. 2 Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.
As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.
3 Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As planning experts Robert Cervero and
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
City of La Verne – Housing Element Update - General Plan Update November 1, 2022
Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents.4 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:
In nearly built -out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housin g. The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.
Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 (“AB2011”). AB2011 amended the Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by-right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements.
The City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate greenhouse gas, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts.
II. THE CITY SHOULD IMPOSE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE PROJECT’S CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT
COMMUNITY SPREAD OF COVID-19 AND OTHER INFECTIOUS
DISEASES
Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several
4 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
City of La Verne – Housing Element Update - General Plan Update November 1, 2022
construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID-
19.5 Southwest Carpenters recommend that the Lead Agency adopt additional requirements to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities. Southwest Carpenters requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site.
In particular, based upon Southwest Carpenters’ experience with safe construction site work practices, Southwest Carpenters recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site:
Constru
ction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open. • The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.
• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6 -foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details.
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening.
5 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT
CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx.
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
City of La Verne – Housing Element Update - General Plan Update November 1, 2022
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site.
Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non -contact devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and per sonnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A.
Planning
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
City of La Verne – Housing Element Update - General Plan Update November 1, 2022
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease
Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic
infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10
people including all -hands meetings and all-hands lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Cal/OS HA, California Department of
Public Health or applicable local public health agencies. 6 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.
Southwest Carpenters has also developed a rigorous Infection Control Risk Assessment (“ICRA”) training program to ensure it delivers a workforce that understands how to identify and control infection risks by implementing protocols to protect themselves and all others during renovation and construction projects in healthcare environments.
7 ICRA protocols are intended to contain pathogens, control airflow, and protect patients during the construction, maintenance and renovation of healthcare facilities.
ICRA protocols prevent cross contamination, minimizing the risk of secondary infections in patients at hospital facilities.
6 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/NABTU _ CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-an d-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf. 7 For details concerning Southwest Carpenters’s ICRA training program, see https://icrahealthcare.com/.
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
City of La Verne – Housing Element Update - General Plan Update November 1, 2022
The City should require the Project to be built using a workforce trained in ICRA protocols.
Sincerely,
Mary Linares
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C).
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
srare oe cnrtronrun - g
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COTTIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2O2OW. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.ow
September 30,2022
Eric Scherer, Director
Community Development Department,
City of La Verne
3360 D Street,
La Verne, CA 91750
Dear Eric Scherer:
RE: City of La Verne's 6th Gycle (2021-2029) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of La Verne's (City) revised draft housing element received for review on August 5,2022 along with revisions on September 29,2022.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HGD) is reporting the results of its review.
The revised draft element meets the statutory requirements described in HCD's February 1,2022 review. The housing element will comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code) when it is adopted, submitted to and approved by HCD, in accordance with Government Code section 65585.
As a reminder, as noted in the housing element, the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for lower-income households. For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, S 65583.2, subd. (gXZ) ) Absent findings (e.9., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory.
Please see HCD's housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.qov/communitv- developmenUhousino-elemenVindex.shtml for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.
Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to sitesi nventorv@ hcd. ca. qov.
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
Eric Scherer, Director
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.
Severalfederal, state, and regionalfunding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Grov'rth Council and HCD's Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD's Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
HCD appreciates the dedication, cooperation, and assistance the City's housing element team provided during the preparation of the City's housing element and looks forward to receiving the City's adopted housing element. lf you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact lrvin Saldana, of our staff, at lrvin. [email protected]
Sincerely,
ry
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
HOME CONSTRUCTION
Localities miss state housing deadline
Most Southern California cities and counties now get less time to rezone land after failing to turn in plans
BY JEFF COLLINS
[email protected]
Almost two-thirds of Southern California’s cities and counties failed to meet a state housing plan deadline Saturday, costing them a 2½-year extension needed to rezone land for future home construction.
Now the rezoning deadline for those jurisdictions reverts to last Saturday, as opposed to February 2025 for the cities and counties that did meet the deadline.
As a result, the remaining 124 governments have two hurdles to overcome to get into compliance with state housing laws and avoid a host of possible sanctions.
First, they must get state approval for a new “housing element” that lays out how local communities will meet state-mandated homebuilding goals by 2030. Then, they must rezone enough parcels to give developers the authority to build that new housing.
Governments without an approved housing plan and completed rezoning can lose access to state housing and transportation grants, have less control over future developments and face the risk of lawsuits and nes.
“This is moving into a new phase of the process,” said Matthew Gelfand, an attorney for Californians for Homeownership, a Realtor-backed nonpro t that has sued nine Southern California cities that failed to win state approval for their housing elements. “If you want to achieve housing element compliance, you now have to do both your housing element and rezoning at the same time.”
Under the state’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment, Southern California municipalities must revise the housing element of their general plans once every eight years to ensure adequate housing for low- and moderate-income residents as well as af uent households.
The housing plans, which can run into hundreds of pages, outline where and how new housing can be built, creating an inventory of sites where developers can build new homes.
Once the housing element is adopted, governments must rezone land to ensure there’s enough land for the new affordable and market-rate housing.
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
State lawmakers voted in late 2021 to punish those missing a February cutoff for housing element approval, trimming the rezoning timeline from three years to one. Their goal was to induce more cities to get their plans done on time. But the plan back red when 97% of Southern California’s local governments missed the February deadline anyway.
So, the Legislature restored the three-year rezoning timeline but only for jurisdictions that got their housing elements approved by Oct. 15.
Now, 121 cities and the counties of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino “are doubly non- compliant,” according to the state Housing and Community Development Department. “What it largely means is a couple things,” said David Zisser, the HCD deputy director leading a new Housing Accountability unit. “There are real consequences right now for jurisdictions that remain out of compliance, including ineligibility for a handful of funding programs at the state. That’s why there’s plenty of reason for jurisdictions to continue to work to get their housing elements into compliance, and HCD is here as a partner to help them with that.”
On the positive side, the 73 jurisdictions that won state approval represent 65% of the 1.3 million new housing units the state wants Southern California to build by 2030. They include some of the region’s biggest cities, such as Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Riverside, Fontana, Ontario, Moreno Valley and Irvine. And they include Los Angeles, Ventura and Imperial counties.
“We have the majority of the RHNA numbers in compliance, so that’s a good place to be,” said Kome Ajise, executive director of SCAG, which represents municipalities in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and Imperial counties.
Still, the consequences of remaining out of compliance can be severe for the remaining 124 jurisdictions, which have been ordered to plan for 474,210 new homes by 2030. “Obviously, there are concerns,” Ajise added. “We know that there will be potential impacts for the cities that are not in compliance, mostly around not having access to (state housing) funds. Which is ironic because these are the same funds they need to get the job done to update their housing elements.”
The cities of Redondo Beach and Santa Monica recently felt the effects of missing last February’s housing element deadline, even though they both met Saturday’s deadline to get their housing plans approved.
Developers there are seeking approval for new housing in those cities under the so-called “builder’s remedy,” a rule giving developers more leeway under the state’s Housing Accountability Act. Under that rule, cities without an approved housing element often must approve projects that violate planning and zoning rules, like height limits, so long as they include low- or moderate-income housing.
The builder’s remedy still applies in Redondo Beach and Santa Monica because developers applied for approval while those cities still were out of compliance with the housing element law.
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
Some jurisdictions, like the county of San Bernardino and the cities of Garden Grove and Beverly Hills, say they either don’t need to rezone land or already completed the required rezoning.
But for other communities that still have rezoning work to do, missing Saturday’s deadline increases their exposure to sanctions.
Costa Mesa submitted its plan for state approval twice, said city spokesperson Tony Dodero.
Each time, “the state has required additional changes,” Dodero said in an email, adding that a third submittal should be ready soon.
Riverside County also has gone through two rounds of reviews and is working on its third submittal, said county spokesperson Brooke Federico.
The state housing department “has placed a heavier emphasis on housing production and housing-related programs during this … cycle,” Federico said in an email. “As a result, the state is obligating all counties and cities across California to ramp up programs and annual reporting related to all housing types, but especially affordable housing.” Pasadena city leaders said they have adopted a host of revisions to ease government restrictions on development, such as removing development caps, and have taken steps to promote fair housing.
“We have been working really hard,” Assistant City Manager David Reyes said in a phone interview. “We certainly want to have a certi ed housing element.” SStaff writer Roxana Kopetman contributed to this report.
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
RESOLUTION NO. 1299
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA VERNE,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 7.22GPAFOR THE 6TH CYCLE2021.2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
AND FINDING THE PROJECT TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the California GovernmentCode requires thatcities review and updab their Housing Elements every eight (8) years, according to a schedule set forth by the State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"); and WHEREAS, the Housing Element sets forth the housing policies for the City, facilitates the preservation and development of housing, and establishes programs to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing needs in southern California; and WHEREAS, the City of La Verne has been assigned an allocation of 1,343 new housing units as its share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") in southern Californ ia; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State law, the Ci$ of La Verne has prepared a Draft Housing Elementforthe 6th Cycle covering the2021-2029 period in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65580-65589.8 aftached hereto as ExhibitA; and WHEREAS, the 2021-2029 Housing Element complies with the requirements of State law and conforms to the purposes, intent, and provisions of all the elements of the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65583, the City finds thatthe 2021-2029 Housing Element complies with the duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the project's potential effects on the environment and has recommended thatthe project is exemptfrom the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEOA) in accordance with Section 15061(bX3) of the CEQA Guidelines because the activity is governed by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment;and
WHEREAS, in preparation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element, and in conjunction with the City's ongoing comprehensive General Plan update, the City developed a public engagement program that included a project website dedicated to the General Plan U pOaie in cl u di n g th e H ou si n g Elemen t, commu n ity worksh ops, stakeh older interviews, advertisements,
-and emails, all in an effort to educate the community about housing issues and provide opportunities and to gather input on housing-related topics; and WHEREAS, on Augu st 5, 2022, along with revisions on September 29,2022, pursuant to Government Code section 65585(bX1), the City submitted the Draft 2021' 20Zg Housing Elementto the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"); and
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
Resolution Number 1299
WHEREAS, HCD must review and provide comments on the Dratt2021-2029 Housing Element and the City must update the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element in response to those comments in order to comply with State Housing Law; and WHEREAS, the 60-day pubtic review period began on Augusl5,2022, during which time City residents and otherstakeholders were afforded an opportunity to comment on the content of the Draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on September 30,2022 the City received a letter from HCD stating that the City's revised draft housing element complies with State Housing Element law; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the Cityof La Verne to consider the General Plan Amendment for the 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on November2,2022, a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendmentforthe 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Elementwas held by the Planning Commission;and
WHEREAS, aftercareful consideration of the staff report, public testimony, and all of the information presented at the hearing, including project materials and exhibits, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
Finding 1: The proposed General Plan Amendmentforthe 6th Cycle 2021'2029 Housing Elementis internallyconsistentwith the General Plan as it continuesthe existing development patterns setforth in the General Plan; and Finding 2: The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, orwelfare of the City; and Finding 3: The proposed General Plan Amendmentwillmaintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.
Finding 4: Based on substantial evidence provided in the Housing Element, including strong demand for residential and mixed-use development in the City, an oversupply of retail uses in the region, the declining demand for office uses, known vacancies and/or building for rent or sale, opportunities for streamlined infill development, expressed interest from property owners or developers and unique site characteristics including the age of the building, low lot utilization, and dilapidated building conditions, the Planning Commission finds that the existing uses on sites identified to accommodate the City's RHNA do not impede residential development during the period covered by the housing Element.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning commission of the city of La veme RESOLVES as follows:
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
Resolution Number 1299
SECTION 1. The Recitals above are true and correct and are hereby adopted as findings as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. The Plannin g Commission recommends that the City Councilfind that the General Plan Amendment is exemptfrom the Californ ia Environ mental Quality Act in accordance with Section 15061(bX3) of the CEQA Guidelines because the activity is governed by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and itcan be seen with certainty that there is no possibilitythat the adoption of this policy documentwould have a significanteffecton the environment, directly or indirectly as the Housing Element is a policy documentwhich does not provide any entitlements on its own.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission ADOPTS Resolution No. 1299 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 7-22GPAfor the 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element inclusive of revisions necessary in order to comply with State Housing Law, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.
SECT 4. The Commun ity Development Director shall transmit this recommendation to the City Council, an
General Plan Amendment 7-22GPAbe
d the Planning Commission recommends that
scheduled for a public hearing before the City
Council
SECTION 5. The Chai rperson shall sign and the Secretary shall attest to the adoption of Resolution No. 1299.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of November 2022., by the Planning Commission at La Verne, California.
Chai n, mi
ATTES
Secretary lanning C on
nning C
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
Agenda Report
CITY OF LA VERNE
City Attorney's Office
DATE:
TO:
November 21, 2022
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Robert Kress, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Approval of City Manager Agreement
_____________________________________________________________________
AGENDA SUMMARY:
After completing a comprehensive search for a new City Manager with the assistance of a professional executive recruitment firm, the City Council has unanimously selected Kenneth Domer as La Verne's next City Manager. The terms and conditions of Mr.
Domer's employment are contained in an employment contract that is presented for Council approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Attorney Kress recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 22-76, authorizing execution of an Employment Agreement with Kenneth Domer for the position of City Manager effective December 19, 2022.
Attachments: Resolution No. 22-76
City Manager Employment Agreement.
74 November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
RESOLUTION NO. 22-76
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA VERNE, COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, STA TE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
WITH KENNETH DOMER FOR THE POSITION OF CITY MANAGER EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 19, 2022
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Verne as follows:
Section 1. That the Interim City Manager and Assistant City Clerk of the City of La Verne be and they are hereby authorized to execute an Employment Agreement with Kenneth Domer for the position of City Manager to said Agreement being in the form attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference as though the same were set forth in full herein.
Section 2. The Mayor shall sign and the Assistant City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and thereupon the same shall take effect and be in force.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of November, 2022.
__________________________________
ATTEST: Tim Hepburn, Mayor
_____________________________________
Lupe Gaeta Estrella, Assistant City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 22- 76 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of La Verne at a meeting thereof held on the 21 st day of November,
2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
Lupe Gaeta Estrella, Assistant City Clerk
75 November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
CITY MANAGER
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 21st day of November,2022,by and between the CITY OF LA VERNE (*CITY') and KENNETH DOMER (*EMPLOYEE") WHEREAS, the CITY desires to employ EMPLOYEE to serve as City Manager; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows:
1. DUTIES. CITY hereby employs EMPLOYEE as City Manager effective December 19,2022. EMPLOYEE shall have all of the duties of the City Manager specified in state law, the La Verne Municipal Code and all other policies and procedures of the CITY.
2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be for three (3) years and shall terminate on EMPLOYEE'S anniversary date December 19,2025. The parties may agree to extend this Agreement for two (2) additional years. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the City Council to terminate the services of EMPLOYEE at any time, subject only to the provisions set fonh in paragraph t hereof. During the term of this Agreement, EMPLOYEE shall remain in the exclusive employ of the CITY. EMPLOYEE shall give the CITY at least one month's written notice in advance in the event EMPLOYEE voluntarily resigns his position with the CITY prior to the expiration of the aforesaid term of employment.
3. SALARY. The salary for employee shall be $245,000 per year. This salary may be adjusted by the CITY Council after EMPLOYEE'S initial and annual evaluations.
4. BENEFITS. EMPLOYEE shall receive all employee benefits provided now or in the future to Department Heads (executive management) of CITY. EMPLOYEE shall be entitled to the optional benefits regarding waiver of medical insurance as provided in Administrative Regulation No. 306.
5. CAR ALLOWANCE. EMPLOYEE shall receive a car allowance of $612 per month.
EMPLOYEE shall provide his own vehicle, insurance, fuel, registration and maintenance.
6. CONTRIBUTION TO PERS RETIREMENT COSTS. EMPLOYEE shall contribute, via payroll deduction, nine percent (9%) of his salary and PERS-eligible benefits toward the costs of his retirement allowance.
7. VACATION. EMPLOYEE shall be initially credited with 80 hours of vacation time.
EMPLOYEE shall accrue vacation leave at the rate of 180 hows per year. The maximum accrued vacation leave shall be 400 hours.
1 76
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
8. ANNUAL EVALUATION. EMPLOYEE and CITY agree that EMPLOYEE'S performance will be evaluated in June, 2023 and annually thereafter. The parties intend for this evaluation process to be comprehensive and based upon criteria that is mutually agreed upon.
9. TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE.
(A) This Agreement may be terminated by the City Council for cause. After giving notice to EMPLOYEE that this Agreement is terminated for cause, the CITY shall have no obligation to continue the employment of EMPLOYEE or to provide compensation or benefits, including severance. For purposes of termination, "cause" is defined as willful breach of duty by EMPLOYEE in the course of employment or habitual neglect of duty by EMPLOYEE in the course of employment or continued incapacity of EMPLOYEE to perform the duties of employment as City Manager. Cause may also include EMPLOYEE being charged with, or entering a guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere to, or being convicted of, an offense which is a felony or crime of moral turpitude in the State of California; EMPLOYEE's willful misconduct or gross negligence; or EMPLOYEE's act of material dishonesty with or theft from the CITY. (b) ln the event EMPLOYEE is terminated for no cause by the City Council during the initial year of this Agreement and during such time as EMPLOYEE is willing and able to perform the duties of City Manager, then in that event CITY agrees to relieve EMPLOYEE of all duties but refrain from separating EMPLOYEE from service for a period of six (6) months, during which time CITY shall continue to pay EMPLOYEE'S salary and benefits including, but not limited to PERS retirement contributions as an active member. During this period, EMPLOYEE shall make himself available by telephone for consultation during normal business hours, as deemed necessary by the CITY. All CITY owned equipment shall be returned to CITY by EMPLOYEE within five (5) days of termination. EMPLOYEE may elect a lump sum distribution of salary, accrued leave and benefits at any time during the severance period. If EMPLOYEE so elects, CITY will have no further financial obligations to the EMPLOYEE.
Provided, however, that in the event EMPLOYEE is terminated because of his conviction of any illegal act involving personal gain to him, then, in that event, CITY shall have no obligation to pay such salary and benefits provided for in this paragraph. EMPLOYEE will be entitled to an additional three (3) months of severance benefits on the first anniversary date of his employment.
EMPLOYEE will be entitled to an additional three (3) months of severance benefits on the second anniversary date of his employment.
All payments required under Section 9 are subject to and shall be interpreted to comply with the limitations set forth in Government Code Section 53260. Further, in the event EMPLOYEE is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of office or position, EMPLOYEE shall reimburse the CITY for any paid leave or cash settlement (including severance), as provided by Government Code Secti ons 53243-53243.4.
2 77
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
IO. REIMBURSEMENT TO CITY REOUIRED
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following provisions requiring reimbursement for certain compensation and/or indemnification provided to EMPLOYEE by the CITY apply:
(A) Paid Leave:
Pursuant to Government Code section 53243, in the event that EMPLOYEE is convicted of a crime involving the abuse of his offrce or position, as defined by Government Code section 53243.4, with the CITY, any paid leave or salary provided by the CITY for the time period in which the EMPLOYEE is under investigation for such crimes shall be fully reimbursed by EMPLOYEE to the CITY.
(B) Legal Defense:
Pursuant to Govemment Code section 53243.1, in the event that EMPLOYEE is convicted of a crime involving abuse of his offrce or position, as defined by Government Code section 53243.4, EMPLOYEE shall fully reimburse the CITY for all the costs of his legal criminal defense if a defense has been provided at CITY expense.
(C) Severance:
Pursuant to Government Code section 53243.2, in the event that EMPLOYEE is convicted of a crime involving abuse of his office or position, as defined by Government Code section 53243.4, EMPLOYEE shall fully reimburse the CITY for any cash settlement, including but not limited to severance pay, paid to EMPLOYEE related to his termination under this Agreement. 1 1. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
CITY will allocate sufficient funds to pay the actual expenses of EMPLOYEE'S necessary costs for travel, registration, lodging and meals when representing the CITY at conferences and meetings authorized by the City Council. CITY will allocate sufficient funds to pay EMPLOYEE's memberships in professional organizations relevant to his management duties.
J
78 November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
12. HOURS OF WORK.
It is recognized that EMPLOYEE must devote agreat deal of his time outside normal office hours to business of the CITY, and to that end EMPLOYEE will be allowed reasonable flexibility with respect to hours in the offrce.
13. NO REDUCTION IN BENEFITS.
CITY shall not, at any time during the term of this Agreement, reduce the salary, compensation, or other financial benefits of EMPLOYEE except in the same proportion applied across the board for all employees of CITY.
14. ATTORNEY'S FEES.
In the event that any legal action, including an arbitration proceeding, is commenced to enforce or interpret the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing parly shall, in addition to any other relief and costs, be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees.
15. AT WILL EMPLOYMENT.
EMPLOYEE is an "at will" EMPLOYEE, subject to the provisions of this Agreement.
16. DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION.
CITY will indemniff and defend EMPLOYEE against any third party claims prosecuted against EMPLOYEE for actions taken in the course and scope of his official duties.
4 79
November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
17. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
a. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs at law and executors of EMPLOYEE.
b. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid, it is the intention of the parties that the remainder shall nevertheless be deemed valid and effective.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY has caused this Agreement to be signed and executed on its behalf by its Mayor, and duly attested by its Assistant City Clerk, and EMPLOYEE has signed and executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF LA VERNE
By
Tim Hepburn, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lupe Gaeta Estrella, Assistant City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
L
Robert L. Kress, City Attorney
EMPLOYEE
5 Kenneth Domer
80 November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
This page left intentionally blank
This page left intentionally blank
81 November 21, 2022, City Council Meeting