Agenda 01/31/2002 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2002, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 01/31/2002 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda January 31, 2002
January 31, 2002

DISCLAIMER

The following City Council agenda includes text only version of the staff reports associated with the business matters to be brought before for the City Council at its Regular Meeting of this date. Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual City Council meeting. The City Council may elect to delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the City Council Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations, financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments are available for review with the official agenda package at the Reception area at City Hall.

...end of disclaimer...

** CLICK HERE FOR ADDENDUM TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
** CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
**CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTS


BEGINNING OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

This agenda has been prepared to provide for the orderly progression of City business. Detailed staff reports on specific items are posted in the hallway for public viewing. The City Council wants to hear your comments, however, to run the meeting efficiently, please observe the following rules when you participate in the meeting.

Please try to submit your REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL form to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called at the appropriate time to make your remarks.

For the sake of efficiency, the City Council agenda is divided into several sections:

Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items which, unless a request has been received from the public, council or staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the City Council. If you wish to speak to any Consent Calendar item(s) you will be limited to three minutes.

Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed hearings. Although the normal time limit is three minutes for each speaker, the Mayor may grant additional time to a representative speaking for an entire group; however, this should not discourage anyone from addressing the City Council individually.

Regular Business: This section contains items of general business and you will be allowed three minutes to speak on any item.

Public Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda. If you have submitted a request to speak, you will be called by the City Clerk at the appropriate time and you may speak for up to three minutes. Please limit your comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Public Comments. If action by the City Council is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda or referred to staff, as determined by Council.

Please make your remarks at the lectern microphone and direct your comments to the City Council and not to the staff or the public.

Conduct at the Council Meeting: The City Council has adopted a set of rules for conduct during City Council meetings. The following is an excerpt from those adopted Rules of Procedure:

Section 6.3 The Mayor shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person(s) who commits the following acts at a regular or special meeting of the City Council:

1. Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Council or any member thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

2. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

3. Disobedience of any lawful order of the Mayor which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from addressing the Council.

4. Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting.





ADDENDUM TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



ADD THE FOLLOWING CLOSED SESSION ITEM:

CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST
Based on Government Code Section 54954.5

(All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections)

Existing Litigation:
G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: People of the State; City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Mark J. Abrams
Case No: California Court of Appeal Case No. B151086

Name of Case: Mark J. Abrams v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Case No: United States District Court Case No. 00-09071 SVW (RNBx)





RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



6:00 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS.

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-03

NEXT ORD. NO. 373

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Motion to waive full reading.
Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all council members after the reading of the title.


2. Minutes of December 18, 2001, January 2, January 14, and January 15, 2002. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Approve the minutes.


3. Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program. (Allison)
Recommendation: (1) Award a professional service contract to Willdan for engineering services related to the implementation of the City’s Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Willdan for a not-to-exceed amount of $48,928, and authorize the additional expenditure of up to $4,000, for any unanticipated engineering services; approving a total design budget of $52,928.


4. Policy for Recru`itment and Selection of Members for the City’s Advisory Boards. (Evans)
Recommendation: Adopt a policy for the recruitment and selection of City Commission and Committee Members and Commission and Committee Chairs.


5. Notice of Completion for Traffic Signal Installation project at Crest and Highridge. (Allison)
Recommendation: (1) Accept the work as complete. (2) Authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance Bonds. (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Dynalectric 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder contingent on no claims being filed on the project.


6. Claim against the City by Christian Cameron. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of Council’s action.


7. November 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)
Recommendation: Receive and file.


8. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


PUBLIC HEARING:



9. Amendments to the Current Fee Schedule for Specific Geotechnical Services and Planning Applications. (Mihranian)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92-68 (THE CITY’S FEE RESOLUTION) TO (1) INCREASE THE GEOLOGIC SITE INSPECTION FEE FROM $150 TO $200. (2) INCREASE THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW FEE FROM $1,200 TO $1,300. (3) INCREASE THE GEOLOGIC PLANNING REVIEW FEE (SITE INSPECTION AND REPORT REVIEW FEE) FROM $1,350 TO $1,500. (4) CHANGE THE $240 LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION FEE FROM A FIXED FEE TO A TRUST DEPOSIT FEE.


REGULAR BUSINESS:



10. Proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget Process. (Evans)
Recommendation: Approve a budget process for review and adoption of the second year (Fiscal Year 2002-2003) of the current Two-Year Budget.


11. Legislative Guidelines for 2002. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider adopting 2002 Legislative Guidelines.


PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)


(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)



12. Proposed Amendments to the Personnel Rules. (Petru)
Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL RULES. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING THE MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL RULES.


13. Proposal to Expand Advisory Board Duties. (Evans)
Recommendation: Consider Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s suggestion to expand the ability of the City’s Commissions and Committees by allowing them to propose work programs and projects to the City Council.


14. Agreement for Design Services. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Approve the agreement with Tom Hollingsworth for design services to ensure graphic continuity in the use of the City’s logo and custom typeface at a cost of $200 per month.


15. Award a contract for services to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for proposed project revisions to the approved BelmontCorp.’s Belmont Village Senior Living Facility (formerly known as Marriott’s Brighton Gardens project). (Mihranian)
Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a professional services agreement in an amount not to exceed $38,000 with Peri Muretta, to prepare a Supplement to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 27 for project revisions to the approved BelmontCorp.’s Belmont Village senior living project.


16. Request to extend the current entitlements for the BelmontCorp.’s Belmont Village Senior Living Project (formerly known as Marriott’s Brighton Garden project) (Mihranian)
Recommendation: Approve the applicant’s one-year time extension request from the date of expiration (February 2, 2002), setting the expiration date as February 2, 2003, to allow additional time to review proposed revisions to the existing project entitlements (Conditional Use Permit No. 195, et. al) for the BelmontCorp.’s Belmont Village Senior Living project.


17. City Council and Staff Team Building Workshop. (Evans)
Recommendation: Consider the suggestion of Councilmember Clark to schedule a City Council and Staff Workshop for the purpose of team-building.


18. Code Enforcement Case No. COD 001-00025 Status Report on a Code Enforcement Case Regarding Non-Permitted Commercial Antennae at 5905 Mossbank Drive. (Fox)
Recommendation: Receive and file, and provide further direction to Staff as deemed appropriate.


19. Quarterly "Off-Site" City Council Meetings. (Evans)

Recommendation: Provide staff with direction.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers to report on Council assignments.)



ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.



CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST


Based on Government Code Section 54954.5
(All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections)


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR


G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

Property: Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029,
7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022

City Negotiators: City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, and Keith Lenard.

Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

Property: APN 7564-005-001, 7572-001-001 TO 004, 06 AND 07, 7581-023-011

City Negotiators: City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement, and Keith Lenard.

Negotiating Parties: Barry Hon and Michael Walker.

Under Negotiation:Price and Terms of Payment


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL


Anticipated Litigation:

(G.C 54956.9(b)

A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council/Agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council/Agency.

___________1___________
(Number of Potential Cases)

Claim against the City by Chandler’s Palos Verdes Sand and Gravel Inc.

Initiation of Litigation:
G.C. 54956.9(c)

____________1_____________
(Number of Potential Cases)

The City is deciding whether to file a lawsuit to obtain an easement.



RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



6:00 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS.

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2002-03

NEXT ORD. NO. 373

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:





1. Motion to waive full reading.
Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all council members after the reading of the title.



2. Minutes of December 18, 2001, January 2, January 14, and January 15, 2002. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

DECEMBER 18, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor McTaggart at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard and was immediately recessed to a closed session per the Brown Act Checklist.  At 7:00 P.M. the meeting reconvened.

After the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call was answered as follows:

PRESENT: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
ABSENT: None

Also present were City Manager Les Evans; Assistant City Manager Carolynn Petru; City Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison; Accounting Manager Kathryn Downs; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell; and, Deputy City Clerk/Recording Secretary Jackie Drasco.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Clerk, to approve the agenda, as presented.  Motion carried.


APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, spoke on several items on the register of Demands.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows:

Motion to waive full reading

Adopted a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all councilmembers after the reading of the title.

Minutes of November 20, 2001 (301)

Approved the minutes as amended.

Engineering Services - Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance  (1204 x 901)

(1) Approved an amendment to an existing professional services agreement with Consoer Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc. for services required related to the maintenance of the Abalone Cove Sewer System.  (2) Increase the funding authorization with Consoer Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc. by $5,900.

Notice of Completion - Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Sidewalk Repair Program  (1204 x 1405)

(1) Accepted the work as complete.  (2) Authorized the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and, if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the payment and performance bonds.  (3) Authorized the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Damon Construction 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion contingent upon no claims being filed against the contractor.

Non-Exclusive Commercial Refuse Collection and Disposal Services Annual Agreement Renewals for 2002  (1204 x 1301)

Authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute non-exclusive commercial refuse collection and disposal services agreements with: Ace Roll Off Rubbish Service, Inc., BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. (BFI), California Waste Services, Consolidated Disposal Services, LLC, Easy Roll Off Services, EDCO Disposal Corporation, HMD Waste Company, Integrated Waste Industries, Inc., Ivy Rubbish Disposal, OK Disposal Service, S & H Disposal Company, and Waste Management- Los Angeles District. 

Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Board Appointment  (1801)

Appointed Gale Lovrich and Chris Downey to a full four-year term of office on the Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Board of Directors until September 2005.

Claim Against the City by Larry Prizlow  (303)

Rejected the claim and directed the City Clerk to notify the claimant.

Claim Against the City by Lucy Lillo  (303)

Rejected the claim and directed the City Clerk to notify the claimant.

Resol. No. 2001-98 - Register of Demands  (602)

ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2001-98, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

The motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
NOES: None


PUBLIC HEARING:


Proposed 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program  (1204 x 601)

Mayor McTaggart opened the public hearing on this request to consider the Proposed 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.  City Clerk Purcell announced that notice had been duly published and that there were no written protests received by the City.

Director Allison presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Conduct a public hearing to receive citizen input on the proposed 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.  (2) Approve the proposed CDBG projects and budget.  (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute claims for CDBG projects with the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission.

Director Allison stated that the City uses the standard adopted by the Federal Government’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which is a maximum annual income of $47,100 for a family of five and maximum annual income of $34,900 for a family of two.  He closed by stating that the Public Works Department has written information available to the public which defines eligibility requirements.

In answer to Councilman Clark's query, Director Allison stated that the City's Home Improvement Program is in its third year of operation and that approximately ten projects are funded annually.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted that during review of Long Point and the Upper Point Vicente property, there was some interest in rehabilitating the public land and he asked if funding for this project would also be from CDBG grants. Director Allison clarified that the Altamira Canyon project could qualify because of the landslide but that most likely construction of buildings on City Hall property would not be eligible.

Mayor pro tem Stern pointed out that public facilities improvement, including parks, would be eligible.

City Manager Evans explained that the City Hall property would not meet requirements because the City has no census tracks to meet low to moderate income; that the use of CDBG funds was limited and that the projects being funded by these grants just barely qualified; and, that funding would be available to cities with residents with lower income.

There being no response to the Mayor's call for public testimony, he declared the hearing closed.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to (1) Approve the proposed CDBG projects and budget.  (2) Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute claims for CDBG projects with the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission.  Motion carried.

Discussion of Continued City Support with Respect to the Coastal Commission’s Appeal of Manned Tract Entry Observation Booths for the Oceanfront Project (Tract No. 46628)  (1203 x 701)

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to consider Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s suggestions to (1) Adopt a Resolution stating that the current City Council does not support the application by Makallon RPV Associates llc for manned tract entry observation booths on its appeal before the Coastal Commission.  (2) Direct Staff to forward a copy of said Resolution to the Coastal Commission.  (3) Direct Staff not to attend the upcoming de novo hearing on the appeal before the Coastal Commission.

Councilman Clark clarified that the term Tract Entry observation booths was a misnomer because the City had required that the booths be moved from the entry of the tract to the interior streets.

Joe Fleischaker, 4100 Macarthur Boulevard, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660, speaking for the owner of Oceanfront Estates, stated that since the plan for the booths was submitted, there had been a collaborative effort to address the needs of the local community and to find a plan acceptable to all.  He said that during three Planning Commission meetings, Capital Pacific Homes had worked with neighboring residents to address their concerns and that they had been working with the Coastal Commission as well.  He listed three additional improvements to make the booths more appealing to the community:  (1) maps and handouts from the City;  (2) installation of an emergency telephone; and, (3) providing a public rest room from dawn to dusk for persons accessing the trails.  He expressed thanks to the City and the community for support of the booths and asked that this support continue during the Coastal Commission meeting scheduled for the following month.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, objected to Mayor pro tem Stern's request that no one from the City attend the Coastal Commission hearing.

George Gleghorn, 28850 Crestridge Road supported Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s suggestion and stated that installation of the booths would change the public nature of the streets; that the booths would be intimidating; and, that the City should relay its position to the Coastal Commission.

Mayor pro tem Stern stated that Mayor McTaggart's appeal letter of December 6, 2000, provided an excellent statement of opposition to the booths; that the City Council should define the look and feel of the community; that these structures on public streets were a form of intimidation; and, the closed feeling was not appropriate for the Peninsula.  He understood that the Coastal Commission's decision was binding unless the City took further action to revoke permission for the booths to encroach on public land.  Since the vote was 3-2 in support of the booths when this matter was last before the Council, he felt it was appropriate to bring this matter before the Council once again to determine if there was continued support for the booths.

Councilman Clark said that he was on the Planning Commission when this matter was before it and was probably the architect of the solution that the Council upheld.  He said that although he respects the position taken by Mayor McTaggart and Mayor pro tem Stern, he did not feel that the booths were intimidating, although before modifications were made from the original plan to place these booths at the entrances to the development, he felt that they indicated a "stealth" guarded gate community.  The Planning Commission and many residents were opposed to this original proposal and Capital Pacific Homes re-designed their plan to downsize the booths and relocate them to the interior streets of the development.  Councilman Clark directed to the Council's attention to the Planning Commission minutes November 14, 2000, in which changes to the plans were discussed.  These changes were to downsize the booths and move them away from the entries, placing them at strategic locations within the residential areas.  These changes were later supported by a majority of the City Council. He listed the ways in which the developer suggests multiple purposes the booths can serve, such as an information kiosk, emergency telephone, and public rest rooms.  He referred also to Resolution No. 2001-08 which indicated that the revised booths were consistent with the City's original approval of Coastal Permit No. 94 and the applicable coastal access policies of the Coastal Act.  He felt that the booths did not set a precedent, as a precedent had already been set at the Island View development.

Councilwoman Ferraro stated that she would feel more comfortable walking the trails in that area if the booths had an emergency telephone and she agreed that the rest rooms would be a good idea.  She did not see the booths as presently revised as intimidating but more of a community service.

Mayor McTaggart asked Joe Fleischaker to return to the podium and asked him if a decision had been made to remove the video cameras.

Joe Fleischaker said that he was not briefed on that subject and did not know the answer.

Councilman Gardiner thanked Mayor pro tem Stern for putting this item on the agenda as it is the only vehicle for Council discussion of the matter, but he was uncomfortable with changing a previous Council decision because there were now different councilmembers.  He was also uncomfortable with a camera taking pictures of everyone who passed through the project because it seemed the same as taking an identification card, and that if the camera violated the City's encroachment policy, there should be a remedy to correct this.

Councilman Clark replied that the remedy was in the conditions of approval and could be addressed in a scheduled six-month review after the start of operation of these booths.  If there is a violation of these conditions, the City can have them removed.

Mayor pro tem Stern assumed that if conditions of approval were violated, a process could start to revoke their encroachment permit. He agreed that the original plan was not good because it seemed to be designed to inhibit people from reaching the blufftop trails.

Councilman Clark said that he was opposed to inhibiting access to the interior streets.

Mayor pro tem Stern agreed that every topic could not be revisited but he thought it was worth the effort to see if contact could be made with the Coastal Commission to make a decision within this area of their jurisdiction.Councilman Gardiner said he still did not want to reverse a Council decision and he thought contacting the Coastal Commission with the Council's concerns did just that but he did feel comfortable revoking their permit if they use video cameras.

Mayor McTaggart said that one objection in the beginning was that the booths seemed to be a deterrent to people using public streets. He accepted that his appeal was denied by the Council and he did not think it was right to reverse this decision, but he was opposed to a camera taking photographs of license plates.

Councilman Clark acknowledged that the video camera had slipped by the Planning Commission, who approved the booths almost unanimously.  He agreed with Councilman Gardiner's comment that violating the conditions of approval could cause revocation of their encroachment permit.  Councilman Clark had a sense from the senior representative from Coastal Pacific Homes, who was not able to attend tonight's meeting, that taking the cameras out would perhaps be a final compromise for the Coastal Commission.  He was concerned that approving Mayor pro tem Stern's suggestion would send a message to the Coastal Commission that the Council had reversed its decision behind the scenes.  With the concept of security raised by Councilwoman Ferraro with an emergency phone present, and the possible removal of the cameras, he felt he could continue to support installation of the booths.

Mayor McTaggart, assuming in advance that there would be video cameras, felt that this would be a violation of their conditions and he said that the City often imposed hard rules on developers; however, once a decision was rendered, the developer should be able to count on it.  He admitted that he still was not happy with the booths and did not know what the Coastal Commission 's decision would be, but they had jurisdiction over appeals in this part of the City.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved, seconded by Councilman Clark, to adopt Alternative B in the staff report, to take no action on Mayor pro tem Stern’s request. Motion carried.

Mayor pro tem Stern withdrew his proposal.

Options for the Use of the Crestridge Property  (1101 x 701)

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to provide direction to staff regarding the following issues:  (1) Which if any of the concepts proposed for the use of the Crestridge property should receive further consideration; (2) What information and analyses will the City Council require to make a determination of the use of the property; and (3) Whether to consider the Planning Commissions recommendation to conduct a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop to discuss use options for the City's Crestridge property, use options for the adjoining privately owned Crestridge property and the need and appropriate location for senior housing in the City.


RECESS & RECONVENE:


At 8:10 P.M., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess.  The meeting reconvened at 8:17 P.M.

Options for the Use of the Crestridge Property (continued)

City Manager Evans suggested that the Council consider a joint workshop with the Planning Commission with an opportunity for public input.

Mayor pro tem Stern agreed this would be a good idea.  He did have a concern about one of the specific proposals.  He wondered if traffic at that location would be a problem is an Exceptional Children's School was built on the Crestridge property.

City Manager Evans reminded the Council that representatives from each group interested in the property were at the meeting, although detailed presentations were being reserved for the future.

Councilman Gardiner pointed out that the joint workshop should be with the newly appointed Planning Commission.

Mayor McTaggart noted that this would mean the workshop would be scheduled for sometime after February.

Councilman Gardiner cautioned that the Council should articulate its criteria so projects are not presented which are inappropriate.  He also felt it was important to look at the affordable housing requirement from a systems approach, not in a piecemeal fashion, taking into consideration that the State could change its requirement.  The feasibility of a park, and how it would be funded, could be discussed at this joint workshop also.

Mayor pro tem Stern suggested that a possibility might be to have Standard Pacific bring together two parcels and incorporate a park and trails along with the affordable housing.

Mayor McTaggart pointed out that the housing needs to be senior housing as well because of the institutional zoning.

Councilman Gardiner pointed out that the land was purchased by the City with funds to be used only for affordable housing, and if the land were not used for affordable housing, the City would have to purchase the land with different funds and give up the money originally used to purchase the property.

Mayor McTaggart speculated that it might be a good idea to include the Finance Advisory Committee in the workshop

Jim Hathaway, 28955 Crestridge Road, felt that this city-owned property was not suitable for more than a one-story building. Other considerations were the challenge of providing good access for cars and the use of the land to the west. He agreed that the City needed a comprehensive plan for affordable housing and to understand the rules for affordable housing, and whether they are hard or soft rules.  He discussed the possibility of rental property fulfilling the requirement.  He also wondered if the City could spend more per dwelling so that the community could support the facility.  He felt confident with this piece of land and the intelligent people at the City, there would be a solution to incorporate low density, affordable housing, senior housing, and some kind of park.

Councilman Clark felt that the thorough report provided information for a good departure point for discussion.  He supported Mayor McTaggart's idea to include the Finance Advisory Committee in the workshop and to tackle the affordable housing requirement with a systems approach, not piecemeal as in the past.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved that staff schedule a joint workshop with the City Council, Planning Commission, and Finance Advisory Board and to provide presentations for each of the proposals mentioned so that the three City groups as well as the residents can provide input.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked if the Finance Advisory Committee would be present as participants or observers.

Mayor pro tem Stern was not sure but felt there was wisdom in having them included to take into account financial ramifications.

Councilwoman Ferraro felt that these three groups should look at the top three priorities to see what was possible financially.

Mayor McTaggart felt that all three groups should be participants.

Councilman Clark said that he had participated in a workshop with the City Council, Planning Commission, and View Restoration Commission and felt it was possible to be productive is the room if set up appropriately and there are ground rules.

Councilwoman Ferraro thought a Saturday workshop might be best for what could be a long workshop with much public input.

Councilman Gardiner was concerned about a workshop which ran too long and suggested that a facilitator could keep the groups on track.

Mayor McTaggart mentioned that Len Wood would be an excellent choice for facilitator.  He said that Mr. Wood s very effective and there is a great demand for his services.  He wondered if the cost for his services would be high.

City Manager Evans felt that it would not be too expensive to have Len Wood as a facilitator.

Mayor pro tem Stern agreed that all groups should be equal participants in the discussion and to make the process as productive as possible, whatever that took.

Councilman Gardiner suggested that if the Council told the facilitator the desired outcome, the facilitator could make that happen.

Councilman Clark thought it would be a good idea to meet with Len Wood first to discuss objectives.

Mayor McTaggart stated that this is the way Len Wood operated.  He would probably want to meet individually with each Councilmember to obtain their candid thoughts to come up with a method of meeting the goal of the workshop.

Councilman Clark seconded the motion to have a workshop with the City Council, Planning Commission, and Finance Advisory committee and to hire a facilitator.

City Manager Evans said that Len Wood's fee and availability would have to be determined, and that there would need to be a well-defined format for the workshop which could be held in March after the Planning Commissioners are appointed.

Mayor pro tem Stern pointed out that the Finance Advisory Committee interviews were planned to be held in March.

Mayor McTaggart suggested that the Finance Advisory Committee interviews be moved to February and the Traffic Committee interviews be moved to March.

Council consensus was that this was a good idea.

City Manager Evans stated that this reorganization of Advisory Board interviews did not have to part of the motion on the floor.

The motion carried with no objection.


PUBLIC COMMENTS:


Marcy Tiffany, 33 Marguerite Drive, said she was representing RPV Councilwatch, a grassroots organization made up of Rancho Palos Verdes residents who believe it is important for the electorate to be fully informed about the actions of the RPV City Council.  She explained that the reason there were several women wearing burkhas, and spoke in protest for the manner in which the Mayor pro tem had been selected. She distributed three handouts which detailed the goals of RPV Councilwatch, explained why she felt the selection of Mayor Pro Tem Stern did not follow City policy, and provided copies of emails she exchanged with Mayor Pro Tem Stern on the subject. (Copies of the materials distributed by Ms. Tiffany are on file with the City Clerk’s Office.)

Shari Uchida, 30970 Via La Cresta, a member of RPV Councilwatch, expressed her concern about the Mayor pro tem appointment.

Gale Pack, 28810 King Arthur Court, a member of RPV Councilwatch, hoped that the Council would reconsider the selection of Mayor pro tem and do what is right.

Connie Semos, 6512 Monero Drive, a member of RPV Councilwatch, hoped that the Council would provide an explanation of the Mayor pro tem decision.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, said that even before RPV Councilwatch, she had been watching the Council and she had been informed that people who view the Council meetings are unhappy about the way she (Lois) has been treated.

Councilman Gardiner clarified that there is there a policy mentioned in the March 1, 1983 Council meeting minutes which gives the Council a simple vote for Mayor pro tem, that the policy for rotation of Mayor and Mayor pro tem is not always followed but that the selection of Mayor pro tem is based on the Councilmember who served the longest since last being Mayor or who has served the longest and not been Mayor.  Since Councilwoman Ferraro and Mayor McTaggart had already been Mayor, he nominated Mayor pro tem Stern because he felt it made sense to follow the process adopted in 1983.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that, if you read the policy further, it says that when a new person comes on - and Mayor pro tem Stern came on in 1999 – he went ahead of the then mayor, Tom Hollingsworth, but behind her because of the votes she received.

Marcy Tiffany said that she was a lawyer and she had prepared a written explanation of her interpretation based on reading and discussion with Mr. Stern by email.  She felt that the meaningful word was "shall" and she felt that the Council was not providing for an orderly decision for the choice of Mayor pro tem To say that you are to pick the Councilmember who has the longest time on the Council, if you do not take into consideration someone who served as Mayor since newly elected Councilmembers, you start measuring longevity from the time they were last mayor and if no one fits that category, the person who has been on the Council the longest should be chosen.

San Ramon Habitat Restoration Plans  (1101 x 604)

Assistant City Manager Petru presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Receive and file the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan for the San Ramon project (on-site).  (2) Approve the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park (which includes off-site mitigation for the San Ramon and Palos Verdes Drive South Washout Projects, and on-site mitigation for the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project.)  (3) Approve the Conceptual Off-site Wetland Mitigation Plan for the San Ramon Project.  (4) Authorize staff to issue Request for Proposals seeking a qualified firm to install and maintain the habitat restoration area at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and a qualified consultant to monitor all of the restoration efforts associated with the project.

Councilman Gardiner felt that the staff report was very comprehensive but he admitted to not understanding all of it and was pleased that assistance from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy might be part of the plan.

Councilman Clark echoed Councilman Gardiner's sentiment regarding the Land Conservancy.  Because he had a little more background with these matters, he said he understood most of it and was concerned that the wetlands mitigation would be outside the City but he would support the recommendation because of time constraints.  He did feel, however, that if the City has not identified any other wetlands in the City, this must be remedied.  He supported the concept of recruiting local talent to serve the City.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that he was on the Land Conservancy Board at the time that Ocean Trails was required to provide revegetation as mitigation and hired the Land Conservancy to grow a lot of plants.  He was sure that the estimate from private industry was higher and this was an excellent program for the land conservancy so it was a win-win situation for everyone.

Councilman Clark agreed using the Land Conservancy would have a good fiscal impact.  As discussed at the last meeting, he felt it was important to have a dynamic financial model to be able to change the variables.

Mayor McTaggart proposed that a foundation be established to fund revegetation which would receive money from donors, estates and people who feel strongly that preservation of the Peninsula is a good use of their money. He felt that the numbers of acres the City is trying to acquire is frightening in terms of maintenance and the Land Conservancy has done a good job in the past.  He felt that because of the other cities reluctance to go along with the NCCP for enhancement of their habitats, he was opposed to having a Wetlands Mitigation Plan in another city but said he would support the idea as long as Rancho Palos Verdes gets adequate credit for doing work through the Land Conservancy.

Councilwoman Ferraro said that this credit needed to be recognized by the State.

Mayor McTaggart felt that the more land the City puts into the NCCP, the more we should be exempt from the requirement to revegetate.

Councilwoman Ferraro agreed but said that it seems like the more the City works toward a valid NCCP, the more it is asked to do. 

Councilman Gardiner favored use of the Land Conservancy but felt the City needed to get a systems view of everything so there were no surprises.

Councilman Clark asked if staff had any sense of what the financial difference would be in reference to the alternatives listed on circle Page 8 of the staff report.

Assistant City Manager Petru said that this would need to be explored.

Councilman Clark said that he sensed it would be more expensive to have an in-house expert or independent consultants as opposed to accepting the assistance of the Land Conservancy.

Assistant City Manager Petru clarified that the resource agencies preferred to have another entity involved in the monitoring process for the offsite wetlands mitigation, so that function would have to be handled in-house or by a consultant.

Councilman Clark understood that it was important to have an independent firm handle at this aspect.

Councilwoman Ferraro asked the highest priority task.

Assistant City Manager Petru said that Recommendation Nos. 2 and 3 were most urgent.  These were the approval of the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park (which includes off-site mitigation for the San Ramon and Palos Verdes Drive South Washout Projects, and on-site mitigation for the Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Project.)  and approval of the Conceptual Off-site Wetland Mitigation Plan for the San Ramon Project.

Councilwoman Ferraro moved approval of Recommendation Nos. 2 and 3 in the staff report.

Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, objected to the use of Abalone Cove Shoreline Park for habitat mitigation for the San Ramon project because of the Abalone Cove landslide.

Councilwoman Ferraro continued her motion to include receiving and filing of the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Restoration Plan for the San Ramon Project (on site); and, instead of recommendation No. 4 to hire a qualified firm to install and maintain the habitat restoration area at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, that assistance be sought from the Land Conservancy, other interested qualified groups, or university students.

Mayor pro tem Stern seconded the motion.

Councilman Clark requested that the City's Finance Director and his staff look at financial implications of future restoration projects.

Mayor pro tem Stern felt that response to volunteer groups would have an important impact and analysis should be postponed until it was learned to what degree volunteer help might offset costs.

Councilman Clark agreed but felt that this was another indicator that the Council needed a dynamic financial model to be able to change the variables.

Councilman Gardiner asked when action had to be taken.

Assistant City Manager Petru said that the coastal sage scrub revegetation needed to be started in the Fall of 2002, therefore, with lead time to find out who will do the work and have contracts finalized, the deadline would be May or June.  She stated that Council was approving $10,500 for Wetlands mitigation and $30,000 for Wetlands monitoring and that it probably would be advisable not to be locked into a five-year contract with Helix, so she recommended that the Council authorized an initial one-year contract with Helix.

Councilwoman Ferraro modified her motion, and Mayor pro tem Stern agreed, to include Assistant City Manager Petru's comments.

The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
NOES: None

Request to Abandon View Covenant Recorded against Property at 3027 Crest Road (Requestor: Mr.& Mrs. Robert Scalfaro - property owners)  (1203 x 1806)

Director Rojas presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to (1) Consider the property owner's request for the City to abandon the view covenant that was recorded against the property known as 3027 Crest Road after a formal review process for abandoning covenants has been adopted by the City Council.  (2) Amend Policy No. 30 to establish a process for dealing with requests from property owners to abandon recorded view covenants on a case-by-case basis.

Director Rojas added that it appears that Mr. Scalfaro and Mr. Morrell are close to an agreement but that Mr. Scalfaro still wishes to have his covenant abandoned.

Mayor pro tem Stern thanked the Seaview residents who sent emails and reassured them City Council Policy 30 being considered by the Council addressed covenants which residents signed simply because they wanted to modify their homes, not the covenants in place at Ocean Trails.

City Attorney Lynch confirmed that this was the case.

Mayor McTaggart asked if there would be a fee for removing a covenant.

Director Rojas said that one would have to be proposed.

Councilman Clark provided a history of how these covenants came to be and said that they were not enforced or required after 1996 because they really were not working as it was thought they would.  If people want these covenants removed, those properties would be subject to foliage analysis according to the original intent of View Preservation.

Robert Scalfaro, 3027 Crest Road, said that Director Rojas had been very helpful in helping formulate an agreement with his neighbor Mr. Morrell but he still was requesting that the Council abandon his covenant.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that is the parties have come to an agreement, the case does not need to be reviewed.

City Attorney Lynch emphasized that the agreement document had not been submitted.

Robert Morrell, 3126 Corinna Drive, said there was no resolution as yet and they were still in the talking stage.  He felt that the covenant should not be abandoned but simply ignored by the City.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked if he was close to resoling the view dispute with Mr. Scalfaro.

Mr. Morrell said that they were close.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked if he felt the view covenant was still necessary. Mr. Morrell said no but he felt the City should wash its hands of the whole covenant issue because it would seem easier if the City were not involved with covenants at all.

Councilman Clark pointed our that these are legal covenants and are still legally enforceable by property owners if they wish to and they could not be ignored.

City Attorney Lynch agreed with that statement.

Mr. Morrell said that he knew they would not just go away but he believed that the residents, not the City should deal with them.

Councilman Clark explained that the reason Proposition M was passed was to provide a means for the City to act as arbiter between residents.

Mr. Morrell said that did alter his thought that the City should not be involved in these covenants.

Warren Sweetnam, 7 Top Rail Lane, asked if the properties were inspected and requests made to trim the foliage after the City stopped enforcing view covenants.

Director Rojas said yes.

Mr. Sweetnam felt that the covenants were a problem and should be abandoned on a case-by-case basis since they were approximately 900 of them signed over a six-year period.  He reiterated Councilman Clark's statement of the original intent of the City's involvement in views.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that a fee would be required to remove these covenants and assuming that there are no view issues, why spend the time and money.

City Attorney Lynch suggested that a letter could be sent to property owners with view covenants to inform them that there is a process to remove the covenant and provide the amount of the fee.  They can then make the decision if they want to pay to have the covenant removed or leave it in place.

Mayor pro tem Stern moved to establish a fee for removal of a view covenant signed to obtain a permit and inform those property owners who have this type of covenant that they may pay the fee to have it removed if they wish.

City Attorney Lynch said that City Manager Evans thought the noticing could be accomplished by using the City newsletter and the reader board.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that he did not have strong feelings about how the publicizing was accomplished just as long as these property owners know they have this option.

Councilman Clark seconded the motion.  Motion carried.

Turning to the specific covenant at hand, Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, that once the City has proof that a settlement is in place between Mr. Scalfaro and Mr. Morrell, that the covenant be removed without a fee.  Motion carried.

Introduction of Mobile Vendors Ordinance

Director Allison presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to INTRODUCE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NEW PARKING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MOBILE VENDORS WHO PARK ON CITY STREETS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted that he had submitted suggested language changes along with City Attorney Lynch's comments, which were included in additional/revisions and amendments memo distributed to the Council at the beginning of the meeting.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ferraro, to adopt staff recommendation and introduce the ordinance with the amended language as presented by Mayor pro tem Stern.

Mayor pro tem Stern said that he was uncomfortable with the rationale to change the time these mobile vendors are allowed to stay in one place from 15 to 10 minutes and wondered what was to be gained from this change.  He assumed these vendors were meeting a need or people would not be buying and they would not want to stay in a location where people did not buy.

Mayor McTaggart said that there were times when they had no customers and they sat for longer periods of time. 

Councilman Clark thought it would be a good idea to have uniformity with the Palos Verdes Estates ordinance, which allows only ten minutes.

City Attorney Lynch agreed that uniformity with surrounding cities would be preferable.

Mayor pro tem Stern still questioned the maximum of 10 minutes, rather than 15 minutes.

City Manager Evans clarified that in City Attorney Lynch's version, customers have to be there before the truck can stay.  In Mayor pro tem Stern's version the truck can be there before the customers.

Councilman Clark asked if these businesses were checked to see if they have business licenses.

Accounting Manager Downs said that she understood there were no random checks.

Councilman Clark thought regular random checks would be a good idea.

City Manager Evans said that when there have been complaints, the City has checked for a business license and assume the Sheriff's Department does the same.  We can require regular random checks.

There was no objection to the motion with the ten minutes remaining in the ordinance.

City Clerk Purcell stated that this motion introduced Ordinance 272, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS ON MOBILE VENDORS PARKING ON CITY STREETS AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
NOES: None

Authorize Inclusion of Provisions in Agreements with Experts whose Sole Task is to Review Work that is Prepared by Others so that the City will Indemnify and Defend them from Litigation and Claims relating to their Determinations  (1101 x 1900)

City Manager Evans presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to provide direction to staff on whether agreements with experts whose sole task is to review work that is prepared by others, such as members of geotechnical review panels, should include provisions that would require the City to indemnify and defend them from litigation and claims related to their decisions.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to direct the City Attorney to prepare agreements with experts whose sole task is to review work that is prepared by others, such as members of geotechnical review panels, and to include provisions that would require the City to indemnify and defend them from litigation and claims related to their decisions. Motion carried.

Mayor pro tem McTaggart asked if the City would be covered by its JPIA insurance if it indemnifies someone else.

City Attorney Lynch said it would depend on the type of activity; usually this was not the case and not in this instance.

Contract Renewal for Geotechnical Consulting  (1203 x 201)

Director Rojas presented the staff report of December 18, 2001 and the recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed agreement with Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. to provide geology and geotechnical engineering consulting services on an as-needed basis to the City for the next two years.

Director Rojas noted that there had been no cost increase since 1998 and this increase was reasonable and an adjustment since the trust deposit system was replaced a year ago.  He added that a fee schedule to residents would be brought before the Council for a public hearing.

Director Rojas mentioned that Bing Yen Associates also had been under contract with the City since 1997 and that contract would be brought before the Council in January 2002.

Councilman Clark asked what the intended period of performance was in the original 1997 Request for Proposal (RFP) and Director Rojas said that it was one year.

Since Zeiser Kling had been under contract for four years based on one year of intended performance, Councilman Clark asked about the City policy for obtaining a new RFP for competitive services.

City Manager Evans said that most maintenance or professional services agreements are written for one to three years, usually one base year and then several renewals, the fees are very cost.  The cost to prepare an RFP would be about the same as the City pays Zeiser Kling for one year.  They are doing a good job and it does not seem cost effective to prepare an RFP.  He closed by stating that there is no written policy but normally an RFP would be prepared after three years if it did not seem cost effective to renew the contract.

Councilman Clark asked if there were new firms within the last four years that provide geotechnical service that did not have a chance to compete.

City Manager Evans replied that there probably were but one favorable aspect of Zeiser Kling is that their personnel have not changed.  As a comparison, at Bing Yen Associates, many personnel changes have occurred and Bing Yen, the principal, has retired.  Zeiser Kling is familiar with the community, have hours at the public counter at City Hall, provide soil reports, and their personnel are almost like City employees.  He did not feel that it was worthwhile to seek out other firms at this time.

Councilman Clark made two suggestions: a change in wording to indicate that the Zeiser Kling personnel responsible for serving the City will remain the same unless the Directors of Planning or Public Works approves a change; and, that a provision for default be added.

City Attorney Lynch said that the agreement addresses this as failure to perform.

Mayor pro tem Stern questioned if the ten-day period for correcting discrepancies was adequate.

Director Rojas indicated that bills were processed very quickly and that ten days was a sufficient period of time but a longer period of time could be requested.

After discussion, the consensus was to make the correction period 15 business days.

Councilman Clark asked if there were any discounts for prompt payment and City Manager Evans said not on these types of contracts.

City Manager Evans noted that Bing Yen Associates is working on the Filiorum project and that the Council can be asked to extend their contract until this work is complete.

Consensus of the Council was that this would be reasonable.

Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilman Clerk, to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to (1) Execute the proposed agreement with Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. to provide geology and geotechnical engineering consulting services on an as-needed basis to the City for the next two years.  (2) Direct staff to issue an RFP when the Bing Yen contract comes up for renewal in January 2002 with a base year renewable for two more years.  (3) Change the time allowed to dispute a bill with Zeiser Kling from 10 days to 15 business days.  Motion carried.

Beautification Grant for the Miraleste Recreation and Park District  (1204 x 1200)

Director Allison presented an oral report, with a staff recommendation to increase the Award of Grant from a maximum or $22,000 to an amount up to $40,000 to the Miraleste Recreation and Park District for beautification improvements in the Miraleste neighborhood.  He explained that a request had been received from the Miraleste Recreation and Park District to increase their beautification grant from $22,000, approved by the Council in August 2001, to $40,000 to for additional funds because of increased costs for electrical and asphalt work, $13,000 and $4,000 respectively.  Added to these costs were fees of $1,000 to Southern California Edison.  He stated that the Public Works Department had worked with the District to obtain bids for the electrical work and the that possibility of solar or battery powered installation was considered but was incompatible with the current system.  He closed by stating that the funding source was recycling funds.

Councilman Clark asked the purpose of the asphalt stamping.

Dawn Henry, 6525 Via Colinita, said that a committee which included a licensed landscape architect from UCLA had worked on this plan.  She said that the community wanted to enhance the entrance to the neighborhood and presented a diagram of the improvements that she distributed to the Council. (A copy of Ms. Henry’s diagram is on file with the City Clerk’s Office.)

Councilman Clark asked if the delineation was supposed to be a crosswalk and Dawn Henry said it was not.

Mayor pro tem Stern noted that the City posted a sign which said it was not a cross walk

Dawn Henry detailed the expenses for the project: the cost of the stamping was $28,500 and the remainder of the cost was for a sprinkler system and planting, for a total of $127,600.  She said that, if this request were to be approved, the City would have donated a total of $40,000 and the Miraleste Recreation and Park District provided the additional $87,600.

Councilman Clark asked the source of the funds from Miraleste Recreation and Park District were raised and Dawn Henry said that the money came from donations from residents, PV Homes Association, Miraleste Homeowners association, and fundraising events.

In reply to Mayor pro tem Stern's inquiry about assessments, Dawn Henry replied that each resident within the district was assessed $125 annual for maintenance but since was an improvement project, rather than maintenance, these funds were not used.

In answer to Councilman Clark's question about the source of City money, Dawn Henry said it was recycling funds before the money was redirected from the Homeowners Associations.

Councilman Gardiner moved to approve an additional $18,000, to increase the Award of Grant from a maximum of $22,000 to an amount up to $40,000 to the Miraleste Recreation and Park District for beautification improvements in the Miraleste neighborhood.

Councilwoman Ferraro seconded the motion contingent on recycling funds being available.

Director Allison indicated that recycling funds were available.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
NOES: None


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:


City Attorney Lynch reported the following: (1) Regarding the purchase of open space, the Council received an updated report from the negotiator and no action was taken.  (2) Regarding the Chandler's lawsuit, the Council authorized another counter offer to Chandler's counter offer.  (3) Regarding all the remaining items, no action was taken.


ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:


Councilman Gardiner asked for a report on the power outage. City Manager Evans said that Scott Gobble from Southern California Edison was present earlier in the evening but that he had left. City Manager Evans said that he was reluctant to give a report.

Mayor McTaggart reported that he had met with some men to discuss Girls' Softball.  He said that they were not developers but the group did include Rob Katherman, who represents developers.  Mayor McTaggart said they were careful not to discuss any specific project, however, Mr. Katherman called him later to discuss the low-income project and Mayor McTaggart suggested he forward information to the City Council.

Mayor pro tem Stern asked if Rob Katherman was representing Charles Brumbaugh and Mayor McTaggart said yes.

Mayor McTaggart reported on the Housing Summit held by SCAG at which the Secretary of Housing and Development stated how easy it was to comply with the requirements.  He felt that SCAG made a worthwhile effort to have an open discussion about the difficulties of complying with the state's mandate about cities providing low income housing but the State perceives us ad do-nothings and has not given us the means to be otherwise.

Councilman Clark reported that he and Councilman Gardiner were invited speakers at the December meeting of the Council of Homeowners Association and said that the lively discussion included topics such as the concern by many homeowners association about the removal of the recycling grants to the local neighborhood associations to beautify their community.  Councilman Clark said that he was planning to ask to have this topic on a Council agenda soon, when it was appropriate, and would ask staff to provide a comprehensive history of these grants to homeowners associations.

Mayor McTaggart and Councilman Gardiner echoed their support to revisit this issue.


ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 10:39 P.M. on motion of Mayor McTaggart.



____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________

CITY CLERK



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

JANUARY 2, 2002

The meeting was called to order at the Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard at 7:00 P.M. by City Clerk Jo Purcell and was immediately adjourned for lack of a quorum to January 12, 2002 at 9:00 A.M.


_______________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________

CITY CLERK



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

ADJOURNED MEETING

MEETING WITH STATE LEGISLATORS

JANUARY 14, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 3:40 P.M. in Assemblyman Lowenthal’s office in the State Capitol Building, Sacramento, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

Present: Clark, Ferraro, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart,
Absent: Gardiner

Also present were City Manager Les Evans, Finance Director Dennis McLean, Assemblymember Alan Lowenthal, and Legislative Analyst Ann Dilzer.

Discussion centered on the following:

1. Open Space Purchase. Mayor Pro Tem Stern gave Assemblymember Lowenthal a copy of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy brochure. Assemblymember Lowenthal fully supports the effort to acquire the property and help us work out issues with the California Department of Fish and Game. Mayor McTaggart suggested a foundation for continuing maintenance. Assemblymember Lowenthal felt that the Park bond will pass and that distribution of funds ($2.5 billion) will be through legislative action.

2. AB680 Sales Tax Sharing. Assemblymember Lowenthal said that it applies only very nominally, primarily in the Sacramento area.

3. Vehicle License Fee. Assemblymember Lowenthal will continue to oppose any lessening of the Vehicle License Fee backfill.

No action was taken.


Recess & Reconvene: At 4:15 P.M., the meeting was recessed. The meeting reconvened at 4:30 P.M. in State Senator Betty Karnette’s office. Senator Betty Karnette was present and District Representative Chuck Taylor.


The items under discussion during the meeting with Senator Karnette included the following:

1. Vehicle License Fee. Senator Karnette indicated that she was never in favor of reducing the Vehicle License Fee.

2. Peninsula Philosophy. Senator Karnette wants to keep the Palos Verdes Peninsula in its natural state. She will continue to help us with the California Department of Fish and Game.

3. New Senator. Senator Ed Vincent will not become our Senator until 2004 when Senator Karnette is up for re-election and so is Senator Vincent. Both districts are considered "safe" for the incumbents says the California Journal.

4. Second Language to be taught in early grades. Senator Karnette discussed a bill she had introduced promoting the idea of a second language being taught in public schools at an early grade.

5. Biggest Challenge. Senator Karnette feels it is the budget and the Governor is postponing problems by borrowing.

No action was taken.


Adjournment: At 5:00 P.M., the meeting adjourned.

 

_____________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


____________________

CITY CLERK



D R A F T

M I N U T E S

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

JANUARY 15, 2002

The meeting was called to order at the Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard at 7:00 P.M. by City Clerk Jo Purcell and was immediately adjourned for lack of a quorum to January 31, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.


_______________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:


______________________

CITY CLERK






3. Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Award a professional service contract to Willdan for engineering services related to the implementation of the City’s Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Willdan for a not-to-exceed amount of $48,928, and authorize the additional expenditure of up to $4,000, for any unanticipated engineering services; approving a total design budget of $52,928.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY AND SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Award a professional service contract to Willdan for engineering services related to the implementation of the City’s Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program.

  2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Willdan for a not to exceed amount of $48,928, and authorize the additional expenditure of up to $4,000, for any unanticipated engineering services; thereby approving a total design budget of $52,928.

BACKGROUND

In 1993, the City initiated a Pavement Management Program. One goal of the program is to assist the City in performing regular maintenance on the City’s roadways.

The fiscal year 2002-2003 Capital Improvement Program Budget includes funding an overlay and slurry seal program. The Pavement Management Program recommends resurfacing or slurry sealing the residential streets within Zone One (Exhibit A).

On November 6, 2001, staff sent a Request for Proposal (RFP) to three qualified Civil Engineering firms to provide the engineering services (pavement testing, engineering design and assistance during construction) required to complete this year’s Residential Street Resurfacing Program. The RFP requested each firm to propose a project approach and schedule which is efficient, effective and meets the program objectives.

ANALYSIS

On November 30, 2001, the City received proposals from DMc Engineering, John M. Cruikshank Consultants, Inc. and Willdan. The receipt of proposals followed the two-envelope format; one sealed envelope containing the project approach and technical qualifications, the second sealed envelope contained the proposed fees. Each proposal

was evaluated pursuant to the firm’s understanding of the scope of work, relevant experience and expertise, innovative approach, effort put forth in preparing the proposals, and location/familiarity with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Based on the outcome of the evaluation process, as summarized below, staff recommends the selection of Willdan.

EVALUATION SUMMARY

FIRM

OVERALL SCORE
     
Cruikshank Consultants

75
 

DMc Engineering

83
 
Willdan
98
 


Subsequent to the rating process, the fee envelope for Willdan was opened and the cost for all proposed services was reviewed. Willdan’s required time, to complete each task, and the associated hourly rates for engineering services are within typical industry standards.

CONCLUSION

Willdan emerged as the most qualified consultant as this firm’s proposal ranked higher than the other two. In addition, Willdan has successfully provided the City with identical services in the past. Therefore it is recommended that Council award a professional services contract to Willdan, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Willdan for an amount not to exceed $48,928, and authorize staff to spend up to $4,000 in additional monies for any unanticipated engineering services as required to complete this portion of the project.

ALTERNATIVES

Award the contract to one of the other two qualified firms.

FISCAL IMPACT

The 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program Budget includes sufficient funds for the recommended actions.

Respectfully submitted:
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
1.) Exhibit A – Project Location Map
2.) Professional Services Agreement



4. Policy for Recruitment and Selection of Members for the City’s Advisory Boards. (Evans)

Recommendation: Adopt a policy for the recruitment and selection of City Commission and Committee Members and Commission and Committee Chairs.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: POLICY FOR RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION OF MEMBERS FOR THE CITY’S ADVISORY BOARDS

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt a policy for the recruitment and selection of City Commission and Committee Members and Commission and Committee Chairs.

BACKGROUND

At their meeting of January 12, 20021 the City Council reviewed a draft policy statement for recruitment and selection of City Commission and Committee members. The Council made several minor changes and clarifications to the draft policy. They also added a further explanation of the appointment of Board Chairs and Vice Chairs.

DISCUSSION

City Council Policy No. 6 adopted in 1992 has been revised to reflect the proposed new recruitment and selection process outlined by the City Council on January 12, 2002. Changes are noted by "highlighting" for deletions and "bolding" for additions.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager



CITY COUNCIL POLICY

NUMBER: 6

DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED:January 31, 2002

SUBJECT: CITY ADVISORY BOARD RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION

POLICY:

It shall be the policy of the City Council to fill vacancies on City-appointed Commissions and Committees Boards as follows:

Service Criteria

  1. Terms of service on City Advisory Boards will be four years for each new appointee. Initially, half (plus one) of the terms will be four years and half (less one) of the terms will be two years.

  2. Appointments will be made to Advisory Boards in even numbered years on a schedule to be established by the City Council and following as soon as possible the seating of a new Council.

  3. Terms will be staggered to maintain continuity.

  4. Following the appointment of Board members, the Chair of each Advisory Board will be determined by separate interview, those appointees indicating an interest in being considered for chair, will be interviewed separately by the City Council specifically for the purpose of selection of the chair of interested appointees for each Board.

  5. Terms of service for the Chair will normally be two one years. and Appointments/reappointments will be made in even numbered years annually on a schedule to be established by the City Council.

  6. In the event a Board meets before a Chair is appointed/reappointed, the Mayor may appoint an interim Chair. If the former Chair is reappointed to the Board, he/she may act as Interim Chair. If the Chair is not reappointed to the Board then the Vice Chair may act as Interim Chair.


  7. The Vice Chair of each Board will be elected by the Board members.

Recruitment Process

1. The vacancy shall be advertised in the Palos Verdes News, Daily Breeze and LA Times newspapers. Advertising may take the form of a press release. Additionally, the vacancy shall be posted at the City’s regular posting places and be placed on the Government Access Reader Board. The City Clerk shall include a summary of duties in the recruitment flyer, press release and any other recruitment material. A deadline for receipt of applications will be established by the City Council

2. Interested applicants, including incumbents seeking reappointment, will be required to fill out applications.

3. Applications will be reviewed by the City Council. Each applicant shall be interviewed by the City Council and appointments made at a public meeting.


Interview Process

  1. Interviews of applicants for Advisory Boards will be conducted by the City Council in small groups on a schedule to be established by the Council.

  2. The City Clerk will notify applicants of their interview times and advise them of their status during the selection process.

  3. The City Clerk will advise successful applicants of the opportunity to be interviewed for Chair if they so desire. The City Clerk will notify applicants for Chair of their interview times and advise them of their status in the selection process.

  4. The City Clerk will provide new Advisory Board members a copy of the Commission and Committee Handbook and Statement of Economic Interest forms if applicable to their Board appointment.

  5. The City Attorney will brief new Advisory Board members of their responsibilities under the Brown Act and Conflict of Interest Laws and other legal obligations mandated by their appointment.

BACKGROUND:

At their meeting of December 4, 2001 and December 18, 2002 the City Council considered the process for recruitment and selection of City Commission and Committee members. After discussing various alternatives the Council agreed that they would:

      1. Establish a term of four years for each new appointee; (2) Stagger the terms so that continuity will be maintained; (3) Conduct interviews of applicants in small groups; (4) Conduct interviews for Chair from among appointees who express an interest in serving in that capacity; (5) Arrange interview schedules for only two or three Advisory Boards at a time, prioritized as follows: Planning Commission/Finance Advisory Committee (February), Traffic Committee/Recreation & Parks Committee (tentatively March), and Equestrian/VRC/possibly new committee for emergency preparedness (tentatively April). (6) Set two Saturday dates – February 9 and 23 – to begin the interview process for the Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee. (6) Set a deadline of February 1, 2001, for applicants to submit applications for all Advisory Boards. (7) Adopt a City Council Policy memorializing the new selection procedures.



5. Notice of Completion for Traffic Signal Installation project at Crest and Highridge. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Accept the work as complete. (2) Authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance Bonds. (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Dynalectric 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder contingent on no claims being filed on the project.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION PROJECT @ CREST AND HIGHRIDGE

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Accept the work as complete.

  2. Authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance Bonds.

  3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Dynalectric 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder contingent on no claims being filed on the project.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

On July 3, 2001, Council awarded a construction contract to Dynalectric to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Crest Road and Highridge Road. Construction was completed on December 17, 2001. The final costs of construction are summarized below.

Construction Cost Summary

Description of Cost
Approved Amount
Actual Expenditure
     
1. Construction Contract
$ 99,400
$99,400
2. Change Orders
10,600
100*
     

Totals:

$110,00
$99,500

 

* Three Changes Orders, with a net cost of $100, were issued for this project.

CONCLUSION

Dynalectric has successfully completed all work in accordance with the plans and specifications. Therefore, the work should be accepted as complete and a Notice of Completion filed.

FISCAL IMPACT

The recommended action will have no fiscal impact. Adequate funds, for this project, were included in the approved 2001-2002 City Budget.

Respectfully submitted,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager



6. Claim against the City by Christian Cameron. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of Council’s action.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY CHRISTIAN CAMERON

RECOMMENDATION

Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of Council’s action.

BACKGROUND

Christian Cameron, the claimant in this matter, has alleged that his car was damaged by debris resulting from construction on Hawthorne Boulevard. Mr. Cameron is claiming $456 in damages for repair of his car.

This matter was investigated by Carl Warren & Co., the City’s claims administrators, and they have advised that the claim should be rejected.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed,
Les Evans



7. November 2001 Treasurer’s Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: NOVEMER 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the November 2001 Treasurer's Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires the City Treasurer to submit an investment report to the City Council on at least a quarterly basis. The City has elected to submit a treasurer’s report to the Council for review each month. This report summarizes the cash activity associated with all funds of the City. A separate treasurer’s report is prepared monthly for both the Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority and is presented under separate cover before their respective governing bodies. The attached treasurer's report includes the cash activities of the City for the month of November 2001.

ANALYSIS:

The overall cash balances of the City totaled $23,353,572 at November 30, 2001. This represents a $379,485 decrease during the month. The overall decrease is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a noteworthy cash event.

General Fund – The cash balance in the General fund decreased by over $216,000 during the month of November. However, there were no non-routine transactions that caused the decrease. The largest disbursements were $206,000 for the monthly Sheriff payment, $169,000 for monthly payroll, $153,000 for the monthly transfer to CIP, $66,000 for September legal costs, and $32,000 for Building & Safety contract services. The largest cash receipts were $222,000 for motor vehicle fees, $82,000 for sales tax, $56,000 for Property Tax, $49,000 for utility users tax from Southern California Edison, and $45,000 for the quarterly franchise fee from Waste Management.

Proposition C Fund – The cash balance in the Proposition C fund increased by over $40,000 during the month. The City received the monthly Proposition C sales tax apportionment of $40,000; yet had no significant disbursements.

Proposition A Fund – The cash balance in the Proposition A fund increased by almost $37,000 during the month. The City received the monthly Proposition A sales tax apportionment of $52,000; yet the only significant disbursement was $13,000 for the quarterly contribution to the MAX transit system.

Special Trusts Fund – The cash balance in this fund decreased by over $84,000 during the month. Cash fluctuations in the Special Trusts fund are caused by timing differences of payments to and from the City for various services including engineering and inspections. The November decrease was primarily due to a disbursement to RBF Consulting of over $130,000 on behalf of York Long Point Associates.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



8. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


PUBLIC HEARING:






9. Amendments to the Current Fee Schedule for Specific Geotechnical Services and Planning Applications. (Mihranian)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92-68 (THE CITY’S FEE RESOLUTION) TO (1) INCREASE THE GEOLOGIC SITE INSPECTION FEE FROM $150 TO $200. (2) INCREASE THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW FEE FROM $1,200 TO $1,300. (3) INCREASE THE GEOLOGIC PLANNING REVIEW FEE (SITE INSPECTION AND REPORT REVIEW FEE) FROM $1,350 TO $1,500. (4) CHANGE THE $240 LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION FEE FROM A FIXED FEE TO A TRUST DEPOSIT FEE.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE

ENFORCEMENT

DATE:JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT:AMENDMENTS TO THE CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE FOR SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES AND PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2002-__, amending Resolution No. 92-68 (the City’s Fee Resolution) establishing revised fees as follows: 1) Increase the geologic Site Inspection fee from $150.00 to $200.00; 2) Increase the Geotechnical Report Review fee from $1,200.00 to $1,300.00; 3) Increase the Geologic Planning Review fee (site inspection and report review fee) from $1,350.00 to $1,500.00; and 4) Change the $240.00 Landscape Plan Check and Inspection fee from a fixed fee to a trust deposit fee.

BACKGROUND

The fees collected by the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement require approval by Resolution of the City Council. The current fee Resolution was adopted in 1992, under Resolution No. 92-68, and last amended in 2000 (Resolution No. 2000-81) to establish new or revised fees for various Planning, Building and Code Enforcement applications, based on several amendments to the Development Code.

As the Council may recall, at the December 18, 2001 meeting, the City Council renewed a service contract agreement with Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. to provide geology and geotechnical engineering consulting services on an as-needed basis to the City. The geotechnical consultant provides a variety of specialized services, including reviewing geology reports for development projects (ranging from residential additions to major commercial projects) and conducting field investigations. At that time, the Council also agreed to increase the geology review fees and directed Staff to bring back an item to amend the City’s current fee schedule, as such.

In addition to the proposed fee amendment for specific geotechnical review services (see attachment), Staff is also proposing to change the fee schedule for the Landscape Plan Check and Inspection application from a fixed fee to a trust deposit fee.

DISCUSSION

The following discussion encompasses Staff’s analysis for each recommended change to the current fee schedule:

Geology Review Fees

In November 2000, fixed fees were established to cover the cost of geologic site visits and geology report review by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant. These fixed fees were established with the intent to make the geologic review process easier for applicants by establishing definitive up-front fees and eliminating the need to track overruns on trust deposit accounts or the need to collect additional funds. The fees were established based on cost estimates for conducting a typical site visit or report review. It now appears that after one year of collecting the fees, that the fixed fees need to be increased slightly, as the cost of the City’s Geotechnical Consultant’s review time slightly exceeds the amount of related fee revenue. Therefore, as previously directed by the City Council to make up the discrepancy, the geologic review fee will be amended as follows:

CATEGORY

DESCRIPTION

FEE

1

This fee is collected as part of the Building and Safety plan check process and covers the review of plans, City files, and a site visit to determine if further reports or studies would be required.

Increase from $150.00 to $200.00

2

This fee is collected only if the submittal of a geotechnical report is required based on the initial site assessment. This fee covers the geotechnical review of submitted geotechnical reports and one response letter.

Increase from $1,200.00 to $1,300.00

3

This fee is collected when a geology/soils report is required to be submitted for geotechnical review as part of the Planning review process. This fee covers the cost of a site visit, the review of the geotechnical reports, one response letter, and the coordination with Planning Staff.

Increase from $1,350.00 to $1,500.00

4

This fee covers the review of re-submitted geotechnical reports.

$300.00
No Change proposed

5

This category includes services that would not be part of a fixed fee process, such as review and site visits for view restoration, bluff top properties, code enforcement, subdivisions, and other special projects. Estimated costs will be determined prior to the commencement of such services, based on the contracted fee schedule on a time and material basis.

TRUST DEPOSIT


Landscape Plan Check and Inspection

Given this opportunity to amend the geologic review fees, Staff believes that the current fixed fee of $240.00 for a Landscape Plan Check and Inspection application does not accurately offset costs incurred by Staff. The Landscape Plan Check and Inspection application was originally created during the statewide drought, in the mid 1980’s, to ensure that landscaping for new residential development projects consists of low water irrigation systems and plantings. Although the threat of a severe water shortage does not appear to be eminent in the near future, several of the City’s residential planned developments, such as Seabreeze, were approved during the drought and therefore contain tract conditions that require the submittal of landscape and irrigation plans. As such, the City periodically receives a Landscape Plan Check and Inspection application for new residential construction. It is the Department’s routine practice to send such landscape and irrigation plans out to a landscaping consultant for review. Since the review and inspection of such landscape plans varies depending on the complexity and nature of a project, Staff believes that a fixed fee does not accurately reflect the associated costs. Therefore, Staff recommends that the fixed fee of $240.00 be replaced with a trust deposit fee. It is recommended that the initial trust deposit fee remain at $240.00. In the event the cost exceeds the initial deposit, Staff will request additional funds from the applicant, or if the cost does not amount to the initial deposit, a refund will be given to the applicant.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The amendments to the fee schedule, as set forth in the attached Resolution, will formally establish the fees necessary to offset the costs associated with the applications/permits described herein. The proposed fee schedule is attached to the Resolution for the Council’s consideration. If approved, the new fees would become effective sixty (60) days after the City Council adopts the Resolution.

As required by Government Code Section 6062(a), an 1/8 page notice was published in the Peninsula News on January 12 and January 17, 2002, giving notice of the proposed fee amendments, Furthermore, a notice was also posted at Ladera Linda, City Hall and Hesse Park. No letters or other inquiries from the public notice have been received by Staff.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution and fee schedule amending Resolution No. 92-68, by increasing specific geotechnical review fees and by establishing a trust deposit fee for a Landscape Plan Check and Inspection application.

FISCAL IMPACT

The proposed Fee Resolution amendment is intended to achieve cost recovery for applications/permits processed by the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Should the revisions be adopted by the Council, cost recovery for the applications/permits described herein will be achieved. Any potential burden on the City’s General Fund from the recommended changes would thereby be averted. However, if after incorporating the following fee changes, Staff finds that the processing costs incurred by the City typically exceed the required fees, further amendments to the Fee Resolution will be brought forward for Council consideration.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:

  1. Direct Staff to modify the fee amounts contained in the proposed Resolution, as deemed appropriate by the City Council; or,
  2. Reject the proposed Resolution, thereby leaving the Fee Resolution as it currently exists.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

  • Draft Fee Resolution
  • Draft Fee Schedule


RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92-68 (THE CITY’S FEE RESOLUTION) TO ESTABLISH A NEW FIXED FEE FOR GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGY REVIEW SERVICES, AND AMEND THE FIXED LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION FEE TO A TRUST DEPOSIT FEE.

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes previously conducted an analysis of its services in 1992 and determined the costs reasonably borne by the City in providing those services, the beneficiaries of those services, and the revenue produced by those paying fees and charges for services; and

WHEREAS, the City wishes to comply with both the letter and the spirit of Article XIII of the California Constitution and limit the growth of taxes; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to establish a policy of recovering the full costs reasonably borne by the City of providing special, limited services in response to requests that such services be provided, so that general taxes are not diverted from general City services that are provided to all residents of the City and general taxes are not utilized to subsidize unfairly and inequitably such special services; and

WHEREAS, on July 7, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-67 establishing its policy as to recovery of City costs and, more particularly, the percentage of City costs to be recovered from users of City services and directing Staff as to the methodology to be used for implementing said Resolution; and

WHEREAS, on July 2, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-68 establishing a schedule of fees and charges for City Services; and

WHEREAS, the City Council amended the schedule of fees and charges on November 25, 1996, by adoption of Resolution No. 96-100, on April 1, 1997, by adoption of Resolution No. 97-26, and on November 21, 2000, by adoption of Resolution No. 2000-81; and

WHEREAS, the City Council, on November 21, 2000, determined that a fixed fee for geotechnical review services will provide higher quality customer service and preclude Staff from having to review and process multiple billings for a single project or track trust deposit accounts; and

WHEREAS, the City Council recently renewed a service contract for geotechnical consulting services that included a request from the City’s consultant to increase the fee paid by the City to the Consultant by 3%; and

WHEREAS, in the course of reviewing the geotechnical consulting services contract it was noted that the service fee had not been increased since 1998; and

WHEREAS, after a year of processing a fixed geotechnical service fee, it has been determined that the fixed fees need to be increased slightly to offset the additional costs being incurred by the City in connection with services performed by its consultant for conducting site inspections and reviewing geotechnical reports; and

WHEREAS, based on the varied Staff time that is needed to review and process a Landscape Plan Check and Inspection application, and to accurately recover all City costs incurred in connection with the review of these applications, based on hourly rates, a proposed fee amendment requires the $240.00 fixed fee to be replaced by a Trust Deposit fee in the initial amount of $240.00; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66018, the specific fees to be charged for services must be adopted by the City Council by Resolution, after providing notice and holding a public hearing; and

WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for establishment of the aforementioned fees has been provided pursuant to Government Code Section 66016(a) and 6062(a); and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on January 31, 2002, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1:Based on the Staff Report submitted to the City Council for their January 31, 2002 meeting, the Schedule of Fees and Charges shall be amended to set forth the following fees to be computed, applied, and charged by the Planning Division, and to be collected by the City Finance Department for such service:

Geology:

Category 1 (site visit by City geologist)……………………………….$200.00
Category 2 (review of geotechnical reports)...……………………. $1,300.00
Category 3 (site visit and review of geotechnical reports)………..$1,500.00

Applications:

Landscape Plan Check and Inspection………………$240.00 Trust Deposit

(any unused portion will be refunded to the applicant, and the applicant
will be billed for any additional time or charges that are incurred by the City)

Section 2: Interpretation. This Resolution may be interpreted with more than one City department head in consultation with the City Manager. Should there be a conflict between two fees, then the lower dollar amount of the two shall be applied.

Section 3:Severability. If any portion of this Resolution is declared invalid or unconstitutional, then it is the intention of the City Council to have passed the entire Resolution and all its component parts, and all other sections of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 4:The attached fee schedule (Exhibit "A"), as hereby amended and adopted, sets forth the new and revised fees that have been approved by the City Council.

Section 5:Effective Date. This Resolution shall go into full force and effect 60 days after the City Council adoption, and shall be subject to the terms and conditions of Resolution No. 92-67, which sets forth policy with respect to recovery of costs.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 31st day of January, 2002.

 

________________________________
John McTaggart, Mayor

ATTEST:


_________________________________
Jo Purcell, City Clerk

State of California)
County of Los Angeles) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes)

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002-___ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on January 31, 2002.


__________________________
City Clerk



DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 31, 2002
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 92-68
AND AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS No. 96-10, No. 96-86,
No. 96-100, No. 97-26, 2000-81, AND 2002-__

APPLICATION TYPE

FEE

MINOR APPLICATIONS

Business License/Home Occupation

$12

Certificate of Compliance

$1,010

City Tree Review Permit

No Fee

Coastal Permit

(Hearing Officer)

Non-appealable

$470

Appealable

$580

Covenant Processing

$35

Covenant Termination

$35

Exotic Animal Permit

$20

Fences, Walls and Hedges

$310

Foliage Analysis

$110

Geologic

Reviews

Category 1

$200

Category 2

$1,300

Category 3

$1,500

Category 4

$300

Category 5

Trust Deposit
(initial amount to be determined by Staff)

Geologic Investigation Permit

$180
plus Security Deposit as determined by Staff

Grading

Minor: 20 to 50 cubic yards or 3’ to 5’ of cut or fill

$195

51 to 999 cubic yards or
51 to 4,999 cubic yards of remedial grading

$390
plus Trust Deposit (minimum initial deposit to be determined by Staff)

 

APPLICATION TYPE

FEE

Grading
(Continued)

1,000 to 9,999 cubic yards
or 5,000 to 9,999 cubic yards of remedial grading*

$520
plus Trust Deposit (minimum initial deposit to be determined by Staff)

10,000 to 99,999 cubic yards*

$740
plus Trust Deposit (minimum initial deposit to be determined by Staff)

100,000 cubic yards or greater*

$960
plus Trust Deposit (minimum initial deposit to be determined by Staff)

Ham Radio Antenna Permit**

$685

Landscape Plan Check and Inspection

$240 Trust Deposit

Large Domestic Animal Permit

Standard Permit

$20

Conditional Permit

$20

Large Family Day Care

$410

Lot Line Adjustment

2 to 5 lots

$430
plus Trust Deposit for City Engineer Review

6 or more lots

Trust Deposit
(minimum initial deposit to be determined by Staff)

Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis

$175

Parking Lot Permit

Temporary

$200

Permanent

$460

Planning Certification Letter

$110

Reversion to Acreage

$275
plus $15 per lot

Sign Permit
(Staff Review)

Temporary***

$65
(one or more)

Permanent

$110
plus $5 for each additional sign

*Considered a major application

**This permit type is required only if the antenna does not qualify for the Site Plan Review Process.

***A $50 refundable Security Deposit shall be collected for any Temporary Sign in the Public Right-of-way.

APPLICATION TYPE

FEE

Site Plan Review****

Minor Site Plan Review

$45

Addition / Accessory Structure**

$65

New Residence

$110

Second Unit

$110

Site Plan Review*****
(continued)

Antenna - ham radio

$110

Antenna - satellite dish

$260
(plus a Trust Deposit as determined by Staff for review of any required technical reports.)

Special Construction Permit

$290

Special Use Permit

$460

Temporary Vendor Permit

$65

Use / Interpretation Procedure

$380

MAJOR APPLICATIONS

Affordable Housing Feasibility Analysis

Trust Deposit -
Minimum initial deposit to be determined by staff

Coastal Permit (Planning Commission)

Nonappealable

$720******

Appealable

$1,150*****

Coastal Specific Plan Amendment

Initiation Request

$330

Application

Trust Deposit
(minimum initial deposit of $4,500)

Code Amendment

Initiation Request

$330

Application

Trust Deposit
(minimum initial deposit to be determined by Staff)

Conditional Use Permit

Revision to Existing CUP

$600

New CUP for pre-existing use

$600

****The fee for any staff level Site Plan Review that requires a site visit shall be $110.00 regardless of the type of proposal.

*****The fee for any staff level Site Plan Review that requires a site visit shall be $110.00 regardless of the type of proposal.

******If the Coastal Permit is filed in conjunction with other applications for concurrent processing, the fee shall be one half (1/2) of the stated fee.

APPLICATION TYPE

FEE

Conditional Use Permit (Continued)

New CUP

$2,400

Residential Planned Development

$2,400
(a Trust Deposit may also be required based on the complexity of the proposal)

Density Bonus Request

Trust Deposit
(minimum initial deposit of $2,000)

Encroachment Permit

Standard

$700

Encroachment Permit (continued)

Tract Entrance Observation Structures

Trust Deposit
(minimum initial deposit of $1,000)

Environmental Assessment

Initial Study / Negative Declaration

$1,230

Environmental Assessment

(continued)

Environmental Impact Report

Trust Deposit
(minimum initial deposit to be determined by Staff)

Extreme Slope Permit

$410

General Plan Amendment

Initiation Request

$330

Application

Trust Deposit -
Minimum initial deposit to be determined by Staff

Height Variation Permit

Staff Review

$1,000

Planning Commission Review

$1,260

Landslide Moratorium Exclusion

Trust Deposit -
Minimum initial deposit to be determined by Staff

Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit

Staff Review

$110

City Council

$730

Minor Exception Permit

$320

Miscellaneous Hearing

$260

Parcel Map

Tentative or Vesting Tentative

$2,820
plus Trust Deposit for City Engineer Review

Final

$500
plus Trust Deposit for City Engineer Review

Sign Permit (Planning Commission

Temporary

$370

Permanent

$540
plus $20 for each additional sign

 

APPLICATION TYPE

FEE

Specific Plan

Application

Trust Deposit
(minimum initial deposit to be determined by Staff)

Amendment

Trust Deposit
(minimum initial deposit of $4,500)

Tract Map

Tentative or Vesting Tentative

Trust Deposit
(minimum initial deposit of $9,900)

Final

Trust Deposit
(minimum initial deposit to be determined by Staff) plus Trust Deposit for City Engineer Review

Variance

$1,140

View Restoration Permit

$185 initial base
plus Trust Deposit
(minimum initial deposit to be determined by Staff)

Zone Change

Trust Deposit
(minimum initial deposit of $4,550)

MISCELLANEOUS

Data Entry

Electronic History File

$13
one time processing fee per property

Data Processing

$3
for each Planning application and building
permit issued

Document and Printing Services

$0.15 per page copied

Revisions and Amendments

Half of the permit fee for applications with a flat fee, or a Trust Deposit (as determined by Staff) for those applications which required, or would have required a Trust Deposit originally

Minor Application Appeals
(except Coastal Permits)

$700 per appellant

Major Application Appeals

$940 per appellant

Penalty Fee
(After the Fact Applications)

Double the application fee

Time Extensions

$100
or the amount of the original application fee if less than $100

Stamping Extra Plans

$25
Per set beyond those required for plan check


REVISED: JANUARY 31, 2002


REGULAR BUSINESS:





10. Proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget Process. (Evans)

Recommendation: Approve a budget process for review and adoption of the second year (Fiscal Year 2002-2003) of the current Two-Year Budget.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 BUDGET PROCESS

RECOMMENDATION

Approve a budget process for review and adoption of the second year (FY 2002-03) of the current Two-Year Budget.

BACKGROUND

For the first time, in early 1999 the City Council approved the preparation of a two-year budget. The budget period was July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2001. In June 1999 the Council adopted the first year of the two-year budget after extensive workshops and hearings. In June 2000 the Council adopted the second year of the budget after only one workshop session. In adopting the multi-year budget, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was consistent with other local governments with relatively small budgets that are heavily weighted toward recurring expenses. The primary advantage of adopting a two-year budget is forcing the staff and Council to think ahead further and make long-range plans for revenues and expenditures. A second advantage is saving of City Council and staff time that is required to prepare the budget and present it at numerous workshops and hearings, most of which are very lightly attended. A typical budget process starts in January and is not complete until June. For a City with only 42 employees, the level of effort required to do an annual budget completely dominates the four to five month period of preparation and presentation.

The success of the first multi-year budget led to the preparation of the current two-year budget in June 2001. The budget process involved three "budget outreach" workshops held at different locations throughout the City in February and March. These workshops provided residents an overview of where City revenues came from and how they were spent. Residents were encouraged to suggest new programs. In late March, the City Council spent all day on a Saturday in a goal-setting session with a facilitator. In April the Council hosted another all day Saturday budget policy session. The City Council heard a presentation of the preliminary budget document at an adjourned meeting in May and adopted the first year of the two-year budget after a public hearing at a regularly scheduled Council meeting in June.

DISCUSSION

The second year of the current two-year budget will guide City expenditures for the period of July 1, 2002 until June 30, 2002. It would be appropriate for the City Council to decide what process should be utilized to finalize the Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget.

City staff would like to utilize the existing two-year budget document with its existing narratives, charts and graphs and department operating budgets. We do not anticipate preparing a new budget document or initiating the full budget preparation and hearing process unless the City Council feels that a fresh start is required.

Staff believes that the following budget documents need to be reviewed by the City Council prior to adoption of the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget:

  1. An updated Capital Improvement Plan that reflects three different scenarios:
    1. The State does not reduce VLF backfill or take other City revenues.
    2. The State takes $800,000 (or ½) of City VLF revenue.
    3. The State takes $1,600,000 (all) of City VLF revenue.
  2. An updated 5-Year Financial Model (to be heard by the Finance Advisory Committee on March 13, 2002).
  3. Updated Fund Balance information.

Capital Improvement Plan

The capital improvement plan (CIP) is prepared and presented as part of the two-year budget. The CIP included in the current two-year budget is attached for information. The City Council has previously expressed an interest in re-visiting the CIP.

2001 Five Year Model (attached)

The attached 2001 Five Year Model has been updated to include the actual revenue, expenditures and fund transfers of FY 2001-02. It has also been updated to include the impact of FY 002-03 budget adjustments to date. No changes have been made to the underlying assumptions for future years.

Staff anticipates completion of the first draft of the 2002 Five Year Financial Model for presentation to the Finance Advisory Committee on March 13, 2002.

Upon completion of the Committee’s review, Staff anticipates presenting the 2002 Model to the City Council on or before the proposed Budget Policy Workshop. Staff will revise the spending plan to eliminate the deficit ending fund balances for the Environmental Excise fund and LLESS/COPS fund during the preparation of the 2002 Model.

In addition, staff believes the City Council should set a Budget Policy Workshop for April 30, 2002 to review the information described above, hear public testimony and give staff direction. At the Workshop, the staff will present reports on issues that the City Council or staff believe are not reflected in the current two-year budget. Council policy initiates should be made known to staff as soon as possible in order that they can be heard at the April 30, 2002 workshop.

Budget Policy Workshop

Budget policy issues are those significant new projects, programs or other unanticipated impacts to the budget that were not considered at the time the two-year budget was presented. One of the policy issues relates to employee cost of living wage increases and is normally associated with the March cost of living index. An unanticipated project, such as a failed roadway, or storm drain may also be presented to Council as a budget issue. This year the Council may have to deal with loss of revenues (VLF) as a policy issue. For the City Council’s information the staff report for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 budget (the second year of the initial two year budget) is attached as a sample of what the Council should anticipate.

The proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2002-03 will be presented at a public hearing on June 4, 2002 and may be adopted at the discretion of the Council. The City Code states that the City Council will adopt the budget prior to June 30th each year.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager

Cc: Capital Improvement Plan from the Current Two-Year Budget
2001Five-Year Financial Model
Budget Policy Staff Report (sample of previous year’s report)



11. Legislative Guidelines for 2002. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider adopting 2002 Legislative Guidelines.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE GUIDELINES FOR 2002

RECOMMENDATION

Consider adopting 2002 Legislative Guidelines.

BACKGROUND

The City Council has adopted a policy for Council involvement in Federal and State legislative advocacy. The policy, Policy Number 29, was adopted in 1995 and is attached to this staff report. Although the policy seems to have worked adequately over the past seven years, it does not allow the City to respond rapidly to requests to support or oppose legislation that may be before a committee or on the floor of the House or the Senate and needs immediate action on the part of supporters or opponents.

The City’s internal process for identifying, tracking and advocating its position on pending legislation should be synchronized to the fast-paced "legislation time clock." In accomplishing this goal, the Council may wish to provide staff with guidelines that allow them to prepare correspondence, e-mail and faxes advocating the City’s position on legislation. These positions will be consistent with the City’s legislative goals and the legislative positions of identified "reference organizations" (California Contract Cities, South Bay Cities Council of Governments and League of California Cities), except as otherwise noted in the guidelines. Deviations from positions of "reference organizations" should be decided by the full City Council.

DISCUSSION

Staff has prepared a sample of City of Rancho Palos Verdes "Legislative Guidelines for 2002." These guidelines reflect the City’s general positions opposing further grabs of traditional City revenues, opposing additional "unfunded mandates" and opposing legislation that erodes local control. On the next level, the guidelines specifically oppose reductions in VLF backfill or redistribution of property tax revenues that normally go to cities. Finally, the guidelines support the March ballot Park Bond initiative (Proposition 40). The guidelines are relatively general at this point, but should develop more completely as the State goes through its legislative process.

How we develop information about legislation:

Information about pending legislation is critical to legislative advocacy. The City can take advantage of the League of California Cities Priority Focus bulletin that comes out almost weekly when the legislature is in session; the League Grassroots network that has placed a legislative advocate for the South Bay in a Torrance office; the South Bay Cities Council of Governments that has established a legislative committee; and the California Contract Cities that also has a legislative committee as well as a network supported by staff from each of the Contract cities. The latest information on bills that may affect the City, or the south Bay, or contract cities or local government will be provided to the City Council in the weekly status report (Friday Report).

What the State is up to:

It is important for the City to track the legislative calendar and regularly monitor the status of important legislation. A calendar of legislative milestones for 2002 is attached. The Council should clearly understand that the Legislature convenes in early January, the Governor submits a budget by January 10th, the deadline for the introduction of bills is February 22nd, policy committees must make their reports by May 10th, the May Revise, an updated estimate of revenues and expenditures contained in the Governor’s budget, is prepared, and the budget is passed on June 15th. Bills must be passed by the Legislature before September 1st and the governor must sign or veto bills passed by each house by September 30, 2002.

FISCAL IMPACT

None associated with this report.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

  1. Legislative Guidelines for 2002 (draft)
  2. SBCCOG Legislative Agenda for 2002 (draft)
  3. Tentative State Legislative Calendar for 2002

PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)


(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)



12. Proposed Amendments to the Personnel Rules. (Petru)

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL RULES. (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING THE MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL RULES.

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PERSONNEL RULES

RECOMMENDATION

1) Adopt Resolution No. 2002 - ; amending the Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2002- ; amending the Management Personnel Rules.

BACKGROUND

Chapter 2.46 of the Municipal Code created a personnel system that allows the City to establish and administer a uniform process for dealing with personnel matters and to comply with applicable employment laws. As part of this system, Section 2.46.050 requires that Personnel Rules shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council. Further, Section 2.46.030(D) allows the City Manager to prepare and recommend revisions and amendments to these adopted rules.

The City has two different sets of Personnel Rules, one covering competitive service employees and the other for management employees. Simply put, competitive service employees include all hourly full-time and job-share employees. Management employees are "at will" employees and include the Department Heads and the Assistant City Manager. Part-time employees are not covered by the Personnel Rules, except for the Non-Discrimination Policy and Harassment Policy. Instead, the few rules that apply to part-time employees are covered by the City’s Administrative Instruction Manual, which is prepared and maintained by the City Manager.

The Competitive Service and Management Personnel Rules currently in use were adopted by the City Council on July 5, 1994. Since that time, the Council has amended the Competitive Service Employee Rules four times and the Management Employee Rules three times. The chart below summarizes the amendments that have been made to the current set of Personnel Rules:

Amendments to Personnel Rules Since July 5, 1994

Date

Competitive

Management

Amendment

10/18/94

Created Incentive (Bonus) Pay Program

07/18/95

Minor Amendments to "Leaves" Rule

03/11/96

Created Merit Pay System

04/21/98

 

Allowed for Job Share Positions


It has been nearly thirteen years since the City completed a comprehensive update to its Personnel Rules. Therefore, staff recently completed such a review of both sets of Personnel Rules and has identified several areas for potential updating or amendment. As is discussed in greater detail in the Discussion section below, some of the proposed changes are due to changes in state or federal laws. However, in most situations, the proposed changes presented themselves to staff in the course of administering the Rules over the last few years and are intended to clarify existing rules and procedures and/or provide consistency with other sections of the Personnel Rules.

DISCUSSION

Attached to this staff report are draft versions of the proposed amendments to the Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules and the Management Employee Personnel Rules. The proposed additions to the text are shown in underline text, while proposed deletions are shown in strikeout text. The reasons for each proposed amendment are discussed below:

Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules

Table of Contents (pages i through iv)

The section numbers and titles shown in underline text are brand new provisions that that have not previously appeared in these Personnel Rules. The specifics of each new provision are discussed below in the order they appear in the Rules.

Rule I, Definition of Terms (pages 1 and 2)

Section 5 – Day: Adds a new definition for the term "day" to clarify that it refers to a calendar day, as opposed to a work day or business day.

Section 6 – Evaluation Date: Clarifies the difference between an employee’s probationary evaluation (generally after six months of service in a new position) and their annual performance evaluation (after one year of service and annually thereafter). The current Definitions of Terms do not provide a clear distinction between the two types of performance evaluations.

Section 11 – Probationary Employee: Specifies that, in addition to new hires and promotional employee, existing employees who move to an equivalent job classification in another department of the City ("transfer employees") must serve a probationary period. The current Personnel Rules are silent in this regard.

Section 12 – Probationary Period: Specifies that the probationary period shall not be less than six months in length, as required by the Municipal Code. The current Personnel Rules refer the reader to the Municipal Code. With this addition, the Rules will be clearer and will not require the reader to refer to another document to find this piece of information.

Section 14 – Work Day: Adds a new definition of the term "work day" to mean any day when City Hall administrative offices are open for business.

Rule II, Exclusions (page 3)

The proposed amendments to this Rule are intended to clarify that the City’s Pregnancy Disability Leave, Family and Medical Leave and Violence in the Workplace provisions apply to part-time and temporary employees. Rather than adopt separate personnel rules for part-time and temporary employees, including this language in the Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules confirms that the City’s policies are in conformance with the requirements of state and federal law in this regard. As a follow-up item, staff will include the provisions of the City’s Pregnancy Disability Leave, Family and Medical Leave and Violence in the Workplace in the Administrative Instruction Manual, as has already been done for the City’s Non-Discrimination Policy. In addition, the proposed amendments to this Rule clarify that the City’s Non-Discrimination and Violence in the Workplace Policies applies to all City agents, not just competitive service employees.

Rule III, Classification Procedures (page 4)

Adds a new Section 4, Recruitment, to specify that recruitment and hiring shall follow procedures established by the City Manager. While this has been the practice of the City in the past, it was not referenced in the Personnel Rules. The City Manager’s office is currently working on a written set of procedures, which will be included in the Administrative Rules and Procedures Manual.

Adds a new Section 5, Veteran’s Preference System, in response to new state legislation that went into effect on January 1, 2002 (Government Code Section 50088). Under the new law, cities and counties are strongly encouraged to adopt hiring procedures that give veterans a slight edge in competing for positions in local government with other identically qualified applicants. Like many other cities that have already adopted similar procedures, staff is recommending that the veteran’s preference apply to entry level competitive service positions involving first-time employment with the City. City interview panels typically use a 20 to 25 point system for evaluate the qualifications of job applicants. With the new provision, applicants who request a veteran’s preference and provide timely proof of such status, will be awarded one or two additional points during this phase of the selection process. Therefore, if a situation arises where two candidates have identical qualifications for the job, the veteran will be given a slight advantage over the non-veteran applicant. The City is not obligated to enact such a procedure, but in that case, the Council is required to adopt a resolution stating the reasons why it has exempted itself. Staff and the City Attorney’s office has reviewed the requirements of the new law and our current recruitment procedures and believe that a veteran’s preference system can be easily incorporated into our current procedures. If the proposed amendment to the Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules is approved by the City Council, the written recruitment procedures mentioned in conjunction with the new Section 4 above will include the specific procedures to implement the veteran’s preference.

Rule IV, Probationary Period and Procedures (pages 5 and 6)

Section 4 – Procedures – Regular Appointment Following Probationary Period and Section 5 – Rejection Following Transfer or Promotion: Adds references to transfer employees serving probationary periods, in order to be consistent with the revisions to in Rule 1, Section 10 discussed above.

Rule V, Regular Compensation/Performance Evaluations (page 7)

Section 2 – Performance Evaluation: Adds a new section to this Rule to clarify that probationary employees shall receive a performance evaluation at the conclusion of their probationary period and that regular employees shall receive a performance evaluation after one year of service and annually thereafter. The difference between a probationary performance evaluation and an annual performance evaluation is unclear in the existing Rules, as previously discussed in the proposed revisions to Rule 1, Section 6.

Section 3 – Merit Advancement Within A Range: Adds a new subsection (a) to clarify that a probationary employee is not generally eligible for a pay increase at the completion of their probationary period. While this is consistent with past and current City practice, it is not specified in the existing Rules.

Rule VI, Overtime Compensation (page 9)

Section 1 – Work Schedule: Clarifies that employees cannot earn overtime pay or compensatory time off on the same day they use paid leave. For example, this would prevent the scenario of an employee coming in late and then working from 9:30 AM to 7:30 PM. Under the current Rules, an employee could use paid leave (sick, comp time, vacation, etc) for the two hours they "missed" in the morning and then earn overtime pay or comp time for the two hours they worked past 5:30 PM that evening. With the proposed revision, the employee would be paid at their regular rate for the nine hours they worked. Although it has not been abused in the past, this amendment is intended to close a loophole that currently exists in the Rules.

Rule VII, Leaves (page 11)

First Paragraph, subsection a (page 11): Adds language allowing a vacant position to be filled by an independent consultant, in addition to another employee in the same classification or a temporary employee as currently allowed by the Rules. While this is consistent with past and current City practice, the use of independent contractors is not specifically mentioned in the existing Rules. In addition, the reference to a "temporary part-time employee" has been eliminated because this term is inconsistent with other sections of the Rules that reference either temporary or part-time employees. The revision would now just refer to use of a temporary employee, which provides the most flexibility to the City.

Section 1– Vacation Leave, subsection a (page 11): Clarifies that vacation time earned by employees with more than 16 years of service with the City is capped at a maximum accrual rate of 160 hours per year.

Section 1– Vacation Leave, subsection d (page 12): Adds a reference to the City Manager being able to approve vacation leave requests to the first sentence of this subsection, thereby making the language consistent with the second sentence of the same subsection, which allows either the Department Head or the City Manager to approve such requests.

Section 1– Vacation Leave, subsection e (page 12): Adds a requirement that both the Department Head and the City Manager must approve employee requests to cash out vacation time that exceeds their maximum accrual level. Also adds a requirement that the employee submit their request no less than 30 days in advance of exceeding their maximum accrual in order to provide the City with adequate time to consider and process the request. Because such requests could potentially impact the City’s workforce needs and/or budget, City Manager approval is appropriate in this case.

Section 2 – Administrative Leave, subsection a (page 12): Converts the reference to seven of days of administrative leave granted each year to exempt employees to the equivalent of 62 hours, making the reference to hours (rather than days) consistent with other sections of the Rules pertaining to accrued leave.

Section 2 – Administrative Leave, subsection d (page 13): Specifies that this section only apply to exempt employees/probationary employees, consistent with the other references in this section.

Section 3 – Sick Leave, subsection b (page 13): Clarifies that all probationary employees, not just initial-hire employees, are eligible to use sick leave during their probationary periods.

Section 3 – Sick Leave, subsection d (page 13): Clarifies that employees must generally notify their supervisors if they are going to be out sick before 8:30 AM on the day that the leave will be used. The existing Rules are vague on this point. In addition to the City Manager, another proposed amendment would allow the Department Head to require written verification of the cause of the absence.

Section 3 – Sick Leave, subsection g (page 13): In addition to being able to use sick leave to care for an employee’s or spouse’s children who are ill, this amendment also allows an employee to take sick leave to care for an employee’s spouse and parents, or a spouse’s children and parents who are ill. This amendment is proposed in order to make the City’s Personnel Rules consistent with the requirements of AB 109 (Knox), which became effective in January 2000.

Section 4 – Wellness Leave (page 14): Converts the reference to one half day of wellness leave that can be earned each ten weeks for perfect attendance to the equivalent of 4 ½ hours, making the reference to hours (rather than days) consistent with other sections of the Rules pertaining to accrued leave.

Section 5 – Bereavement Leave (page 14): Clarifies that three days of bereavement leave may be taken per incident (death of an immediate family member), clarifies that probationary employees are eligible to take bereavement leave and makes the notification procedures consistent with other leave sections.

Section 6 – Jury Duty, subsection a (page 14): New language has been added to make the notification procedure for jury leave consistent with other leave sections.

Section 6 – Jury Duty, subsection d (page 15): Adds a reference to probationary employees to the second sentence of this subsection, thereby making the language consistent with the first second sentence of the same subsection.

Section 7 – Leave of Absence Without Pay, first paragraph (page 15): Corrects and clarifies the references to the City’s Pregnancy Disability Leave and Family and Medical Leave in the last sentence of the first paragraph of this section.

Section 7 – Leave of Absence Without Pay, subsection e (page 16): Expands the list of insurance premiums that an employee or probationary employee would be responsible for paying during a non-medical leave of absence without pay that is more than 30 days in length. In addition to health and life insurance, examples would include long-term disability and accidental death and dismemberment benefit premiums.

Section 7 – Leave of Absence Without Pay, subsection f (page 16): Clarifies that the physician’s certificate required to return to work from a medical leave of absence must be provided to the Personnel Officer. The Rules do not currently specify who must receive the certificate.

Section 8 – Pregnancy Disability Leave, subsection d (page 16): Currently, the Rules allow the City to request a medical certification. It is permissive rather than mandatory, and places the burden on the City to request the medical certification. The City is allowed to require a physician’s certificate as long as physician’s certificates are required to verify other temporary medical disabilities. There are several reasons why the City should adopt a mandatory rule: 1) to place an affirmative obligation on the employee to provide timely certification; 2) to avoid a charge that the City is using its discretion to request certification to request certification in a discriminatory manner against a particular employee; and, 3) to avoid a charge that the City’s request was not timely or that the consequences for failure to provide the certificate were not adequately disclosed. Therefore, staff proposes to add language to this section clarifying that requests for Pregnancy Disability Leave must be provided to the City Manager using a form provided by the City for such a purpose. Also adds new language to this section regarding recertification and what happens if the required certification is not submitted in a timely manner or not at all.

Section 8 – Pregnancy Disability Leave, subsection h (page 17): Adds a reference to timely return from a Pregnancy Disability Leave to be consistent with the changes to subsection d discussed above. Also modifies the language in the second sentence to refer to situation where an employee cannot be returned to her original position following such a leave. The current language is subjective as to cause, while the proposed language refers back to the exceptions provided by law, as referenced in the first paragraph of the subsection.

Section 8 – Pregnancy Disability Leave, subsection i (page 17): Eliminates the reference to "step in the salary range" and refers instead to an employee being reinstated to the same salary they received prior to their absence. This is consistent with City’s switch in 1996 from a salary step system to a merit pool/salary range system.

Section 10 – Paid Holiday Leave, subsection a (page 17): Clarifies that transfer employees are also eligible for paid holiday leave. Also clarifies that paid holiday leave taken during the winter break between December 24th and January 1st does not apply to non-work days (i.e. scheduled Fridays off) in addition to Saturdays and Sundays. This reference has been added to address the City’s 9/80 work schedule where employees have every other Friday off.

Section 10 – Paid Holiday Leave, subsection b (page 18): Clarifies that exempt probationary employees are also eligible for paid holiday leave. New language has also been added to give the City Manager discretion to provide exempt employees and exempt probationary employees with extra compensation or time off if they are required to work on a City holiday.

Section 10 – Paid Holiday Leave, subsection d (page 18): Adds a reference to probationary employees to the last line of this sentence, thereby making the language consistent with the first line of the same sentence.

Section 10 – Paid Holiday Leave, subsection h (page 18): Clarifies that regardless of the number of hours a nonexempt employee or nonexempt probationary employee works during the week when a holiday occurs, if they work on the holiday (the City’s July 4th Celebration is a prime example), they will still be paid at 1 ½ times their regular salary for that day. This new language ensures that an hourly employee will still be able to earn overtime pay when they work on a holiday if they happened to have worked less than 40 hours during that particular week.

Section 10 – Paid Holiday Leave, subsection i (page 18): This new subsection specifies that employees separating from the City are not entitled to be paid for an unused floating holiday. This is consistent with other sections of the Rules, such as sick and wellness leave.

Section 11 – Family and Medical Leave (pages 19 – 22): Adds references throughout this section to include probationary employees as being able to use Family and Medical Leave if they meet the other minimum qualifications. Subsection a also spells out the number months and hours of service required to be eligible for this type of leave in addition to the numerical reference, consistent with similar references in other sections of the Rules.

Section 11 – Family and Medical Leave, subsection c (page19): Currently, this section allows intermittent leave to be taken "under certain circumstances." However, the language fails to indicate how "certain circumstances" are to be determined. This amendment clarifies that intermittent leave may be taken under circumstances that are consistent with applicable laws. The City has little flexibility in denying intermittent leave if the employee’s attending doctor recommends it.

Section 11 – Family and Medical Leave, subsection j (page 20): For the same reasons discussed in Section 8 (Pregnancy Disability Leave), language has been added to this subsection clarifying that requests for Family and Medical Leave must be provided to the City Manager using a form provided by the City for such a purpose. New language has also been added regarding recertification and what happens if the required certification is not submitted in a timely manner or not at all. Item 5 under this subsection has been deleted because the City Attorney’s office has advised the City against requesting or accepting a medical diagnosis or detailed medical facts about an employee. Such paperwork would be very sensitive and would need to be handled separately from the City’s current personnel filing system. Eliminating this subsection will help the City to avoid being accused of improperly using this type of medical information.

Section 11 – Family and Medical Leave, subsection k (page 21): Adds a procedure for the City to request a second opinion in cases involving the employee’s own serious health condition. For the same reasons discussed above in subsection j, item k4 specifies that any medical facts disclosed by the health care provider should only relate to the employee’s ability to perform their job duties.

Section 11 – Family and Medical Leave, subsection m (page 21): New language has been added to this subsection to deal with the situation where the City is unable to return an employee to their original job following a Family and Medical Leave. For consistency, the proposed amendment is the same language that is currently used in Section 8 (Pregnancy Disability Leave).

Section 12 – Other Leaves (page 22): This new section would allow the City Manager to grant employees leaves that are not covered in this Rule, but are required by law. Examples include requests for leave to vote or to appear in court in connection with a domestic violence case. Because these occur infrequently, the new language would allow the City Manager to handle such requests on an as-needed basis.

Rule VIII, Worker’s Compensation and Unemployment Insurance (page 23)

Section 1 – Worker’s Compensation and Unemployment Insurance: Adds language stating that the City provides this insurance to all part-time employees, but not volunteers. While this is consistent with current City practice and in accordance with state law, it is not specifically mentioned in the existing Rules.

Section 1 – On-The-Job Injuries: Adds language that the Department Head or City Manager must be informed if an injury is suffered during working hours. The existing Rules do not specify to whom an injury must be reported. Other minor language changes relate to clarification of the written documentation required in conjunction with an on-the-job injury.

Rule IX, Employee Expenses (page 24)

Section 1 – Mileage and Parking Expenses: Specifies that employees will be reimbursed for mileage at the rate set by the Internal Revenue Service, instead of the City Council. Also specifies that, in addition to receiving reimbursement for mileage, employees can receive reimbursement for parking expenses when using their private automobile on City business. Both of these changes are consistent with current City practice. In subsection b, the use of terms (private automobile) has been made internally consistent and a reference has been added to a reimbursement procedure established by the City Manager (which is already in place).

Rule X, Termination Procedures (page 25)

Section 1 – Resignation (page 25): With the implementation of the 9/80 work schedule in 1994, the typical work day (Monday through Thursday) increased from 8 hours to 9 hours in length. In order to be consistent with the original intent that an employee cannot be absent without permission for more than one workday, this section has been modified to reflect the length of the current typical workday.

Section 2 – Layoff (page 25): Currently, the Council is limited to eliminating a competitive service position only in the interest of economy or due to a lack of necessity for the position. However, there may be other legitimate reasons to eliminate a position than are unforeseeable at this time. Therefore, language is proposed that will provide the City Council more flexibility to eliminate a competitive service position.

Section 2 – Layoff, subsection c (page 25): The term "classification" in the first sentence has been clarified to "job classification." In the same sentence, a reference has been added to allow promotional probationary employees and transfer probationary employees to request a lower job classification within the same series in the layoff unit. This proposed change would afford promotional and transfer employees, who have worked for the City more than six months, the same opportunities during a layoff as regular employees.

Section 3 – Retirement (page 23): Because the percentage of the employee’s contribution to CalPERS could change (up or down) over time, the reference to "the full 7%" contribution could be obsolete and self-contradictory. Eliminating the reference to 7% would eliminate this potential conflict. A reference has also been added to specify that, in addition to regular employees, the City will also pay probationary employee’s retirement contribution. The existing Rules excluded probationary employees, which was inconsistent with City practice. Also clarifies that the City participates in the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).

Rule XI, Grievance Procedures (page 27)

In several locations in this Rule, references to the grievance procedures also applying to probationary employees have been added and the term "business days" has been changed to "working days" in order to be consistent with other portions of the Rules.

Section 1 - Purpose of Grievance Procedure, subsection b4 (page 27): The City’s grievance procedures allow employees to file complaints in cases where discrimination has been alleged. The proposed changes to subsection b4 modify the list of protected status categories for which a discrimination complaint may be filed in order to be to be consistent with current state and federal law.

Section 3 - Formal Grievance Procedure (page 28): In cases where an employee has a grievance with their immediate supervisor, Rule XI, subsection 2b allows the employee to bypass the requirement for an informal discussion with their supervisor and to proceed to the formal grievance procedure. Therefore, the new language at the end of the sentence paragraph in Section 3 (Formal Grievance Procedure) will make this section consistent with subsection 2b.

Rule XII, Discipline Procedures (page 32)

Section 2 - Cause for Discipline, subsection bb (page 31): Adds the City Manager and Assistant City Manager to the list of people to which an employee cannot be disrespectful.

Section 3 - Types of Disciplinary Action, subsection b (page 32): Clarifies that written statements associated with a disciplinary action shall be placed in the employee’s personnel file.

Section 3 - Types of Disciplinary Action, subsection e (page 33): Eliminates the reference to a "salary step" and instead refers to "salary rate" in the event of a salary reduction as a result of a disciplinary action. The reference to a salary step was a relic referring to the City’s previous salary step system, which was eliminated in 1996 in favor of a merit pool/salary range system.

Section 5 - Appeal of Disciplinary Actions (page 33): Adds a reference in the first paragraph to allow an employee who has received a reduction in pay as part of a disciplinary action to appeal that decision on equal terms with employees who have received other types of discipline allowed by the Rules.

Section 7 - Hearing Procedure, subsection a (page 34): Corrects the title of "Deputy City Manager" to "Assistant City Manager" in the first sentence of this subsection.

Section 7 - Hearing Procedure, subsection b (page 34): Makes a grammatical change from "conductive" to "conducive" regarding the manner in which a discipline hearing shall be carried out.

Section 9 - Judicial Review (page 35): Clarifies that any legal action to challenge a disciplinary action must be filed within 90 calendar days following the City Manager’s decision. The current Rules do not currently distinguish between calendar days and working days.

Rule XIII, Non-Discrimination Policy (page 36)

Section 1 - Equal Employment Opportunity Statement (page 36): Similar to Section 1b4 of the Grievance Procedure discussed above, the list of protected status categories for which a discrimination complaint may be filed has been modified and expanded in order to be to be consistent with the requirements of current state and federal law.

Section 2 – Policy Against Harassment, Statement of Policy, subsection a (page 36): The same modification as described in Section 1 above.

Section 2 – Policy Against Harassment, Sexual Harassment, subsection b2 (page 37): The language of this subsection has been expanded to include a definition of "quid pro quo" sexual harassment and "hostile work environment," as defined by federal law.

Section 2 – Policy Against Harassment, Sexual Harassment, subsection b3 (page 37): Adds new language consistent with federal law specifying that an employee may be the victim of sexual harassment even if they are not the intended target.

Section 2 – Policy Against Harassment, Types of Harassment, subsection c1 (page 37): Similar to Section 1 above, the list of protected status categories for which a harassment complaint may be filed has been modified and expanded in order to be to be consistent with the requirements of current state and federal law.

Section 2 – Policy Against Harassment, Types of Harassment, subsection c3 (page 37): Modifies the language from "challenged" to "charged" because the word "challenged" implies that the claim is valid before it is even investigated. "Charged" is a more neutral term and is more appropriate in this context.

Section 2 – Policy Against Harassment, Complaint Resolution Procedure, subsection d1 (page 39): Adds a new introductory subsection that indicates the manner in which complaints may be filed, who may file a complaint and the City’s general policy regarding the manner in which complaints will be investigated. This information is currently lacking in the Rules.

Section 2 – Policy Against Harassment, Complaint Resolution Procedure, subsection d2 (page 39): Adds language providing the Assistant City Manager or City Manager with the additional option of assigning the investigation of a complaint to an outside investigator.

Section 2 – Policy Against Harassment, Complaint Resolution Procedure, subsection d4 (page 39): Adds a new subsection that imposes a duty on supervisors and Department Heads to immediately report any complaint to the party responsible for assuring that the investigation is done.

Section 2 – Policy Against Harassment, Complaint Resolution Procedure, subsection d5 (pages 39 & 40): Adds a new subsection specifying the procedures to be followed for complaints involving City Council members, Commission and Committee members and any other City officials. There are no such procedures contained in the existing Rules. The new language also gives explicit authority to the City Manager or City Attorney to retain an outside investigator without having to obtain additional authority from the City Council.

Section 2 – Policy Against Harassment, Complaint Resolution Procedure, Formal Procedure, subsection d7 (page 40): By law, the City does not have a choice as to whether or not to investigate a harassment complaint. While the City is obligated to investigate every complaint that is received, the City does have the sole discretion to determine the extent of the investigation. Therefore, the language in the third sentence of this subsection has been modified to be consistent with current law.

Section 2 – Policy Against Harassment, Complaint Resolution Procedure, Formal Procedure, subsection d7ii(d) (page 41): The current Rules state that a copy of the written complaint investigation report shall be furnished to the complainant, the alleged harasser and the City Manager. Because the written report may contain sensitive or privileged information, the proposed amendment would only require that the parties involved be informed of the results of the investigation.

Section 2 – Policy Against Harassment, subsection d7iv (page 41): Simplifies the reference to "the City’s Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules" to "these Rules."

Rule XIV, Violence in the Workplace (pages 43 and 44)

Sadly, in recent years, we have seen an escalation in the number of incidents of workplace violence across the country. As a public agency, the City is vulnerable not only to incidents that could involve our employees, but that could also involve our consultants, vendors, contractors, residents, volunteers and members of the general public who come to City Hall and our park sites. For many years, the City has provided an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to help employees who are experiencing difficulties in their professional and personal lives to help get at the roots of workplace violence. In addition, all City employees were recently required to attend a "Violence in the Workplace" training session sponsored by the CJPIA. At this session, employees learned about the various types of workplace violence, how to recognize behavior that may indicate a potential problem and what to do if they witness an incident of inappropriate or dangerous behavior. To further the City’s commitment to providing a safe work environment for our employees and customers, staff is recommending that a new policy be added to the Personnel Rules to specifically address the City’s strategy to prevent violence in the workplace. The new policy clearly states the City’s prohibition on workplace violence, defines what constitutes workplace violence and establishes reporting, investigation and discipline procedures. As is required for the City’s existing Policy regarding Sexual Harassment, following the adoption of this new Rule, employees will be provided with a copy of the new policy and will be required to sign a statement that they have read and understand the provision contained therein.

Rule XV, Miscellaneous Procedures (page 45)

Section 4 – Reinstatement (page 44): Allows the City Manager to reinstate probationary employees who have left the City’s employ less than one year prior to seeking reinstatement. The current Rules only apply to regular employees.

Section 7 – Management Prerogatives (page 46): Adds reference to this section also applying to probationary employees.

Section 8 – Incentive Program (page 46): Adds reference to this section also applying to probationary employees.

Section 9 – Shared Full-Time Positions (pages 47 and 48): When job sharing was first established in 1998, staff attempted to calculate the accrual rates for vacation leave applied to these positions in terms of fractional hours worked per month. However, in the course of trying to apply these accrual rates to actual job share employees, staff determined that using a percentage of the hours worked per month was a much more accurate and equitable way of calculating the accrual. Therefore, the references in this section have been changed from fractional hours worked to a percentage of the hours worked per month. As discussed above in Rule VII regarding vacation leave for full-time employees, a reference has been added clarifying that vacation time earned by job share employees with more than 16 years of service with the City is capped at a maximum accrual rate of 80 hours per year. As also discussed above in Rule VII for full time employees, a reference has been added which will allow the City Manager to grant job share employees leaves that are not covered in this Rule, but are required by law, such as leave to vote or to appear in court.

Management Employee Personnel Rules

Although the Management Employee Personnel Rules by their nature contain fewer Rules than the Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules, most of the Rules common to these two documents share identical language. Therefore, unless discussed below, the proposed amendments to the attached set of Management Employee Personnel Rules are materially the same as the ones previously described and discussed for the Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules. Only the changes that are unique to the Management Personnel Rules are discussed below:

Rule I, Exempt Employees (page 1)

Adds a new language to this Rule that allows the City Manager to take any necessary actions to preserve a management employee’s exempt (for purposes of overtime) status. The current Rules are silent in this regard.

Rule V, Leaves (page 5)

Second Paragraph, subsection b (page 5): The definition of "City Manager" in Rule II, Section 3 includes a provision for "his/her designee" to act on behalf of the City Manager, and therefore, does not need to be restated in this subsection.

Section 1 – Vacation Leave, subsection d (page 6): Adds a new provision giving the City Manager discretion to allow management employees to cash out up to 50% of accrued annual vacation leave each year. Even though the Rules allow up two years worth of accumulated vacation leave, sometimes management staff has difficultly using all of their vacation leave due to their heavy workloads and the workforce needs of the City. This problem becomes compounded the longer a management employee works for the City and earns vacation leave at a higher rate. Rather than penalize management staff for being willing to put in more hours at work or requiring them to cash out vacation time only once they reach the maximum accrual and prevented from earning additional vacation time, this amendment would allow the City Manager more flexibility in dealing with the management staff and the work force needs of the City.

Section 10, Paid Holiday Leave, subsection c (page 11): Similar to the new language added to Rule I discusses above, a new sentence has been added to allow the City Manager to preserve a management employee’s exempt status when applying this section of the Rules.

Rule VII, Employee Expenses (page 17)

Section 1 – Mileage and Parking Expenses: The City currently provides a monthly car allowance to Department Heads and the Assistant City Manager. Ever since it was first established in 1999, this allowance has been approved by the City Council as part of the Resolution that establishes salary ranges for each job position in the City. This resolution is typically adopted at the same time the City Council adopts the annual City Budget in June of each year. With the establishment of the monthly allowance, this section needs to be modified so that an employee cannot seek mileage reimbursement in addition to receiving the monthly car allowance. However, if the monthly allowance were discontinued in the future, the Rules would allow for mileage reimbursement under that scenario.

CONCLUSION

Although the City has made some specific amendments to the Competitive and Management Employee Personnel Rules, a comprehensive update has not been undertaken since the current Rules were re-adopted in 1994. Due to changes in state and federal laws, but most particularly due to issues that have arisen during the course of applying the Rules over the years, staff and the City Attorney’s office have completed a comprehensive review of these two documents. Based on the review, a variety of revisions have been proposed which will clarify existing procedures, improve the City’s ability to apply the Rules and address emerging issues relating to human resources and the workforce needs of the City.

FISCAL IMPACT

In general, the proposed amendments to the Competitive and Management Personnel Rules will not result in any direct fiscal impact to the City. The amendments and clarifications are intended to save staff time and effort in implementing the City’s personnel system and resolving potential conflicts. Updated Rules will also help the City to protect and defend itself against related litigation. There may be a small increase in cost related to allowing management employees to cash out a certain portion of their accrued vacation leave. However, because this provision would only apply to six employees (five Department Heads and the Assistant City Manager) and not all of these employees may avail themselves of this provision, the cost is not expected to be significant.

ALTERNATIVES

1.Receive and file this report.

2.Provide staff with direction to revise the proposed amendments to the Personnel Rules and continue the matter to a date certain.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Resolution No. 02- ; (Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules)
Resolution No. 02- ; (Management Employee Personnel Rules)
Municipal Code Chapter 2.46 (Personnel System)



RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING REVISIONS TO THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL RULES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 94-56, 94-88, 95-72 AND 96-20.

WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed under the provisions of Chapter 2.46 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to adopt rules for the administration of the personnel system created in said Municipal Code Chapter; and,

WHEREAS, the objectives of these rules are to facilitate efficient and economical services to the public and to provide for an equitable system of personnel management; and,

WHEREAS, at the same time, within the limits of administrative feasibility, considerable latitude shall be given to the City Manager in the interpretation and application of these rules so that they are applied equitably; and,

WHEREAS, from time to time these rules must be revised due to relevant changes in federal and state personnel law.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Approves and establishes the Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules, attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part thereof.

Section 2: Rescinds Resolution Nos. 94-56, 94-88, 95-72 and 96-20, as well as any other resolutions and policies not consistent with the Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules, attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part thereof.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on January 31, 2002.

 

__________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


_____________________________
CITY CLERK

State of California)
County of Los Angeles) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes)

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002- ; was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on January 31, 2002.


__________________________
City Clerk



RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING REVISIONS TO THE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL RULES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 94-57, 94-88 AND 95-73.

WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed under the provisions of Chapter 2.46 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to adopt rules for the administration of the personnel system created in said Municipal Code Chapter; and,

WHEREAS, the objectives of these rules are to facilitate efficient and economical services to the public and to provide for an equitable system of personnel management; and,

WHEREAS, at the same time, within the limits of administrative feasibility, considerable latitude shall be given to the City Manager in the interpretation and application of these rules so that they are applied equitably; and,

WHEREAS, from time to time these rules must be revised due to relevant changes in federal and state personnel law.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Approves and establishes the Management Employee Personnel Rules, attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part thereof.

Section 2: Rescinds Resolution Nos. 94-57, 94-88 and 95-73, as well as any other resolutions and policies not consistent with the Management Employee Personnel Rules, attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part thereof.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on January 31, 2002.


__________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


_____________________________
CITY CLERK

State of California)
County of Los Angeles) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes)

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002- ; was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on January 31, 2002.

 

__________________________
City Clerk


CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

COMPETITIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEE

PERSONNEL RULES

ADOPTED:
JANUARY 31, 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

RULE I DEFINITION OF TERMS
1
     
RULE II EXCLUSIONS 3
     
RULE III CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES 4
     
  SECTION 1 - PREPARATION OF CLASSIFICATION PLAN
4
  SECTION 2 - ALLOCATION OF POSITIONS
4
  SECTION 3 – CLASS SPECIFICATIONS
4
  SECTION 4 – RECRUITMENT
4
  SECTION 5 – VETERAN’S PREFERENCE SYSTEM
4
     
RULE IV PROBATIONARY PERIOD AND PROCEDURES 5
     
  SECTION 1 – OBJECTIVE OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD
5
  SECTION 2 – DURATION OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD
5
  SECTION 3 – TERMINATION OF INITIAL HIRE PROBATIONARY
EMPLOYEE
5
  SECTION 4 – PROCEDURES – REGULAR APPOINTMENT FOLLOWING PROBATIONARY PERIOD
5
  SECTION 5 – REJECTION FOLLOWING PROMOTION
6
     
RULE V REGULAR COMPENSATION/ PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS 7
     
  SECTION 1 – INITIAL EMPLOYMENT
7
  SECTION 2 – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
7
  SECTION 2 3 – MERIT ADVANCEMENT WITHIN A RANGE
7
  SECTION 3 4 – PROMOTIONAL ADVANCEMENT
8
  SECTION 4 5 – ACTING PAY
8
     
   
Page
   
  SECTION 5 6 – TOP OF THE RANGE
8
     
RULE VI OVERTIME COMPENSATION 9
     
  SECTION 1 – WORK SCHEDULE
9
  SECTION 2 – OVERTIME COMPENSATION
9
  SECTION 1 – COMPENSATORY TIME
9
     
RULE VII LEAVES
10
     
  SECTION 1 – VACATION LEAVE
10
  SECTION 2 – ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
12
  SECTION 3 – SICK LEAVE
13
  SECTION 4 – WELLNESS LEAVE
14
  SECTION 5 – BEREAVEMENT LEAVE
14
  SECTION 6 – JURY DUTY
14
  SECTION 7 – LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT PAY
15
  SECTION 8 – PREGNANCY DISABILITY LEAVE
16
  SECTION 9 – MILITARY LEAVE
17
  SECTION 10 – PAID HOLIDAY LEAVE
17
  SECTION 11 – FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
19
  SECTION 12 – OTHER LEAVE
22
     
RULE VIII WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
23
     
  SECTION 1 – WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE
23
  SECTION 2 – ON-THE-JOB INJURIES
23
     
   
Page
     
RULE IX EMPLOYEE EXPENSES
24
     
  SECTION 1 – MILEAGE AND PARKING EXPENSES
24
     
RULE X TERMINATION PROCEDURES 25
     
  SECTION 1 – RESIGNATION
25
  SECTION 2 – LAYOFF
25
  SECTION 3 – RETIREMENT
26
     
RULE XI GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES 27
     
  SECTION 1 – PURPOSE OF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
27
  SECTION 2 – INFORMAL DISCUSSION OF GRIEVANCE
28
  SECTION 3 – FORMAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
28
  SECTION 4 – GENERAL PROCEDURES
28
     
RULE XII DISCIPLINE PROCEDURES 30
     
  SECTION 1 – AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE
30
  SECTION 2 – CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
30
  SECTION 3 – TYPES OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
32
  SECTION 4 – DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
33
  SECTION 5 – APPEAL OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
33
  SECTION 6 – TIME OF HEARING
34
  SECTION 7 – HEARING PROCEDURE
34
  SECTION 8 – FINALITY OF CITY MANAGER’S DECISION
35
  SECTION 9 – JUDICIAL REVIEW
35
     
   
Page
     
RULE XIII NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY
36
     
  SECTION 1 – EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT
36
  SECTION 2 – POLICY AGAINST HARASSMENT
36
     
RULE XIV VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE 43
     
  SECTION 1 – STATEMENT OF POLICY
43
  SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS
43
  SECTION 3 – REPORTING PROCEDURES
43
  SECTION 4 – INVESTIGATION
44
  SECTION 5 – DISCIPLINE OR OTHER ACTION
44
     
RULE XIVXV MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURES 45
     
  SECTION 1 – TRANSFERS
45
  SECTION 2 – RECLASSIFICATION
45
  SECTION 3 – RE-EMPLOYMENT LIST
45
  SECTION 4 – REINSTATEMENT
45
  SECTION 5 – WRITTEN NOTICE
45
  SECTION 6 – OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT
46
  SECTION 7 – MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES
46
  SECTION 8 – INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
46
  SECTION 9 – SHARED FULL-TIME POSITIONS
47

RULE I

DEFINITION OF TERMS

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 03/15/96, 04/21/98 and 01/31/02)

Whenever used in these Personnel Rules, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:

SECTION 1 – CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT/SENIORITY: Total full-time spend in the employ of the City, including all days of attendance at work, and approved leaves of absence whether paid or non-paid, but shall not include unauthorized absences, time spent between employment with the City, suspensions or layoffs of more than thirty (30) days.

SECTION 2 – CITY: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

SECTION 3 – CITY MANAGER: The duly appointed City Manager of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or his/her designee.

SECTION 4 – CLASSIFICATION: A position or positions assigned to the same job title.

SECTION 5 – DAY: Unless otherwise indicated, day means calendar day.

SECTION 5 6 – EMPLOYEE: A competitive service employee as defined in Municipal Code Section 2.26.040 and compensated through the City payroll who is either: 1) regularly scheduled to work forty (40) or more hours per week; or, 2) who shares an existing full-time position with another employee so that the combination of hours that each employee works totals forty (40) or more hours per week, and who has successfully completed the probationary period as hereinafter provided in these Rules. Employee does not include election officials, independent contractors, part-time or temporary employees or volunteers.

SECTION 6 7 – EVALUATION DATE: The date in which an employee is scheduled to receive his/her performance review.

(a)The date on which a probationary employee has completed not less than six (6) months of service within a job classification his/her probationary period,

(b) The date on which a regular employee has completed one (1) year of service within a job classification and annually thereafter.

(c) The evaluation a date shall be adjusted as required for any break in service, transfer or promotion or a date adjusted in accordance with the merit increase schedule outlined in Rule V. and annually thereafter.

SECTION 7 8 – EXEMPT EMPLOYEE: An employee whose duties and salary exempt him/her from the overtime pay provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

SECTION 8 9 – NONEXEMPT EMPLOYEE: An employee who is subject to the overtime pay and compensatory time off provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

SECTION 9 10 – PERSONNEL OFFICER: The City Manager shall serve as the Personnel Officer as outlined in Municipal Code Section 2.46.030.

SECTION 10 11 – PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE: An employee who is employed with the City during his/her initial-hire, transfer or promotional probationary period, or extension thereof.

(a) An initial-hire probationary employee is an employee who (1) is serving a probationary period, and (2) has not previously been employed by the City, or (3) has previously been employed by the City but who is re-employed after a break in service.

(b) A transfer probationary employee is a City employee who has been transferred to an equivalent job classification in different department and who is serving a probationary period.

(c) A promotional probationary employee is a City employee who has been promoted to a higher job classification requiring different skills and who is serving a probationary period.

SECTION 11 12 – PROBATIONARY PERIOD: A period of time not less than six (6) months as defined in Municipal Code Section 2.46.070, which is an integral part of the examination, recruiting, testing and selection process of employment. During the probationary period, an employee is required to demonstrate his/her fitness for the position to which he/she is tentatively appointed, including promotional or transfer appointments, by actual performance of the duties of the position.

SECTION 12 13 – TERMINATION: The cessation of employment with the City for non-disciplinary reasons such as, but not limited to, layoff, resignation, or failure to successfully complete the initial-hire probationary period.

SECTION 14 – WORK DAY: Any day, Monday through Friday, expect holidays, when City Hall administrative offices are open for business.

SECTION 13 15 – WORK WEEK: A regular schedule of forty (40) hours in a seven day period, the scheduling of which may vary from time to time based on the workforce needs of the City as determined by the City Manager.

RULE II

EXCLUSIONS

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 01/31/02)

With the exception of Rule VII, Section 7 and 11 (PREGNANCY DISABILITY LEAVE and FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE), and Rule XIII (NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY) and Rule XIV (VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE), employees not included in the competitive service as defined in Municipal Code Section 2.46.040, as well as independent contractors, part-time and temporary employees and volunteers are excluded from these Rules.

In addition to competitive service employees, Rule VI, Section 7 and 11 (PREGNANCY DISABILITY LEAVE and FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE) and Rule XIV (VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE) shall apply to part-time employees and temporary employees.

Rule XIII (NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY) and Rule XIV (VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE) shall apply to all City agents, employees, including probationary, part-time, managers, supervisors and job applicants.

RULE III

CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – PREPARATION OF CLASSIFICATION PLAN: The City Manager shall prepare, maintain and amend the classification plan. The classification plan shall contain job specifications for job classifications for positions covered by these Rules.

SECTION 2 – ALLOCATIONS OF POSITIONS: The City Manager shall allocate every competitive service position in the City service to one of the classifications established by the classification plan and shall allocate all positions substantially similar to the same classification.

SECTION 3 – CLASS SPECIFICATIONS: The classification plan shall consist of job specifications, which shall set forth a descriptive title, typical duties and responsibilities, essential functions of the position, and the training, experience, and other qualifications necessary or desirable for the effective performance of each position within a classification.

SECTION 4 – RECRUITMENT: Recruitment and appointment to positions within the classified service shall be accomplished according to procedures established by the City Manager, consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code, these Rules and applicable law.

SECTION 5 – VETERANS’ PREFERENCE SYSTEM: The recruitment procedures utilized for entry level positions involving first-time employment within the classified service of the City shall include a Veterans’ Preference System giving preference to a veteran over other identically qualified applicants. Normally, this will involve the awarding of one or more veteran credit points to a qualified veteran who meets the minimum requirements of the position and who passes all portions of the testing or examination process. The procedures may require applicants to request veterans’ preference consideration in conjunction with their applications and to timely submit documents or other proof sufficient to determine eligibility. The procedures, requirements and definitions used in the Veterans’ Preference System shall be consistent with those provided in any applicable law involving Veterans Preference Systems for California cities.

RULE IV

PROBATIONARY PERIOD AND PROCEDURES

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – OBJECTIVE OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD: The probationary period shall be regarded as part of the selection and evaluation process. The City shall closely observe the probationary employee’s work performance during the probationary period.

SECTION 2 – DURATION OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD: All initial-hire and promotional appointments shall be tentative and subject to a probationary period of not less than six (6) months actual service. The City Manager may extend a probationary period up to six (6) additional months of actual service. Wherever possible, the City Manager shall give the probationary employee written notice of the extension of the probationary period ten (10) days before its expiration. The written notice shall state the reason for the extension. Failure to give the probationary employee notice of the extension prior to the expiration of the initial probationary period shall automatically extend the period. The length of the automatic extension without a written notice shall not exceed a period over thirty (30) days.

SECTION 3 – TERMINATION OF INITIAL HIRE PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE: During or at the conclusion of the initial-hire probationary period, or any extension thereof, the City Manager, after consultation with the probationary employee’s Department head, where practical, may terminate an initial hire probationary employee without cause, and without a hearing or right of appeal.

SECTION 4 – PROCEDURES – REGULAR APPOINTMENT FOLLOWING PROBATIONARY PERIOD: The City Manager shall be notified in writing two (2) weeks prior to the expiration of any probationary period. After consultation with the probationary employee’s Department Head and immediate supervisor, the City Manager shall determine whether:

(a) The initial-hire probationary employee shall become a regular employee,

(b) The initial-hire probationary employee shall be terminated or discharged,

(c) The transfer probationary employee’s transfer shall be confirmed,

(d) The transfer probationary employee’s transfer shall be rejected, or

(e) The promotional probationary employee’s promotion shall be confirmed,

(f) The promotional probationary employee’s promotion shall be rejected, or

(g) The employee’s initial, transfer or promotional probationary period shall be extended.

SECTION 5 – REJECTION FOLLOWING TRANSFER OR PROMOTION: Any probationary employee rejected during or at the conclusion of a probationary period following a transfer or promotional appointment shall be reinstated to the position from which the employee was promoted unless (a) charges are filed and the employee is dismissed from employment in the manner provided in these Rules, (b) there is no vacancy in such position, or (c) the employee is terminated from employment due to a layoff or other basis. If there is no vacancy, the employee may request to be placed on a reemployment list.

RULE V

REGULAR COMPENSATION/PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 03/15/96 and 01/31/02)

Compensation shall be determined from a salary schedule of ranges established by Resolution of the City Council. Each range spread shall be approximately thirty percent (30%) from the bottom of the range to the top of the range. During the annual budget deliberations, the City Council shall establish a pool of funds to be used by the City Manager for employee merit increases if general fund reserves are estimated to be sufficient to cover the cost associated with such a merit pool.

SECTION 1 – INITIAL EMPLOYMENT: The rate of compensation for initial employment in any classification shall be determined by the City Manager at his/her sole discretion based upon the experience, education, skills and ability of the employee.

SECTION 2 – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: A probationary employee shall receive a probationary performance evaluation at the conclusion of the probationary period, or any extension thereof. Each regular employee shall receive a performance evaluation after completing one (1) year of service within a job classification and annually thereafter. The evaluation date shall be adjusted as required in Rule I by any break in service, transfer or promotion.

SECTION 2 3 – MERIT ADVANCEMENT WITHIN A RANGE: The only reason for advancement within a range shall be meritorious performance in an employee’s assigned duties:

(a) Except as allowed in this section, probationary employees will not be eligible for merit advancement at the conclusion of the probationary period.

(b) Meritorious performance shall be determined by the overall rating on the employee’s performance evaluation.

(c) Merit increases shall be based on meritorious service and granted only if sufficient funding is available within the City Manager’s merit pool. Granted increases shall be effective on the same day in which the employee’s evaluation date falls, whether or not the performance evaluation is conducted on the evaluation date.

(d) An employee may be advanced within his/her range in accordance with the merit pay program determined annually by the City Manager.

(e) All proposed advancements shall be recommended by the Department Head and approved by the City Manager before becoming effective. The City Manager shall make a final determination on all proposed merit increases based upon the overall rating on the employee’s evaluation, the Department Head’s recommendation and the funds available in the City Manager’s merit pool.

(f) When an employee demonstrates exceptional ability and proficiency, such employee may be advanced within his/her range with the approval of the City Manager, in his/her sole discretion, within available funding, following recommendation by the Department Head, without regard to the minimum length of service provisions contained in this section. Advancements under this section shall not change the employee’s regular evaluation date.

SECTION 3 4 – PROMOTIONAL ADVANCEMENT: When an employee is promoted from employment in one classification to employment in a classification assigned a higher range, advancement shall be to a level within the higher classification as will accord such employee an increase of at least five percent (5%) over his/her current rate of compensation, provided that the salary does not exceed the maximum of the range.

SECTION 4 5 – ACTING PAY: An employee who, by written assignment by his/her Department Head or the City Manager, performs the duties of a position with a higher salary classification than that in which he/she is regularly employed, shall receive compensation specified for the position to which he/she is assigned if he/she performs the duties for a period of one (1) calendar month or more. The employee shall be compensated at a level within the higher classification as will accord such employee an increase of at least 5 percent (5%) over his/her current rate of compensation, provided that the salary does not exceed the maximum of the range. Such compensation shall be retroactive to the first day of the assignment through the duration of the assignment.

SECTION 5 6 – TOP OF THE RANGE: In no case shall an employee’s regular salary exceed the maximum of the range established by Resolution of the City Council.

RULE VI

OVERTIME COMPENSATION

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 07/18/95 and 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – WORK SCHEDULE: When necessary to perform essential work, nonexempt employees and nonexempt probationary employees may be required to work at a time other than during, or in excess of, forty (40) hours in the work week.

(a) Overtime shall be defined as any combination of actual hours worked and paid vacation leave, compensatory time and sick leave which exceeds forty (40) hours in any work week, except that overtime or compensatory time shall not be earned on the same work day that an employee uses paid leave.

(b) Work in excess of forty (40) hours in the workweek requires written approval of the nonexempt employee’s Department Head or the City Manager. Whenever possible, the employee shall obtain the Department Head’s or the City Manager’s written approval in advance.

SECTION 2 – OVERTIME COMPENSATION: Nonexempt employees and nonexempt probationary employees shall receive overtime compensation or compensatory time off in accordance with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, nonexempt employees and nonexempt probationary employees shall be paid one and one-half (1 ½) times their regular hourly rate of pay or receive compensatory time off at one and one half (1 ½) hours for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in the work week.

SECTION 3 – COMPENSATORY TIME: Nonexempt employees and nonexempt probationary employees may elect to be credited with compensatory time off in lieu of paid overtime at the time such overtime is recorded. Such compensatory time shall be at the rate of one and one half (1 ½) hours for each hour of overtime worked. Compensatory time may not be accumulated to exceed forty (40) hours.

(a) The taking of all compensatory time off shall first be approved by the nonexempt employee’s or nonexempt probationary employee’s Department Head or the City Manager and shall be granted in accordance with the work force needs of the City and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

(b) Compensatory time may be used for medical appointments.

(c) Compensatory time may be used for pregnancy disability leave and other leave provided pursuant to the federal and California family and medical leave statutes.

(d) Upon termination or dismissal from employment, employees and probationary employees shall be paid for accumulated compensatory time up to a maximum amount which may be accumulated under the provisions of these Rules, in accordance with federal and state law.

RULE VII

LEAVES

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 07/18/95 and 01/31/02)

(a) Time spent by an employee on an approved paid leave shall not be construed as a break in service or employment, and rights accrued at the time the leave is granted shall be retained by the employee. Additionally, a leave of absence, with pay or without pay, granted to any employee shall not create a vacancy in the position. For the duration of any such leave of absence, the duties of the position may be performed by another employee from the classified service on an acting assignment, an independent consultant or a temporary part-time employee, provided that any person employee so assigned shall possess the minimum qualifications for such position.

(b) Except as otherwise permitted by law, all requests for leave shall be in writing, and shall be sent to the City Manager or his/her designee. The request shall include the expected start and ends dates of the leave, and any medical certifications required by the provisions of this Rule. An employee shall provide as much advance notice of the need for leave as practicable. Generally, when the need for the leave is foreseeable, the employee shall try to provide at least ten (10) days’ notice prior to the commencement of the leave. Failure to provide advance notice of the need for leave may be grounds for delaying the start of the leave.

SECTION 1 – VACATION LEAVE:

(a) Employees are entitled to accrue paid vacation leave under the following schedule:

Length of Employment Vacation Accrual Rates
Beginning of 1st month through 2 years 6.67 hours per month
Beginning of 3rd year through 5 years 8 hours per month
Beginning of 6th year through 15 years 10 hours per month
Beginning of 16th year and more 8 additional hours per year for each year of service up to a maximum of 160 hours per year

(b) After completion of the initial-hire probationary period, the employee will be credited with vacation leave earned during the probationary period. The employee shall be entitled to take such leave upon the completion of the initial-hire probationary period or extension thereof. However, an initial-hire probationary employee may utilize accrued vacation leave prior to the completion of the probationary period with the written approval of the City Manager.

(c) Vacation leave may be accumulated to a maximum of two year’s worth of accrued vacation leave. Once an employee reaches the maximum vacation leave which may be accumulated, the employee shall cease to accrue any further vacation leave until the amount accumulated falls below the maximum.

(d) The scheduling of vacation leave must be approved in advance by the employee’s Department Head or the City Manager. Employees shall submit a written request to schedule vacation leave to the employee’s Department Head or the City Manager within a reasonable amount of time prior to the desired date and shall may be granted in accordance with the work force needs of the City.

(e) Employees will have the option to be paid for vacation leave that exceeds the maximum allowed by these Rules if a requested vacation leave is received and denied by the employee’s Department Head and the City Manager due to the work force needs of the City, not less than thirty (30) days prior to exceeding the maximum accrual.

(f) Employees shall not be granted, and accordingly are not entitled to take vacation leave in advance of its accrual.

(g) Upon termination or dismissal from employment, employees and probationary employees shall be paid for accumulated vacation leave up to a maximum amount, which may be accumulated by these Rules.

(h) Vacation leave may be used for medical appointments, pregnancy disability leave and leave pursuant to the federal and California family and medical leave statutes.

SECTION 2 – ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE:

(a) Exempt employees may be granted up to sixty-two (62) seven (7) hours of administrative leave days off per fiscal year at the sole discretion of the City Manager.

(b) The scheduling of administrative leave must be approved in advance by the City Manager or his/her designee. Exempt employees shall submit a written request to schedule administrative leave to the City Manager of his/her designee within a reasonable amount of time prior to the desired leave. In the exercise of the City Manager’s discretion, he/she shall consider the work force needs of the City.

(c) Administrative leave may not be accumulated to the next fiscal year.

(d) Upon termination or dismissal from employment, exempt employees or exempt probationary employees shall not be granted and accordingly are not entitled to be paid for administrative leave.

(e) Exempt probationary employees are eligible to use administrative leave if granted by the City Manager of his/her designee during their probationary period.

(f) Administrative leave may be used for medical appointments, pregnancy disability leave and leaves provided pursuant to the federal and California family and medical leave statutes.

SECTION 3 – SICK LEAVE:

(a) Employees and probationary employees earn paid sick leave at the rate of eight (8) hours for each full calendar month on continuous employment with the City including time served in probationary status.

(b) Initial-hire Probationary employees are eligible to use paid sick leave during their probationary period.

(c) Unused sick leave may be accumulated to a maximum of seven hundred and twenty (720) hours.

(d) In order to receive paid sick leave, an employee or probationary employee must notify his or her supervisor at the earliest possible time, generally before 8:30 a.m. on the day that the leave will be used. Such notice shall provide the fact and the reason for the leave and duration of the leave. Failure to provide reasonable notice will be cause for denial of sick leave with pay for the period of the absence. Written verification of the cause of absence may be required by the Department Head or City Manager.

(e) Employees and probationary employees shall not be granted, and accordingly are not entitled to take paid sick leave in advance of its accrual.

(f) Employees and probationary employees who use more than five (5) forty (40) consecutive sick days hours shall be required to furnish a physician’s certificate stating that the employee is able to safely return to work. The City reserves the right to choose the physician who shall provide the certification.

(g) Sick leave may be used for medical appointments, pregnancy disability leave, leaves provided pursuant to the federal and California family and medical leave statutes and to care for an employee’s spouse, child(ren), parent(s) or spouse’s child(ren) or parent(s) due to illness.

(h) Upon termination or dismissal from employment, employees and probationary employees shall not be granted, and accordingly are not entitled to be paid for accumulated sick leave.

(i) This section shall be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with applicable federal and California law.

SECTION 4 – WELLNESS LEAVE: Employees and probationary employees are eligible to earn one half day four and one half (4 ½) hours of paid wellness leave for ten (10) consecutive weeks of perfect attendance without using any sick leave time.

(a) Prospectively, the ten (10) week period shall be calculated from June 2, 1991.

(b) A maximum of one (1) day nine (9) hours of wellness leave may be accumulated.

(c) Upon termination or dismissal from employment, employees and probationary employees shall not be granted, and accordingly are not entitled to be paid for wellness leave.

(d) Wellness leave may be used for pregnancy disability leave and leaves provided under the federal and California family and medical leave statutes.

SECTION 5 – BEREAVEMENT LEAVE: Paid bereavement leave shall not be considered accrued leave which an employee or probationary employee may use at his/her discretion, but is granted by reason of the death of a member of the employee’s or probationary employee’s immediate family, consisting of an employee’s or probationary employee’s spouse and employee’s or probationary employee’s or their spouse’s child, parent, sibling, stepparent, stepchild and grandparent. An employee or probationary employee may take a maximum of three (3) working days of bereavement leave each time when a death occurs within an employee’s or probationary employee’s immediate family. In order to receive paid bereavement leave, the employee or probationary employee must notify his/her supervisor Department Head or the City Manager at the earliest possible time, generally before 8:30 a.m. on the day that the leave is first requested. In the event the employee or probationary employee must travel out of state in connection with the bereavement, the employee or probationary employee shall be allowed to use the equivalent of two (2) additional working days of sick leave in addition to the granted bereavement leave for each incident.

SECTION 6 – JURY DUTY:

(a) Employees and probationary employees called for jury duty shall give his/her Department Head or the City Manager reasonable advance written notice of the obligation to serve.

(b) Employees and probationary employees will be paid their regular wages, less jury duty pay (other than mileage or subsistence allowances) or may elect to forfeit the jury duty warrant to the City and receive full City wages.

(c) Written evidence of jury duty attendance shall be presented to the Personnel Officer.

(d) Employees and probationary employees shall continue to report to work on those days when excused from jury duty, and on which the employee or probationary employee can work at least four (4) hours during his/her regular workday.

SECTION 7 – LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT PAY: The City Manager, after consultation with the employee’s or probationary employee’s Department Head, may grant an employee or probationary employee leave of absence without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) months in accordance with the work force needs of the City. Additionally, the City Manager may apply such conditions as he/she deems warranted in the best interest of the City. No such leave shall be granted except upon written request of the employee or probationary employee. Leave under this section shall only be granted to an employee or probationary employee under circumstances where the employee or probationary employee is not otherwise eligible for pregnancy disability leave or family and medical leave as provided under applicable law and Sections 8 7 (Pregnancy Disability Leave) and 11 (Family and Medical Leave), respectively of this Rule. Approval shall be in writing and a copy filed with the Personnel Officer.

(a) A leave of absence without pay shall not be construed as a break in service or employment, however, paid leave benefits, increases in salary, and other similar benefits shall not accrue to a person granted such leave during the period of absence.

(b) Use of a leave of absence without pay for a purpose other than that requested, may be cause for forfeiture of reinstatement rights. Failure on the part of an employee or probationary employee on leave to report to work promptly at its expiration may be cause for discharge.

(c) An employee or probationary employee reinstated after a leave of absence without pay shall receive that same step in the salary range that he/she received when the leave of absence began. Time spent on such leave without pay shall not count towards service for increases within the salary range, and the employee’s or probationary employee’s evaluation date shall be set forward one (1) month for each thirty (30) consecutive calendar days taken.

(d) The City shall maintain group health insurance coverage for an employee or probationary employee (including dependent coverage) while the employee or probationary employee is taking a medical leave of absence under this section at the level and under the conditions coverage would have been provided by the City if the employee or probationary employee had not taken such leave. In the event an employee or probationary employee does not return to work following the leave, the City reserves the right to recover the premiums or other sums the City paid for group health insurance coverage during the period of the leave.

(e) The employee or probationary employee is responsible to pay the entire cost of the all applicable health and life insurance premiums and other insurance premiums (such as long term disability and accidental death and dismemberment) during a non-medical leave of absence without pay that exceeds thirty (30) calendar days. In addition, in advance of taking the leave, the employee or probationary employee must make written arrangements with the finance department to pay for the costs of such coverage. Premiums shall be paid within the time specified by the City or as otherwise required by the applicable insurance or benefit program.

(f) If the leave of absence without pay was for medical reasons, prior to resuming regular duties, an employee or probationary employee shall furnish the Personnel Officer a physician’s certificate stating that the employee is able to return to work.

SECTION 8 – PREGNANCY DISABILITY LEAVE:

(a) An employee or probationary employee who is temporarily disabled and unable to work due to pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions may take a leave of absence without pay for up to four (4) months. Leave taken under the pregnancy disability policy runs concurrently with family and medical leave under the federal law, but not family and medical leave under California law.

(b) All requests for pregnancy disability leave shall be in writing, and shall be sent to the City Manager. The request shall include the expected start and end dates of the leave, and the medical certificate required by this section.

(c) An employee or probationary employee shall provide as much advance notice of the need for pregnancy disability leave as practicable. Generally, the employee or probationary employee shall provide at least thirty (30) days’ advance notice.

(d) An employee or probationary employee requesting a pregnancy disability leave may be required to shall provide the City Manager with a certificate from a health care provider on an form supplied by the City that the employee or probationary employee is disabled by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical condition. Failure to provide the required certification in a timely manner (within fifteen (15) days of the leave request) may result in denial of the leave request until such certification is provided. Recertification is required if leave is sought after expiration of the time estimated by the health care provider. Failure to submit a required recertification can result in termination of the leave.

(e) Prior to returning to work, an employee or probationary employee who took pregnancy disability leave must provide the City Manager with a certificate from a health care provider that the employee’s or probationary employee’s disability has ceased and the person is able to return to work.

(f) A pregnancy disability leave of absence shall not be construed as a break in service or employment.

(g) Use of pregnancy disability leave for a purpose other than that for which it was granted shall be cause for discharge and forfeiture of reinstatement rights. To the extent permitted by law, failure on the part of the employee or probationary employee on Pregnancy Disability Leave to report to work promptly at its expiration shall be cause for discharge.

(h) Except as otherwise provided by law, upon timely return from pregnancy disability leave, the employee or probationary employee shall be reinstated to her original job. If the employee or probationary employee is not cannot returned to her original job, she shall be returned to a substantially similar job, unless either there is no substantially similar job position available or filling the substantially similar position would substantially undermine the City’s ability to operate safely and efficiently.

(i) An employee or probationary employee reinstated to her original job position after a pregnancy disability leave of absence shall receive the same step in the salary range that she received when the leave of absence began. If the time spent on such leave was without pay, the time shall not count toward service for increases within the salary range or paid leave benefits, and the employee’s or probationary employee’s evaluation date shall be set forward one (1) month for each thirty (30) consecutive calendar days taken.

(j) The City shall maintain group health insurance coverage for an employee or probationary employee (including dependent coverage) while the employee or probationary employee is taking pregnancy disability leave at the level and under the conditions coverage would have been provided by the City if the employee or probationary employee had not taken the leave. In the event an employee or probationary employee does not return to work following a pregnancy disability leave, the City reserves the right to recover the premiums or other sums the City paid for group health insurance coverage during the period of the leave.

(k) This section shall be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with applicable federal and California law.

SECTION 9 – MILITARY LEAVE: Military leave shall be granted in accordance with applicable federal and California law.

SECTION 10 – PAID HOLIDAY LEAVE:

(a) Subject to the restrictions described below, nonexempt employees and nonexempt probationary (new-hire, transfer and promotional) employees shall receive paid leave at his/her straight hourly rate for the following designated City holidays:

(1)The last Monday in May;
(2) July 4;
(3) The first Monday in September
(4) The fourth Thursday in November
(5) The day after the fourth Thursday in November

(6) The period between and including December 24 and January 1 (Saturdays and Sundays or other non-work days excepted); and
(7)One day as a floating holiday, which shall be designated yearly by the City Manager.

(b) Exempt employees and exempt probationary employees shall receive paid leave for the designated City holidays outlined in Section 9(a) above. At his/her discretion, the City Manager may grant extra compensation or in lieu time off to exempt employees and exempt probationary employees who are required to work on a holiday.

(c) If July 4th falls upon a Saturday, the Friday before is the observed holiday, and if the date falls upon a Sunday, the Monday following is the observed holiday.

(d) In order to be eligible for holiday pay, an employee or probationary employee must work the last scheduled workday before and the first scheduled workday after the holiday unless the employee or probationary employee is taking approved paid leave.

(e) If a holiday falls during an employee’s or probationary employee’s approved vacation leave period, the employee or probationary employee shall be paid for the holiday and shall not be charged with a vacation day for the day the holiday is observed.

(f) If a holiday falls during an employee’s or probationary employee’s approved sick leave period, the employee or probationary employee will be paid for the holiday and will not be charged with a sick day for the day the holiday is observed.

(g) Employees and probationary employees on non-paid leave of absence for any reason are ineligible for holiday benefits for holidays that are observed during the period they are on a non-paid leave of absence.

(h) Regardless of the number of hours worked during the work week, nonexempt employees and nonexempt probationary employees who work on a designated City holiday shall be paid their regular hourly rate and one and one half (1 ½) times their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked on the holiday or receive credit for the equivalent number of hours worked of compensatory time off and one and one half (1 ½) hours of compensatory time off for all hours worked on the holiday.

(i) Upon termination or dismissal from employment, employees and probationary employees shall not be granted, and accordingly are not entitled to be paid for a floating holiday.

SECTION 11 – FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE:

(a) All employees or probationary employees who have worked for the City at least twelve (12) months and a minimum of one thousand two hundred and fifty (1,250) hours during the twelve (12) months prior to a request for leave are eligible for an unpaid leave of absence for the following reasons:

(1) The birth of a child of the employee and to care for the child.

(2) The placement of a child with the employee or probationary employee through adoption or a foster care program.

(3) To care for the employee’s or probationary employee’s spouse, child or parent if the spouse, child or parent, or the spouse’s child or parent has a serious health condition.

(4) The serious health condition of the employee or probationary employee that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of his or her position.

(b) A "serious health condition" is an illness, injury, impairment or physical or mental condition that involves either:

(1) Inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility; or

(2) Continuing treatment or continuing supervision by a health care provider.

(c) Each eligible employee or probationary employee shall be entitled to take an unpaid leave of up to twelve (12) work weeks during any rolling twelve (12) month period for the purposes listed above. An employee or probationary employee disabled by pregnancy shall be entitled to take unpaid leave, in addition to medical and family leave, of up to four months when the employee is disabled by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. Under certain circumstances as allowed by applicable law, an employee or probationary employee may take family and medical leave intermittently (taking leave in blocks of time or reducing the employee’s weekly or daily work schedule).

(d) Entitlement to family leave for the birth of a child or the placement of a child with the employee or probationary employee through adoption or a foster care program shall expire twelve (12) months after the birth or placement of the child with the employee.

(e) An employee or probationary employee married to another employee or probationary employee at the City is entitled to an aggregate amount of family and medical leave that does not exceed twelve (12) work weeks when added to the family and medical leave taken by the employee’s or probationary employee’s spouse for the purpose of the birth or placement of a child with the employees.

(f) A family or medical leave shall be unpaid, except that an employee or probationary employee may use any accumulated vacation leave, sick leave, compensatory time, administrative leave and wellness leave during the leave provided for in this Section.

(g) The City shall maintain group health insurance coverage for an employee or probationary employee (including dependent coverage) while taking family and medical leave at the level and under the conditions coverage would have been provided by the City if the employee or probationary employee had not taken the leave. In the event an employee or probationary employee does not return to work following a family and medical leave, the City reserves the right to recover the premiums or other sums the City paid for group health insurance coverage during the period of the employee’s or probationary employee’s leave, to the extent permitted by applicable law.

(h) Except as otherwise permitted by law, all requests for leave shall be in writing, and shall be sent to the City Manager. The request shall include the expected start and end dates of the leave, and the medical certification set forth in subsections (j) or (k) herein. An employee or probationary employee shall provide as much advance notice of the need for leave as practicable. Generally, when the need for leave is foreseeable, the employee or probationary employee shall provide not less than ten (10) days’ notice prior to the commencement of the leave. Failure to provide advance notice of the need for leave may be grounds for delaying the start of the leave.

(i) Where the employee or probationary employee takes leave for planned medical treatment of a spouse, child or parent, a spouse’s child or parent or of the employee or probationary employee, the employee or probationary employee shall consult with the City Manager and make a reasonable effort to schedule the leave so as not to unduly disrupt the operation of the City.

(j) The City may require an employee to provide medical certification of the need for a medical leave for the care of a spouse, child or parent with a serious health condition. An employee or probationary employee requesting leave under this section because of a serious health condition shall provide medical certification from the appropriate health care provider on a form supplied by the City. Failure to provide the required certificate in a timely manner (within fifteen (15) days of the leave request) may result in denial of the leave request until such certification is provided. Recertification is required if leave is sought after expiration of the time estimated by the health care provider. Failure to submit a required recertification can result in termination of the leave. The certification shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:

(1) The date on which the serious health condition began;

(2) The probably duration of the serious health condition;

(3) An estimate of the amount of time that the health care provider believes the employee or probationary employee needs to care for the individual requiring the care;

(4) A statement that the serious health condition warrants the participation of a family member to provide care during the period of the treatment or supervision of the individual requiring care; and

(5) To the extent provided by applicable law, appropriate medical facts within the knowledge of the health care provider regarding the condition.

(k) The City may require an employee to provide medical certification of the need for a medical leave for the employee’s own serious health condition. For requests involving the employee’s or probationary employee’s own serious health condition except those involving pregnancy disability, the City, at its expense, may request a second opinion by a health care provider of the City’s choice. If the second opinion differs from the first one, the City will pay for a third, mutually agreeable, health care provider to provide a final and binding opinion. The certification shall contain at a minimum, the following information:

(1) The date on which the serious health condition began;

(2) The probable duration of the serious health condition;

(3) A statement by the health care provider that, due to the serious health condition, the employee or probationary employee is unable to perform the functions of his or her position with the City, and;

(4) To the extent provided by applicable law, appropriate medical facts within the knowledge of the health care provider regarding the condition that are related to the employee’s or probationary employee’s ability to perform his/her job duties.

(l) During the leave, the City may require periodic recertification by a health care provider and other periodic reports.

(m) Except as otherwise provided by law, upon return from family and medical leave, the employee or probationary employee shall be reinstated to the same or an equivalent position held when the leave commenced. If the employee or probationary employee cannot be returned to their original job, he/she shall be returned to a substantially similar job, unless either there is no substantially similar job position available or filling the substantially similar position would substantially undermine the City’s ability to operate safely and efficiently.

(n) Prior to returning to work, an employee or probationary employee who took a medical leave for his/her own serious medical condition must provide the City Manager with a certification from a health care provider that the employee or probationary employee is able to resume work.

(o) This section shall be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with applicable federal and California law.

SECTION 12 – OTHER LEAVES: The City Manager shall grant such other leaves as are required by law. Except as otherwise provided by law or by circumstances beyond the employee’s control, employees shall request such leave and obtain approval in advance. All such leaves shall be unpaid, unless otherwise required by law or these Rules, but employees may use otherwise applicable paid-leave benefits to remain in paid status.

RULE VIII

WORKER’S COMPENSATION

AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – WORKER’S COMPENSATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: The City provides Worker’s Compensation and Unemployment Insurance to all employees, and probationary employees and part-time employees, but not volunteers, in accordance with California law.

SECTION 2 – ON-THE-JOB INJURIES: All injuries suffered during working hours must be reported, in writing, immediately to the Department Head or City Manager. Unless there is an emergency, a City referral slip form must be obtained from the Personnel office before visiting a doctor. Upon returning to work from all on-the-job injuries, employees and probationary employees must have an approved slip return to work certificate signed by the attending doctor.

RULE IX

EMPLOYEE EXPENSES

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – MILEAGE AND PARKING EXPENSES: An employee or probationary employee who is required to use his/her private automobile for City assignments shall be reimbursed for mileage at the current standard mileage rate set by the Internal Revenue Service City Council and actual parking expenses.

(a) All claims for mileage and parking reimbursement shall first be approved in writing by the employee’s or probationary employee’s Department Head or the City Manager, and shall be filed on forms and in accordance with the procedures established by the City Manager.

(b) Employees and probationary employees using their personal car private automobile for City business shall supply the Personnel Officer with a Certificate of Insurance stating that their private automobile is covered by public liability and property damage insurance of not less than the amount required in the procedures established by the City Manager.

RULE X

TERMINATION PROCEDURES

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – RESIGNATION:

(a) In order to resign in good standing, an employee or probationary employee shall inform the City Manager, in writing, of the effective date of the resignation at lease ten (10) working days in advance. This time may be waived, in writing, by the City Manager. Failure to give notice as required by this Rule shall be cause for the City to deny future employment.

(b) An employee or probationary employee who is absent from work voluntarily or involuntarily for more than eight (8) nine (9) hours without written authorization and who does not present a written explanation acceptable to the City Manager as to the cause of the employee’s absence, shall be considered as having voluntarily resigned from the City employment as of the last day worked.

SECTION 2 – LAYOFF: Whenever in the judgement of the City Council it becomes necessary in the interest of economy, because the necessity for a position no longer exists or other legitimate purpose, the City Council may abolish any position in the competitive service; and the employee or probationary employee holding such position for employment may be laid off without taking disciplinary action and without the right of appeal.

(a) The order of the layoff of employees and/or probationary employees shall be established by the City Manager on the recommendations of the Department Head(s) involved. Employees and or probationary employees will be laid off from the affected layoff unit (department or classification) in accordance with performance, seniority, attendance and their ability to perform the remaining work available without further training. When, in the opinion of the City Manager, two or more employees and/or probationary employees have relatively equal performance records, experience, skill, ability and qualifications to do the remaining work without further training, the employee(s) and or probationary employee(s) with the least seniority will be laid off first.

(b) Employees or probationary employees to be laid off shall be given at least ten (10) working days prior notice or equivalent pay if laid off immediately.

(c) An employee or promotional probationary employee who is subject to layoff may request a reduction to a lower job classification within the same occupational series in the layoff unit provided the employee ,promotional probationary employee or transfer probationary employee possesses seniority, an acceptable performance and attendance record, and has the ability to perform the remaining work available without further training. The reduction shall be made only in cases where there is a vacant position in the layoff unit.

(d) The names of employees and probationary employees laid off or demoted in lieu of layoff shall be placed on a re-employment lists for those job classifications requiring basically the same qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the class from which the layoff or demotion in lieu of layoff was made as established in Rule XIV, Section 3.

SECTION 3 –RETIREMENT: The City shall pay the full 7% of any employee’s or probationary employee’s contribution to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).

RULE XI

GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

(ADOPTED 07/05/94)

SECTION 1 – PURPOSE OF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE:

(a) The grievance procedure shall be used to resolve employee or probationary employee complaints concerning the express terms and condition of employment with the City. Except for oral warnings and written reprimands, the grievance procedure shall not be used for resolving any complaint concerning disciplinary action.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, the grievance procedure may be utilized to resolve alleged:

(1) Improper application of rules, regulations and procedures;

(2) Unfair treatment, including coercion, restraint and reprisal;

(3) Improper procedures utilized in employee layoff;

(4) Discrimination because of race, color, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, national origin, ancestry, age (40 and over), marital status, disability, alienage, citizenship status or medical condition (cancer-related); or because of any other statutorily or constitutionally impermissible basis.

(5) Any manner affecting an employee’s or probationary employee’s:

a. Work schedule;

b. Fringe benefits;

c. Holidays;

d. Vacation;

e. Sick Leave;

f. Retirement;

(6) Any other matter regarding the terms and conditions of employment.

SECTION 2 – INFORMAL DISCUSSION OF GRIEVANCE:

(a) When an employee or probationary employee has a grievance, the employee or probationary employee shall first informally discuss the matter with the employee’s or probationary employee’s immediate supervisor within five (5) business working days from the date of the incident or decision generating the grievance. If, after a discussion with the immediate supervisor, the grievance has not been satisfactorily resolved, the employee or probationary employee shall have the right to informally discuss the grievance with the supervisor’s immediate superior. The informal discussion with the supervisor’s immediate superior shall occur within ten (10) business working days from the date of the incident or decision generating the grievance. If, after such a discussion, the grievance has not been satisfactorily resolved, the employee or probationary employee shall have the right to file a formal grievance.

(b) If an employee’s or probationary employee’s grievance is with his or her immediate supervisor or the supervisor’s immediate superior, and such employee or probationary employee reasonably believes that such grievance will not be resolved at that level, he/she may proceed to the next step of the grievance procedure.

SECTION 3 – FORMAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE: The formal grievance procedure shall be used to resolve an employee’s or probationary employee’s grievance not satisfactorily resolved by informal discussion or otherwise allowed by this Rule.

(a) An employee or probationary employee shall have the right to present a formal grievance in writing to the City Manager within fifteen (15) business working days from the date of the incident or decision generating the grievance. All formal grievances shall state the reasons for the complaint and the employee’s suggested solution.

(b) A formal grievance shall be timely presented to the City Manager. When the employee or probationary employee presents a formal grievance to the City Manager, the City Manager shall discuss the grievance with the employee or probationary employee. Within fifteen (15) business working days after receipt of the formal grievance, the City Manager shall render a written decision. The decision of the City Manager shall resolve the grievance and no further review of the subject matter of the grievance shall be permitted.

SECTION 4 – GENERAL PROCEDURES:

(a) The employee or probationary employee and the City have the right to representation at any step in the grievance process.

(b) Any grievance not filed or taken to the next step by the employee or probationary employee within the specified time limits shall be deemed settled on the basis of the last decision, and not subject to further reconsideration. By mutual agreement and for good cause, reasonable extensions of time may be given in writing to the employee or probationary employee by the City Manager at any step in the grievance procedure.

(c) An employee or probationary employee who has filed a grievance shall suffer no discrimination for filing the grievance.

RULE XII

DISCIPLINE PROCEDURES

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE: The City Manager, Assistant City Manager and Department Heads are authorized to take disciplinary action regarding employees under their control in accordance with, and within the limits of, these Rules. Every supervisor shall assist his/her superiors in achieving sound discipline and acceptance by that employee of the corresponding duties and responsibilities, including those disciplinary in nature.

SECTION 2 – CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE: Each of the following constitutes cause for discipline of any employee. It is the intent of these Rules to include as a cause for discipline any action or non-action by an employee which impedes or disrupts the performance of the City and its organizational component units, is detrimental to employees or public safety, violates properly established rules and procedures or adversely affects the reputation of the City, its officers or employees. Examples of causes for discipline include, but are not limited to:

(a) Any violation of any written rule or regulation promulgated by City related to conduct or performance.

(b) Fraud in securing appointment.

(c) Incompetence.

(d) Inefficiency.

(e) Neglect of duty.

(f) Dishonesty or lying to a supervisor or superior.

(g) Violation of any law relating to conflicts of interest, whether contractual or financial.

(h) Use, possession, purchase, sale, manufacture, distribution, transportation or dispensation of controlled substances or alcohol while on duty or on City premises, except for the use of prescribed controlled substances (1) as directed by the licensed health care provider prescribing controlled substances and in accordance with the manufacturer’s directions, and (2) in a manner not otherwise in violation of these Rules.

(i) The use of any substance, controlled or purchased over-the-counter, which impairs the employee’s performance of his/her duties.

(j) Unexcused absences.

(k) Conviction of a felony or conviction of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. A plea or verdict of guilty or nolo contendere to a charge of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude is deemed to be a conviction within the meaning of this section.

(l) Defrauding the City by making a false claim for compensation, benefits or reimbursements.

(m) Making a false Worker’s Compensation Claim against the City.

(n) Improper political activity which prevents the employee or other employees from the efficient performance of employment with the City, or which has a disruptive effect on the efficiency or integrity of the City service of the department in which such employee is employed.

(o) Failure or refusal to cooperate with supervisory personnel or other employees.

(p) Misuse or misappropriation of City property or funds.

(q) Gambling for money or articles of value on City property or during working hours.

(r) Tardiness.

(s) Abuse of sick leave privileges.

(t) Excessive absenteeism, which impairs the City’s ability to provide, services or function effectively or efficiently.

(u) Refusal to take and subscribe any oath or affirmation which is required by law or these Rules in connection with his/her employment.

(v) Refusing to report on official call of emergency.

(w) Violation of departmental rules and regulations.

(x) Intentionally misrepresenting information or facts in any statement, declaration or affidavit duly required of an employee.

(y) Failure or refusal to carry out an order of directive of a supervisor.

(z) Asking, receiving or agreeing to receive any bribe, gratuity or reward of any kind upon any understanding that any employee’s action shall be influenced thereby, or shall be given in any particular manner, or upon any particular question or matter upon which any employee may be required to act in the employee’s capacity; or attempting by menace, deceit, suppression of truth, or any corrupt means to influence any employee to commit any act, conduct or omission which is clearly inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or inimical to the best interests of the City.

(aa) Failure to observe or comply with safe working standards, to endanger, to injure, or to damage public property or the private property of any employee or member of the public through negligent, improper or careless conduct or use of equipment; or to permit such actions on the part of any employee under his/her supervision or control.

(bb) Conduct disrespectful to the public, elected and appointed City officials, supervisors, superiors, Department Heads, City Manager, Assistant City Manager or members of City boards and commissions.

In the event that the City imposes disciplinary action for cause, including but not limited to any of the above acts or omissions, the employee shall have the right to contest or seek review of the disciplinary action of the basis thereof, in accordance with procedures set forth in Sections 5,6,7,8, and 9 of this Rule.

SECTION 3 – TYPES OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION: Disciplinary actions include reprimands, suspensions, demotions, reductions in pay and dismissal, as defined below:

(a) Verbal Reprimand. An oral warning that may be given to the employee in the event that a deficiency in performance or conduct is not of sufficient magnitude to warrant a more formal disciplinary action. A written record may be made of such conferences and placed in the employee’s personnel file with a copy provided to the employee. Verbal reprimands are not subject to appeal. However, the employee has the right to place in his/her personnel file a written response or rebuttal to any written record of verbal reprimand, provided that such response or rebuttal is submitted for inclusion in the file within thirty (30) calendar days of the employee’s receipt of the written record.

(b) Written Reprimand. A written statement relating to an action or omission which meets any of the ground for disciplinary action listed in these Rules, indicating that there is cause for dissatisfaction with the employee’s services and that further disciplinary measures may be taken if the cause is not corrected. The written statement shall be placed in the employee’s personnel file, with a copy provided to the employee. Written reprimands are not subject to appeal. However, the employee has the right to place in his/her personnel file a written response or rebuttal to any written statement, provided that such response or rebuttal is submitted for inclusion in the personnel file within thirty (30) calendar days of the employee’s receipt of the written statement.

(c) Suspension. The temporary separation of the employee from City service without pay for disciplinary purposes for a period not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days per occurrence.

(d) Demotion. A change in employment status from one position to another having a lower rate of pay and/or change in duties which are allocated to a class having a lower maximum rate of pay for disciplinary reasons. The disciplinary demotion may be temporary or permanent.

(e) Reduction in Pay. A change in the salary step of an employee to a lower step rate within the same salary range for disciplinary reasons.

(f) Dismissal. The discharge of the employee from City service for disciplinary reasons. Discharge and dismissal are used interchangeably in these Rules.

SECTION 4 – DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES:

(a) When an employee is to be suspended, demoted, reduced in pay or dismissed, a preliminary written notification shall be provided to the employee. The written notice shall include:

(1) The charges against the employee and reasons for the proposed disciplinary action to be taken;

(2) The proposed disciplinary action to be taken;

(3) Copies of the charges and materials on which the proposed action is based; and,

(4) A statement advising the employee that, before any proposed disciplinary action takes effect, the employee or his/her representative has the right to respond orally or in writing within five (5) working days from the employee’s receipt of the written notice.

(b) Within ten (10) working days after the employee has had the opportunity to respond, the employee shall be notified in writing of any disciplinary action to be taken and the effective date of such disciplinary action.

SECTION 5 – APPEAL OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS: An employee who has been suspended, demoted, reduced in pay or dismissed for disciplinary reasons, may appeal the disciplinary action.

In order to appeal the disciplinary action, the employee must file a written notice of appeal with the City Manager for a hearing within ten (10) working days after having been furnished with a copy of the notice of disciplinary action.

SECTION 6 – TIME OF HEARING: The hearing on the employee’s appeal shall be conducted within ninety (90) calendar days after the employee’s filing of the written notice of appeal with the City Manager. The time limit may be extended by the City Manager for good cause and by agreement of the employee and the City Manager.

SECTION 7 –HEARING PROCEDURE: The following procedure shall govern hearings on appeals of disciplinary action:

(a) The City Manager shall conduct the hearing. If the City Manager files the written statement to discipline an employee that works directly for the City Manager, then the Deputy Assistant City Manager shall conduct the hearing.

(b) Hearings shall be conducted in the manner most conducive conductive to determination of the truth, and the City Manager shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. Decisions made shall not be invalidated by informality in the proceedings.

(c) The City Manager shall make arrangements to have the hearing transcribed or recorded to preserve the proceedings and testimony. The employee may obtain a copy of the transcript or recording upon request.

(d) The City Manager shall determine the relevancy, weight and credibility of all testimony and evidence.

(e) The City Manager shall base his/her findings and decision on the preponderance of the evidence presented.

(f) The Department Head shall have the burden of proof. Each side will be permitted an opening statement and closing argument. The Department Head shall first present its witnesses and evidence to support the charges and disciplinary action. The employee shall then present his/her witnesses in defense. The Department Head may thereafter present witnesses and evidence in rebuttal.

(g) Each side will be allowed to examine and cross-examine witnesses. All witnesses shall testify under oath. The City Manager may question any witness.

(h) Both the Department Head and the employee may be represented by a designee or by legal counsel. The City Manager may obtain the legal advice of the City Attorney in performing the function of the hearing officer.

(i) The City Manager shall, if requested by either side, subpoena witnesses and/or require the production of documents or other material evidence.

(j) The City Manager may, during a hearing, grant a continuance for any reason believed to be important to the reaching of a fair and proper decision.

(k) Within thirty (30) calendar days after the conclusion of the hearing, the City Manager shall prepare and serve on both sides a written decision setting forth the charges found to be sustained, and the reasons therefore, and the propriety of the disciplinary action imposed. The City Manager may sustain, reject or modify the disciplinary action imposed. If the City Manager sustains the employee, all or part of any loss of the employee’s full compensation may be ordered restored.

SECTION 8 – FINALITY OF CITY MANAGER’S DECISION: The decision of the City Manager shall be final and conclusive.

SECTION 9 – JUDICIAL REVIEW: Any legal action to challenge any decision of the City Manager must be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction no later than ninety (90) calendar days following the date the City Manager’s written decision becomes final as provided in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.

RULE XIII

NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT: The City is committed to a policy of equal employment opportunity. Consistent with this commitment and California and federal law, the City does not discriminate against employees or applicants because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, national origin, ancestry, age (40 and over), marital status, disability, alienage, citizenship status or medical condition (cancer-related), or any other basis prohibited by applicable federal and California law. Equal employment opportunity will be extended to all persons in all aspects of the employer-employee relationship, including hiring, training, promotion, transfer, discipline, layoff, recall discharge and termination.

SECTION 2 – POLICY AGAINST HARASSMENT:

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY.

Harassment in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, national origin, ancestry, age (40 and over), marital status, disability, alienage, citizenship status or medical condition (cancer-related), or any other basis prohibited by applicable federal and California law, and the policy of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") is prohibited. The City is committed to creating and maintaining a workplace free from unlawful harassment. That commitment includes taking all reasonable steps to prevent unlawful workplace harassment.

(1) The protections afforded by this Policy apply to applicants for employment and employees. If harassment prohibited by this Policy occurs, the City shall take appropriate corrective action against the harasser, and seek to remedy the effects of the harassment on the employee or applicant for employment. If the harasser is a non-employee, for example, an appointed commissioner or committee member, or a volunteer or vendor, such corrective action may include termination of the City’s relationship with the non-employee. If the harasser is a City Council member, corrective action may include, but is not limited to, public censure of the City Council member by the City Council.

(b) SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

(1) Sexual harassment is unlawful harassment on the basis of sex, including gender harassment and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

(2) The California Fair Employment and Housing Commission ("FEHC") regulations define sexual harassment as unwanted sexual advances, or unwelcome visual, verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Under federal law, sexual harassment includes "quid pro quo" sexual harassment, which is definesd sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when submission to sexual advances or behavior is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, when submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual. Sexual harassment also includes sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment or when such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.

(3) Sexual harassment may be committed by a member of the opposite or the same sex. Employees may be the victims of sexual harassment even if the sexual harassment is directed at others but occurs in the employee’s presence or has an indirect impact on the employee’s terms and conditions of employment.

(c) TYPES OF HARASSMENT.

(1) The following statuses are referred to in this Policy as "protected status": race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, national origin, ancestry, age (40 and over), marital status, disability, alienage and citizenship status or medical condition (cancer-related), or any other basis prohibited by applicable federal and California law.

(2) Unlawful harassment also consists of verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual because of his/her protected status, or the proposed status or his/her relatives, friends, or associates, and that:

(i) Has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment;

(ii) Has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance; or,

(iii) Otherwise adversely affects an individual’s employment opportunities.

(3) Unlawful harassment may be charged challenged even if the complainant is not the specific intended target of the conduct.

(4) The following is a partial list of the types of conduct that may constitute unlawful harassment:

(i) Verbal Harassment. This form of harassment includes, but is not limited to, epithets, jokes, derogatory comments, negative stereotyping, slurs or other verbal conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an employee or applicant based on his/her protected status, or the protected status or his/her relatives, friends, or associates.

(ii) Physical Harassment. This form of harassment includes, but is not limited to, assault, unwelcome touching, impeding or blocking movement, threatening acts, intimidating acts, hostile acts or other physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an employee or applicant based on his/he protected status or the protected status of his/her relatives, friends, or associates.

(iii) Visual Harassment. This form of harassment includes, but is not limited to, displaying pictures, posters, cartoons, drawings, or other written or graphic materials that denigrates, shows hostility or aversion or are derogatory toward an employee or applicant based on his/her protected status or the protected status of his/her relatives, friends, or associates.

(iv) Sexual Harassment. In addition to items (i) through (iii) above, this form of harassment includes, but is not limited to:

(a) Unwelcome verbal or written sexual advances or propositions;

(b) Offering or denying employment benefits or privileges in exchange for granting or withholding sexual favors;

(c) Making or threatening reprisals after the rejection of sexual advances;

(d) Leering or making gestures of a sexual nature, and displaying sexually suggestive objects, pictures, cartoons or posters;

(e) Unwelcome sexually-related or derogatory comments, epithets, slurs or jokes;

(f) Verbal abuse of a sexual nature, oral or written comments about an individual’s body, sexually degrading words used to describe an individual, sexually suggestive or obscene letters, notes, or invitations;

(g) Unwelcome touching, assaulting, impeding or blocking movements; and

(h) Gender harassment and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

(d) HARASSMENT COMPLAINT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE.

(1) Complaints of harassment or retaliation may be made orally or in writing. As used in this procedure, reference to complaints of harassment includes complaints of prohibited retaliation. Anonymous complaints will be taken seriously and investigated. However, the ability to investigate or extent of the investigation may be limited by the inability to follow-up with the complaining party. Making a complaint is not limited to the person who was the target of the harassment or retaliation.

(1 2) The City will promptly, thoroughly and objectively investigate charges of unlawful harassment. The Assistant City Manager, or the City Manager, if the Assistant City Manager is the alleged harasser, shall investigate and attempt to resolve all harassment complaints. The Assistant City Manager or the City Manager may assign responsibility to investigate harassment charges to another competent person, including an outside investigator. The City shall advise the complaining individual of his/her rights and responsibilities under the City’s harassment complaint resolution procedure and his/her right to redress unlawful harassment. Complaints and investigations shall be handled with due regard for the rights of the complainant and the alleged harasser. Information about the investigation and complaint shall only be released to individuals on a need-to-know basis, or as required by law.

(2 3) An employee who witnesses harassment prohibited by this Policy has a duty to report it to the employee’s immediate supervisor, Department Head, the Assistant City Manager, or the City Manager, if the Assistant City Manager is the alleged harasser.

(4) An immediate supervisor or Department Head receiving a complaint of harassment shall immediately report it to the Assistant City Manager, or the City Manager if the Assistant City Manager is the alleged harasser.

(5) Procedure for Complaints involving City Council Members, Commissions, Committee Members, Other Officials or the City Manager

(a) In place of the other reporting options, complaints involving City Council members, commissions, committee members or other officials should be made directly to the City Manager. If the complainant believes the City Manager is also involved in the harassment, the complaint should be made to the City Attorney. If reported to the City Manager, the City Manager shall consult with the City Attorney. For complaints involving City Council members, commissioners, committee members and other officials, the City Manager or City Attorney is hereby authorized to investigate the complaint consistent with this Rule and to retain an outside investigator without need for further authorization from the City Council. If the investigation determines a violation of this Rule occurred, the City Manager shall consult with the City Attorney and the City Manager or City Attorney, as applicable, shall advise the City Council of the results of the investigation.

(b) In place of the other reporting options, complaints involving the City Manager should be reported to the City Attorney. The City Attorney is authorized to investigate the complaint consistent with this Rule and to retain an outside investigator without need for further authorization from the City Council. If the investigation determines a violation of this Rule occurred, the City Attorney shall advise the City Council of the results of the investigation.

(3 6) Informal Procedure. An applicant or employee who believes he/she has been illegally harassed should promptly inform the harasser that such conduct is inappropriate, offensive and unwelcome, and that the harasser should immediately cease such conduct. If the harassment does not stop immediately or the employee does not wish to discuss the matter directly with the harasser, the employee should promptly discuss the matter with his/her supervisor, Department Head, the Assistant City Manager, or if the alleged harasser is the Assistant City Manager, the City Manager. The employee has the discretion to direct the complaint to any of the positions listed above. Applicants shall file harassment complaints with the Assistant City Manager, or the City Manager, if the Assistant City Manager is the alleged harasser.

(4 7) Formal Procedure.

(i) If the informal resolution procedure does not resolve the complaint to the satisfaction of the complaining employee or applicant, the employee or applicant may file a formal complaint by providing a written and signed statement to the Assistant City Manager, or, if the Assistant City Manager is the alleged harasser, to the City Manager. A formal complaint should be filed within ten (10) working days of the event(s) giving rise to the complaint. If a complaint is filed after ten (10) working days, the City shall have the sole discretion to decide whether to investigate the extent of the investigation of the complaint. The City wants complaints to be filed promptly to ensure the investigation takes place while memories and evidence are still fresh and witnesses are available, and to enable the City to take prompt remedial action, when warranted. The complaint shall include the date(s), time(s), and place(s) of incident(s) of harassment, a description of the circumstance(s), the name(s) of the person(s) involved and witnesses, if any, and any desired remedy.

(ii) The City Manager, the Assistant City Manager or a person assigned by the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager, shall investigate complaints or harassment by taking the following steps:

(a) Review the written complaint;

(b) Interview the complainant, the alleged harasser and any others who may have relevant evidence;

(c) Review pertinent documents or records;

(d) Prepare a written report regarding the findings and conclusions reached. The report shall be furnished to the complainant, the alleged harasser and the City Manager; The complainant and the alleged harasser shall be notified of the results of the investigation; and,

(iii) Discipline taken against a harasser shall be determined by the nature, severity and/or frequency of the offense(s), the work record of the harasser, the likelihood of the misconduct being repeated, and any other relevant factors and evidence. The complainant shall be consulted in connection with the corrective action to be taken against the harasser and the appropriate action to remedy the effects of the harassment on the complainant. The complainant and the harasser shall be notified of the action(s) taken by the City.

(iv) Discipline imposed by the City and any appeal taken therefrom by the employee shall be in accordance with the City’s Competitive Service Employee Personnel Rules these Rules.

(e) PROTECTION AGAINST RETALIATION.

Employees and applicants have the right to oppose harassment prohibited by this Policy and applicable law, to file a complaint of and to report unlawful harassment, and to cooperate in a harassment investigation free from retaliation. It is City policy to prohibit retaliation against anyone for opposing harassment prohibited by this Policy and applicable law, reporting unlawful harassment in any form, assisting in making a harassment complaint or cooperating in a harassment investigation. Persons engaged in acts of retaliation shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, including termination of employment, and/or other appropriate and feasible corrective action.

(f) ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS AGAINST HARASSMENT.

(1) Employees or job applicants who believe they have been unlawfully harassed are also entitled to file a complaint of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") or the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

(2) The DFEH will attempt to assist the parties to resolve voluntarily the dispute. If the DFEH finds evidence of illegal harassment, and settlement efforts fail, the DFEH may file a formal accusation against the employer and the alleged harasser. The accusation will lead to either a public hearing before the FEHC or a lawsuit filed on the complainant’s behalf by the DFEH. If the FEHC finds that unlawful harassment occurred, it could order remedies, including fines or damages for emotional distress from each employer or harasser found to be at fault. The FEHC may also order hiring or reinstatement, back pay and benefits, promotions, changes in the policies or practices of an employer.

(3) Similar procedures and remedies are available under federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

(4) Victims of unlawful harassment may be entitled to damages even though they have not been denied employment opportunities, pay or benefits. If unlawful harassment occurs, the City may be liable for the conduct of its managers and supervisors and for the conduct of employees and non-employees. Harassers may be held personally liable for their misconduct. Some forms of harassment are crimes.

(g) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. For more information regarding employee and applicant rights and remedies regarding unlawful harassment, an employee or applicant may contact the DFEH or the EEOC. The location of the nearest DFEH office can be obtained by calling (916) 445-9918 (voice) or (916) 324-1678 (TDD). The location of the nearest EEOC office can be obtained by calling (20) 663-4895 (voice) or (202) 663-4399 (TDD).

(h) QUESTIONS. Questions regarding this policy should be directed to the Personnel Officer.

RULE XIV

VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE

(ADOPTED 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – STATEMENT OF POLICY: The City is committed to providing a safe workplace that is free of violence or the threat of violence. In support of this commitment, the City strictly prohibits employees and non-employees, while on City premises or engaged in City-related activities, from behaving in a violent or threatening manner. Under this policy, the City also seeks to prevent workplace violence before it begins and reserves the right to address behavior that reasonably suggests a propensity toward violence, even where actual violence has not yet occurred. Retaliation against a person making a report of workplace violence or cooperating in an investigation of possible workplace violence is also prohibited.

SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS:

(a)Workplace violence includes, but is not limited to the following:

(1)Fighting or challenging another person to fight, including but not limited to striking, slapping, punching, spitting or physically assaulting;

(2)Threats intended to place a person in fear of physical harm or that would cause a reasonable person to be placed in fear of physical harm;

(3)Threatening, physically aggressive or violent behavior, such as acts of intimidation, stalking or any activity that attempts to instill fear in others;

(4)Other behavior that suggests a propensity toward violence, such as belligerent speech, excessive arguing or swearing, sabotage or threats of sabotage toward City property or a demonstrated pattern of refusal to follow City policies or procedures;

(5)Throwing objects with the apparent intent to harm another person or place any person in reasonable fear of harm;

(6)Defacing or vandalizing City property; or

(7)Except as authorized by the City Manager, bringing any weapon or firearm of any kind onto City property (including parking lots) or while conducting City business.

SECTION 3 – REPORTING PROCEDURES: Any employee who witnesses or becomes aware of an instance of workplace violence, as described above, or who is a victim of workplace violence shall notify their immediate supervisor. In the event that the employee’s immediate supervisor is involved, the employee should notify the Assistant City Manager or the City Manager. Any supervisor receiving such a report shall immediately notify the Assistant City Manager or, if the Assistant City Manager is involved in the alleged violence, the City Manager. Instances of prohibited retaliation may be reported in a similar manner.

SECTION 4 – INVESTIGATION: All complaints or allegations will be investigated promptly and thoroughly. The Assistant City Manager will be responsible for assuring that an appropriate investigation is completed, except where the Assistant City Manager is alleged to be involved, in which case the City Manager will assure that an appropriate investigation is completed. To the extent possible, the City will endeavor to maintain the confidentiality of the reporting party and the investigation. However, disclosures may be necessary to conduct the investigation, in compliance with due process rights, where legally required or to protect individual safety. The complainant and, if applicable, an accused employee will be advised of the results of the investigation.

SECTION 5 – DISCIPLINE OR OTHER ACTION: If the City determines that this policy has been violated, appropriate corrective action will be taken. Corrective action may include discipline, up to and including termination. The appropriate discipline may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances of the situation. If the violent behavior involves a non-employee, the City will take action in an effort to prevent future occurrences. Corrective action involving commissions, committee members or volunteers may include severing their relationship to the City. Corrective action involving City Council members may include censure by the City Council. Action may be taken under this policy in addition to any available civil or criminal action.

RULE XIV XV

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURES

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 10/18/94, 04/21/98 and 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – TRANSFERS: Transfers are permitted, subject to written consent of the Department Heads involved and the City Manager. Such changes are authorized only from one (1) position to another in the same class or to a position in another class having the same maximum salary limit and involving the performance of similar duties and requiring substantially the same qualifications.

SECTION 2 – RECLASSIFICATION: The duties of positions that have changed materially may be allocated to a more appropriate class by the City Manager. An incumbent meeting the new qualifications of the reclassified position shall move with the position.

SECTION 3 – RE-EMPLOYMENT LIST: Names of persons laid off or demoted in lieu of layoff in accordance with these Rules may be carried on a re-employment list(s), prepared and maintained by the Personnel Officer, for a period of six (6) months, unless extended by the City Manager at his/her sole discretion.

(a) Persons who refuse re-employment shall be removed from the list.

(b) Persons who are appointed to permanent positions of the same level, whether in the City or another agency, as that which was demoted or laid off shall be removed from the list.

(c) Persons who fail to respond to a notice of re-employment mailed to the last known address within ten (10) working days from the date in which the notice was mailed shall be removed from the list.

SECTION 4 – REINSTATEMENT: With the written approval of the City Manager, a former employee or probationary employee may be reinstated (1) to his or her former position, if vacant; or, (2) to a vacant position in the same comparable class; provided that the employee or probationary employee left the City’s employ less than one (1) year prior to seeking reinstatement. The City Manager may require that a reinstated employee or probationary employee serve an initial-hire probationary period.

SECTION 5 – WRITTEN NOTICE: Any written notice required to be given by the provisions of this resolution these Rules, unless herein otherwise specifically provided, may e given either by personal service or by mail. In the case of service by mail, the notice must be deposited in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid; addressed to the person on whom it is to be served; at the address in any notice given by him/her or his/her last known address, and, if there be no last known address, then addressed to him/her at the City. Service by mail shall be deemed complete at the time of the deposit in the mail.

SECTION 6 – OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT: Employees and probationary employees shall be allowed to engage in employment other than their job with the City, with the understanding that City employment is the highest priority and such employment does not interfere with the performance of assigned duties and does not constitute a conflict of interest. The employee or probationary employee must notify the City Manager in writing regarding their outside employment.

SECTION 7 – MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES: The City through the City Council possesses the sole right to operate the City and all management prerogatives remain vested with the City. In this context, except as specifically limited by express provision of these Rules, all management prerogatives, powers, authority and functions whether heretofore exercised, and regardless of the frequency or infrequency of their exercise, shall remain vested exclusively with the City. It is expressly recognized that these rights, include, but are not limited to, the right to hire, direct, assign or transfer an employee or probationary employee; the right to lay off employees or probationary employee; the right to determine and change staffing levels and work performance standards; the right to determine the content of the workday, including without limitation, workload factors; the right to determine the quality and quantity of services to be offered to the public, and the means and methods of offering those services, the right to contract or subcontract City functions, including any work performed by employees or probationary employee; the right to discipline employees, including the right to reprimand, suspend, reduce in pay, demote and/or terminate employees; the right to relieve employees or probationary employee of duty, demote, dismiss or terminate employees or probationary employee for non-disciplinary purposes; the right to consolidate City functions; the right to determine City functions; the right to implement, modify and delete rules, regulations, resolutions and ordinances; the right to establish, change combine wages or eliminate jobs, job functions and job classifications; the right to establish or change wages and compensation; the right to introduce new or improved procedures, methods, processes or to make technological changes; and the right to establish and change shifts, schedules of work, starting and quitting times.

SECTION 8 – INCENTIVE PROGRAM: From time to time, the City Manager may grant an incentive pay award to any employee or probationary employee in recognition for extraordinary work.

(a) The City Manager shall determine the amount of incentive pay per employee award. However, in no case shall the incentive pay exceed five percent (5%) of an employee’s base salary.

(b) Employees or probationary employee shall be limited to no more than two (2) incentive pay awards in a twelve month period.

SECTION 9 – SHARED FULL-TIME POSITIONS: From time to time, the City Manager may allow two (2) qualified employees to share the duties and responsibilities associated with on (1) existing full-time position. The employees sharing the full-time position shall have the same job title and shall be employed in the same department. The City Manager shall have the ability to discontinue a shared full-time position at any time and without any right of appeal. Participation in contingent upon the two (2) employees entering into an agreement with the City at the time of appointment, which sets forth the rules and procedures of the job sharing agreement. The agreement shall include, but is not limited to, the minimum length of the commitment to job share by the employees, the weekly schedule or regular number of hours to be worked by each employee (generally, each employee shall work twenty (20) hours per week or a combination of forty (40) hours per week, although alternative schedules may be approved by the City Manager), the minimum amount of notice required from the employee to terminate job sharing, and the procedure to be followed if the shared position is discontinued by the City Manager. The employees that share full-time positions shall be subject to these Rules, except that employment benefits shall be applied as follows:

OVERTIME COMPENSATION: Shared-position employees shall not be eligible to receive overtime compensation unless they individually work more than forty (40) hours a week. The number of hours worked in any given week shall not be calculated as an aggregate of both employees’ hours worked.

COMPENSATORY TIME: Shared-position employees shall not be eligible to receive compensatory time in lieu of paid overtime unless they individually work more than forty (40) hours a week. The number of hours worked in any given week shall not be calculated as an aggregate of both employees’ hours worked.

VACATION LEAVE: Each shared-position employee is entitled to accrue paid vacation leave as a percentage of that employee’s total number of hours worked each month, based on the following schedule:

Length of Continuous Employment Vacation Accrual Rates
Beginning of 1st month through 2 years 4.16 3.85% of the hours worked per month
Beginning of 3rd year through 5 years 5 4.62% of the hours worked per month.
Beginning of 6th year through 15 years 6.25 5.77% of the hours worked per month
Beginning of 16th year and more 4 additional hours per year for each year of service up to a maximum of 80 hours per year

Each shared-position employee may accumulate a maximum of two (2) years’ worth of accrued vacation leave. The maximum of two (2) years’ worth of accrued vacation leave shall be calculated by taking the employee’s then applicable schedule or regular number of hours, extended forward over two years. The employee’s then applicable vacation rate from the above schedule shall be applied to determine the maximum vacation leave which may be accumulated, the employee shall cease to accrue any further vacation leave until the amount accumulated falls below the maximum. In the event an employee’s schedule or regular number of hours is reduced, the City Manager or his/her designee shall grant the employee a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year, to reduce the employee’s accrued vacation leave below the maximum.

SICK LEAVE: Each shared-position employee shall earn sick leave at the rate of 5% of the hours that the employee worked for each full calendar month of continuous employment with the City, including time served in probationary status. Unused sick leave may be accumulated to a maximum of three hundred and sixty (360) hours.

ALL OTHER LEAVE: Each shared-position employee shall be eligible to use bereavement leave, jury duty, leave of absence without pay, pregnancy disability leave, military leave, paid holiday leave and administrative leave (if applicable), and family and medical leave and other leave, as set forth in Rule VII, except that each employee shall only be entitled to use such leave in the amount of hours that the employee normally would have been scheduled to work that day or week, as applicable.

RETIREMENT: The City shall pay the full employee contribution to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) for each shared-position employee who is a member of CalPERS.

HEALTH INSURANCE: The City shall pay a proportional share of the medical, dental, vision insurance premiums for the shared-position employee and dependent care premium based on the number of hours that the employee worked per week, unless coverage is refused by the employee. If health coverage or dependent coverage is accepted by the employee, they shall pay the remaining balance of any insurance premiums.

LIFE INSURANCE: The City shall pay the entire premium of the employee’s life insurance premium, at twice the employee’s annual salary. Annual salary shall be based on the regular number of hours per week each employee is scheduled to work, as adjusted annually, according to the City’s normal procedures.

LONG TERM DISABILITY: The City shall pay the entire premium of the employee’s long term disability insurance policy.

ACCIDENTAL DEATH AND DISMEMBERMENT: The City shall pay the entire premium of the employee’s accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy.

MEDICARE: The City shall pay the federal mandatory contribution for each shared-position employee.

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE
PERSONNEL RULES

ADOPTED:
JANUARY 31, 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

RULE I EXEMPT EMPLOYEES 1
     
RULE II DEFINITION OF TERMS 2
     
RULE III EXCLUSIONS 3
     
RULE IV REGULAR COMPENSATION/ PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS 4
     
  SECTION 1 – INITIAL EMPLOYMENT
4
  SECTION 2 – MERIT ADVANCEMENT WITHIN A RANGE
4
  SECTION 3 – TOP OF THE RANGE
4
     
RULE V LEAVES 5
     
  SECTION 1 – VACATION LEAVE
5
  SECTION 2 – ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
6
  SECTION 3 – SICK LEAVE
7
  SECTION 4 – WELLNESS LEAVE
7
  SECTION 5 – BEREAVEMENT LEAVE
8
  SECTION 6 – JURY DUTY
8
  SECTION 7 – LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT PAY
8
  SECTION 8 – PREGNANCY DISABILITY LEAVE
9
  SECTION 9 – MILITARY LEAVE
11
  SECTION 10 – PAID HOLIDAY LEAVE
11
  SECTION 11 – FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
12
  SECTION 12 – OTHER LEAVES
14
     
Page
     
RULE VI WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 16
     
  SECTION 1 – WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
16
  SECTION 2 – ON-THE-JOB INJURIES
16
     
RULE VII EMPLOYEE EXPENSES 17
     
  SECTION 1 – MILEAGE AND PARKING EXPENSES
17
     
RULE VIII TERMINATION PROCEDURES 18
     
  SECTION 1 – RESIGNATION
18
  SECTION 3 – RETIREMENT
18
     
RULE IX NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY 19
     
  SECTION 1 – EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT
19
  SECTION 2 – POLICY AGAINST HARASSMENT
19
     
RULE X VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE 26
     
  SECTION 1 – STATEMENT OF POLICY
26
  SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS
26
  SECTION 3 – REPORTING PROCEDURES
26
  SECTION 4 – INVESTIGATION
27
  SECTION 5 – DISCIPLINE OR OTHER ACTION
27
     

RULE XI

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURES 28
     
 

SECTION 1 – OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT

28
 

SECTION 2 – MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES

28
  SECTION 3 – INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

28

RULE I

EXEMPT EMPLOYEES

(ADOPTED 07/05/96, AMENDED 01/31/02)

Management employees covered by these Rules are exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and, therefore, shall not be eligible for overtime compensation or compensatory time off. Nothing in these Rules shall be construed to require an action that will invalidate an employee’s exempt status. The City Manager shall have the authority to waive or modify any requirement or action that would otherwise invalidate an employee’s exempt status.

RULE II

DEFINITION OF TERMS

(ADOPTED 07/05/94)

Whenever used in these Management Personnel Rules, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:

SECTION 1 – CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT/SENIORITY: Total full-time spent in the employ of the City, including all days of attendance at work, and approved leaves of absence whether paid or non-paid, but shall not include unauthorized absences, time spent between employment with the City, suspensions or layoffs of more than thirty (30) days.

SECTION 2 – CITY: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

SECTION 3 – CITY MANAGER: The duly appointed City Manager of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or his/her designee.

SECTION 4 – EMPLOYEE: Department Heads and the Assistant City Manager as defined in Municipal Code Section 2.46.040 and compensated through the City payroll, who are scheduled to work at least forty (40) hours or more per week. Pursuant to Municipal Code section 2.46.040, Department Heads and the Assistant City Manager are at-will employees who serve at the pleasure of the City Manager.

SECTION 5 – EVALUATION DATE: A date established by the City Manager, a date adjusted as required for any break in service, or a date adjusted in accordance with the merit increase schedule outlined in Rule IV (Regular Compensation/ Performance Evaluation) and annually thereafter.

SECTION 6 – PERSONNEL OFFICER: The City Manager shall serve as the Personnel Officer as outlined in Municipal Code Section 2.46.030.

SECTION 12 – TERMINATION: The cessation of employment with the City.

SECTION 13 – WORK WEEK: A regular schedule of forty (40) hours in a seven day period, the scheduling of which may vary from time to time based on the workforce needs of the City as determined by the City Manager.

RULE III

EXCLUSIONS

(ADOPTED 07/05/94)

With the exception of Rule IX (NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY), employees included in the competitive service as defined in Municipal Code section 2.46.040, as well as independent contractors, part-time and temporary employees and volunteers are excluded from these Management Personnel Rules.

RULE IV

REGULAR COMPENSATION/PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 03/15/96 and 01/31/02)

Compensation shall be determined from a salary schedule of ranges established by a Resolution of the City Council. Each range spread shall be approximately 30 percent from the bottom of the range to the top of the range. During the annual budget deliberations, the City Council shall establish a pool of funds to be used by the City Manager for employee merit increases if general fund reserves are estimated to be sufficient to cover the cost associated with such a merit pool.

SECTION 1 – INITIAL EMPLOYMENT: The rate of compensation for initial employment in any classification shall be determined by the City Manager at his/her sole discretion based upon the experience, education, skills and ability of the employee.

SECTION 2 – MERIT ADVANCEMENT WITHIN A RANGE: The only reason for advancement within a range shall be meritorious performance in an employee’s assigned duties:

(a) Meritorious performance shall be determined by the overall rating on the employee’s performance evaluation.

(b) Merit increases shall be based on meritorious service and granted only if sufficient funding is available within the City Manager’s merit pool. Granted increases shall be effective on the same day in which the employee’s evaluation date falls, whether or not the performance evaluation is conducted on the evaluation date.

(c) An employee may be advanced within his/her range in accordance with the merit pay program determined annually by the City Manager.

(d) The City Manager shall make a final determination on all proposed merit increases based upon the overall rating on the employee’s evaluation and the funds available in the City Manager’s merit pool.

(e) When an employee demonstrates exceptional ability and proficiency, such employee may be advanced within his/her range with the approval of the City Manager, in his/her sole discretion, within available funding, without regard to the minimum length of service provisions contained in this section. Advancements under this section shall not change the employee’s regular evaluation date.

SECTION 3 – TOP OF THE RANGE: In no case shall an employee’s regular salary exceed the maximum of the range established by resolution of the City Council.

RULE V

LEAVES

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 01/31/02)

(a) Time spent by an employee on an approved paid leave shall not be construed as a break in service or employment, and rights accrued at the time the leave is granted shall be retained by the employee. Additionally, a leave of absence, with pay or without pay, granted to any employee shall not create a vacancy in the position. For the duration of any such leave of absence, the duties of the position may be performed by another employee on an acting assignment, an independent contractor or a temporary part-time employee, provided that any person employee so assigned shall possess the minimum qualifications for such position.

(b) Except as otherwise permitted by law, all requests for leave shall be in writing, and shall be sent to the City Manager or his/her designee. The request shall include the expected start and ends dates of the leave, and any medical certifications required by the provisions of this Rule. An employee shall provide as much advance notice of the need for leave as practicable. Generally, when the need for the leave is foreseeable, the employee shall try to provide at least ten (10) days’ notice prior to the commencement of the leave. Failure to provide advance notice of the need for leave may be grounds for delaying the start of the leave.

SECTION 1 – VACATION LEAVE:

(a) Employees are entitled to accrue paid vacation leave under the following schedule:

Length of Employment Vacation Accrual Rates
Beginning of 1st month through 2 years 6.67 hours per month
Beginning of 3rd year through 5 years 8 hours per month
Beginning of 6th year through 15 years 10 hours per month
Beginning of 16th year and more 8 additional hours per year for each year of service up to a maximum of 160 hours per year

 

(b) Vacation leave may be accumulated to a maximum of two year’s worth of accrued vacation leave. Once an employee reaches the maximum vacation leave, which may be accumulated, the employee shall cease to accrue any further vacation leave until the amount accumulated falls below the maximum.

(c) The scheduling of vacation leave must be approved in advance by the City Manager. Employees shall submit a written request to schedule vacation leave to the City Manager within a reasonable amount of time prior to the desired date and shall may be granted in accordance with the work force needs of the City.

(d) Employees will have the option to be paid for up to 50% of accrued vacation leave allowed by these Rules with the approval of the City Manager, according to procedures and deadlines established by the City Manager.

(d e) Employees will have the option to be paid for vacation leave that exceeds the maximum allowed by these Rules if a requested vacation leave is received and denied by the City Manager due to the work force needs of the City, not less than thirty (30) days prior to exceeding the maximum accrual.

(e f) Employees shall not be granted, and accordingly are not entitled to take vacation leave in advance of its accrual.

(f g) Upon termination from employment, employees shall be paid for accumulated vacation leave up to a maximum amount which may be accumulated by these Rules.

(g h) Vacation leave may be used for medical appointments, pregnancy disability leave and leave pursuant to the federal and California family and medical leave statutes.

SECTION 2 – ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE: In addition to an employee’s earned vacation leave, each employee covered by these Rules may be granted up to sixty-two (62) hours of seven (7) administrative leave days off per fiscal year at the sole discretion of the City Manager.

(a) The scheduling of administrative leave must be approved in advance by the City Manager. Employees shall submit a written request to schedule administrative leave to the City Manager within a reasonable amount of time prior to the desired leave. In the exercise of the City Manager’s discretion, he/she shall consider the work force needs of the City.

(b) Administrative leave may not be accumulated to the next fiscal year.

(c) Upon termination from employment, employees shall not be granted and accordingly are not entitled to be paid for administrative leave.

(d) Administrative leave may be used for medical appointments, pregnancy disability leave and leaves provided pursuant to the federal and California family and medical leave statutes.

SECTION 3 – SICK LEAVE:

(a) Employees earn paid sick leave at the rate of eight (8) hours for each full calendar month of continuous employment with the City.

(b) Unused sick leave may be accumulated to a maximum of seven hundred and twenty (720) hours.

(c) In order to receive paid sick leave, an employee must notify the City Manager at the earliest possible time, generally before 8:30 a.m. on the day that the leave will be used. Such notice shall provide the fact and the reason for the leave. Failure to provide reasonable notice will be cause for denial of sick leave with pay for the period of the absence. The City Manager may require written verification of the cause of absence.

(d) Employees shall not be granted, and accordingly are not entitled to take paid sick leave in advance of its accrual.

(e) Employees who use more than five (5) forty (40) consecutive sick days hours shall be required to furnish a physician’s certificate stating that the employee is able to safely return to work. The City reserves the right to choose the physician who shall provide the certification.

(d) Sick leave may be used for medical appointments, pregnancy disability leave, leaves provided pursuant to the federal and California family and medical leave statutes and to care for an employee’s spouse, child(ren), parent(s) or spouse’s child(ren) or parent(s) due to illness.

(e) Upon termination or dismissal from employment, employees shall not be granted, and accordingly are not entitled to be paid for accumulated sick leave.

(f) This section shall be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with applicable federal and California law.

SECTION 4 – WELLNESS LEAVE: Employees are eligible to earn four and a half (4 ½) hours one half day of paid wellness leave for ten (10) consecutive weeks of perfect attendance without using any sick leave time.

(a) Prospectively, the ten (10) week period shall be calculated from June 2, 1991.

(b) A maximum of nine hours one (1) day of wellness leave may be accumulated.

(c) Upon termination or dismissal from employment, employees shall not be granted, and accordingly are not entitled to be paid for wellness leave.

(d) Wellness leave may be used for pregnancy disability leave and leaves provided under the federal and California family and medical leave statutes.

SECTION 5 – BEREAVEMENT LEAVE: Paid bereavement leave shall not be considered accrued leave which an employee may use at his/her discretion, but is granted by reason of the death of a member of the employee’s immediate family, consisting of an employee’s spouse and employee’s or their spouse’s child, parent, sibling, stepparent, stepchild and grandparent. An employee may take a maximum of three (3) working days of bereavement leave each time when a death occurs within an employee’s immediate family. In order to receive paid bereavement leave, the employee must notify the City Manager at the earliest possible time, generally before 8:30 a.m. on the day that the leave is first requested. In the event the employee must travel out of state in connection with the bereavement, the employee shall be allowed to use the equivalent of two (2) additional working days of sick leave in addition to the granted bereavement leave for each incident.

SECTION 6 – JURY DUTY:

(a) Employees called for jury duty shall give the City Manager reasonable advance written notice of the obligation to serve.

(b) Employees will be paid their regular wages, less jury duty pay (other than mileage or subsistence allowances) or may elect to forfeit the jury duty warrant to the City and receive full City wages.

(c) Written evidence of jury duty attendance shall be presented to the Personnel Officer.

(d) Employees shall continue to report to work on those days when excused from jury duty, and on which the employee can work at least four (4) hours during his/her regular workday.

SECTION 7 – LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT PAY: The City Manager may grant an employee leave of absence without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) months in accordance with the work force needs of the City. Additionally, the City Manager may apply such conditions as he/she deems warranted in the best interest of the City. No such leave shall be granted except upon written request of the employee. Leave under this section shall only be granted to an employee under circumstances where the employee is not otherwise eligible for pregnancy disability leave or family and medical leave as provided under applicable law and Sections 8 7 (Pregnancy Disability Leave) and 11 (Family and Medical Leave), respectively of this Rule. Approval shall be in writing and a copy filed with the Personnel Officer.

(a) A leave of absence without pay shall not be construed as a break in service or employment, however, paid leave benefits, increases in salary, and other similar benefits shall not accrue to a person granted such leave during the period of absence.

(b) Use of a leave of absence without pay for a purpose other than that requested, may be cause for forfeiture of reinstatement rights. Failure on the part of an employee on such a leave to report to work promptly at its expiration may be cause for discharge.

(c) An employee reinstated after a leave of absence without pay shall receive that same step in the salary range that he/she received when the leave of absence began. Time spent on such leave without pay shall not count towards service for increases within the salary range, and the employee’s or probationary employee’s evaluation date shall be set forward one (1) month for each thirty (30) consecutive calendar days taken.

(d) The City shall maintain group health insurance coverage for an employee (including dependent coverage) while the employee is taking a medical leave of absence under this section at the level and under the conditions coverage would have been provided by the City if the employee had not taken such leave. In the event an employee does not return to work following the leave, the City reserves the right to recover the premiums or other sums the City paid for group health insurance coverage during the period of the leave.

(e) The employee is responsible to pay the entire cost of the all applicable health and life insurance premiums and other insurance premiums (such as long term disability and accidental death and dismemberment) during a non-medical leave of absence without pay that exceeds thirty (30) calendar days. In addition, in advance of taking the leave, the employee must make written arrangements with the finance department to pay for the costs of such coverage. Premiums shall be paid within the time specified by the City or as otherwise required by the applicable insurance or benefit program.

(f) If the leave of absence without pay was for medical reasons, prior to resuming regular duties, an employee shall furnish the Personnel Officer with a physician’s certificate stating that the employee is able to return to work.

SECTION 8 – PREGNANCY DISABILITY LEAVE:

(a) An employee who is temporarily disabled and unable to work due to pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions may take a leave of absence without pay for up to four (4) months. Leave taken under the pregnancy disability policy runs concurrently with family and medical leave under the federal law, but not family and medical leave under California law. Pregnancy Disability Leave may also be taken for pre-natal care.

(b) All requests for pregnancy disability leave shall be in writing, and shall be sent to the City Manager. The request shall include the expected start and end dates of the leave, and the medical certificate required by this section.

(c) An employee shall provide as much advance notice of the need for pregnancy disability leave as practicable. Generally, the employee shall provide at least thirty (30) days’ advance notice.

(d) An employee requesting a pregnancy disability leave may be required to shall provide the City Manager with a certificate from a health care provider on an form supplied by the City that the employee is disabled by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical condition. Failure to provide the required certification in a timely manner (within fifteen (15) days of the leave request) may result in denial of the leave request until such certification is provided. Recertification is required if leave is sought after expiration of the time estimated by the health care provider. Failure to submit a required recertification can result in termination of the leave.

(e) Prior to returning to work, an employee who took pregnancy disability leave must provide the City Manager with a certificate from a health care provider that the employee’s disability has ceased and the person is able to return to work.

(f) A pregnancy disability leave of absence shall not be construed as a break in service or employment.

(g) Use of pregnancy disability leave for a purpose other than that for which it was granted shall be cause for discharge and forfeiture of reinstatement rights. To the extent permitted by law, failure on the part of the employee on pregnancy disability leave to report to work promptly at its expiration shall be cause for discharge.

(h) Except as otherwise provided by law, upon timely return from pregnancy disability leave, the employee shall be reinstated to her original job. If the employee is not cannot returned to her original job, she shall be returned to a substantially similar job, unless either there is no substantially similar job position available or filling the substantially similar position would substantially undermine the City’s ability to operate safely and efficiently.

(i) An employee reinstated to her original job position after a pregnancy disability leave of absence shall receive the same step in the salary range that she received when the leave of absence began. If the time spent on such leave was without pay, the time shall not count toward service for increases within the salary range or paid leave benefits, and the employee’s or probationary employee’s evaluation date shall be set forward one (1) month for each thirty (30) consecutive calendar days taken.

(j) The City shall maintain group health insurance coverage for an employee (including dependent coverage) while the employee is taking pregnancy disability leave at the level and under the conditions coverage would have been provided by the City if the employee had not taken the leave. In the event an employee does not return to work following a pregnancy disability leave, the City reserves the right to recover the premiums or other sums the City paid for group health insurance coverage during the period of the Pregnancy Disability Leave.

(k) This section shall be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with applicable federal and California law.

SECTION 9 – MILITARY LEAVE: Military leave shall be granted in accordance with applicable federal and California law.

SECTION 10 – PAID HOLIDAY LEAVE:

(a) Subject to the restrictions described below, employees shall receive paid leave at his/her straight hourly rate for the following designated City holidays:

(1)The last Monday in May;
(2) July 4;
(3) The first Monday in September
(4) The fourth Thursday in November
(5) The day after the fourth Thursday in November

(6) The period between and including December 24 and January 1 (Saturdays and Sundays and other non-work days excepted); and
(7)One day as a floating holiday which shall be designated yearly by the City Manager.

(b) If July 4th falls upon a Saturday, the Friday before is the observed holiday, and if the date falls upon a Sunday, the Monday following is the observed holiday.

(c) In order to be eligible for holiday pay, an employee must work the last scheduled workday before and the first scheduled workday after the holiday unless the employee is taking approved paid leave. The City Manager shall waive this requirement when necessary to maintain an employee’s exempt status.

(e) If a holiday falls during an employee’s approved vacation leave period, the employee shall be paid for the holiday and shall not be charged with a vacation day for the day the holiday is observed.

(f) If a holiday falls during an employee’s approved sick leave period, the employee will be paid for the holiday and will not be charged with a sick day for the day the holiday is observed.

(g) Employees on non-paid leave of absence for any reason are ineligible for holiday benefits for holidays that are observed during the period they are on a non-paid leave of absence.

(h) Upon termination or dismissal from employment, employees shall not be granted, and accordingly are not entitled to be paid for an unused floating holiday.

SECTION 11 – FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE:

(a) All employees who have worked for the City at least twelve (12) months and a minimum of one thousand two hundred and fifty (1,250) hours during the twelve (12) months prior to a request for leave are eligible for an unpaid leave of absence for the following reasons:

(1) The birth of a child of the employee and to care for the child.

(2) The placement of a child with the employee through adoption or a foster care program.

(3) To care for the employee’s spouse, child or parent if the spouse, child or parent, or the spouse’s child or parent has a serious health condition.

(4) The serious health condition of the employee that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of his or her position.

(b) A "serious health condition" is an illness, injury, impairment or physical or mental condition that involves either:

(1) Inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility; or

(2) Continuing treatment or continuing supervision by a health care provider.

(c) Each eligible employee shall be entitled to take an unpaid leave of up to twelve (12) workweeks during any rolling twelve (12) month period for the purposes listed above. An employee disabled by pregnancy shall be entitled to take unpaid leave, in addition to medical and family leave, of up to four months when the employee is disabled by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. Under certain circumstances as allowed by applicable law, an employee may take family and medical leave intermittently (taking leave in blocks of time or reducing the employee’s weekly or daily work schedule).

(d) Entitlement to family leave for the birth of a child or the placement of a child with the employee through adoption or a foster care program shall expire twelve (12) months after the birth or placement of the child with the employee.

(e) An employee married to another employee at the City is entitled to an aggregate amount of family and medical leave that does not exceed twelve (12) work weeks when added to the family and medical leave taken by the employee’s spouse for the purpose of the birth or placement of a child with the employees.

(f) A family or medical leave shall be unpaid, except that an employee may use any accumulated vacation leave, sick leave, compensatory time, administrative leave and wellness leave during the leave provided for in this Section.

(g) The City shall maintain group health insurance coverage for an employee (including dependent coverage) while taking family and medical leave at the level and under the conditions coverage would have been provided by the City if the employee had not taken the leave. In the event an employee does not return to work following a family and medical leave, the City reserves the right to recover the premiums or other sums the City paid for group health insurance coverage during the period of the employee’s leave, to the extent permitted by applicable law.

(h) Except as otherwise permitted by law, all requests for leave shall be in writing, and shall be sent to the City Manager. The request shall include the expected start and end dates of the leave, and the medical certification set forth in subsections (j) or (k) herein. An employee shall provide as much advance notice of the need for leave as practicable. Generally, when the need for leave is foreseeable, the employee shall provide not less than ten (10) days’ notice prior to the commencement of the leave. Failure to provide advance notice of the need for leave may be grounds for delaying the start of the leave.

(i) Where the employee takes leave for planned medical treatment of a spouse, child or parent, or of a spouse’s child or parent, or of the employee, the employee shall consult with the City Manager and make a reasonable effort to schedule the leave so as not to unduly disrupt the operation of the City.

(j) The City may require an employee to provide medical certification of the need for a medical leave for the care of a spouse, child or parent with a serious health condition. An employee requesting leave under this section because of a serious health condition shall provide medical certification from the appropriate health care provider on a form supplied by the City. Failure to provide the required certificate in a timely manner (within fifteen (15) days of the leave request) may result in denial of the leave request until such certification is provided. Recertification is required if leave is sought after expiration of the time estimated by the health care provider. Failure to submit a required recertification can result in termination of the leave. The certification shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:

(1) The date on which the serious health condition began;

(2) The probably duration of the serious health condition;

(3) An estimate of the amount of time that the health care provider believes the employee needs to care for the individual requiring the care;

(4) A statement that the serious health condition warrants the participation of a family member to provide care during the period of the treatment or supervision of the individual requiring care; and

(5) To the extent provided by applicable law, appropriate medical facts within the knowledge of the health care provider regarding the condition.

(k) The City may require an employee to provide medical certification of the need for a medical leave for the employee’s own serious health condition. For requests involving the employee’s own serious health condition except those involving pregnancy disability, the City, at its expense, may request a second opinion by a health care provider of the City’s choice. If the second opinion differs from the first one, the City will pay for a third, mutually agreeable, health care provider to provide a final and binding opinion. The certification shall contain at a minimum, the following information:

(1) The date on which the serious health condition began;

(2) The probable duration of the serious health condition;

(3) A statement by the health care provider that, due to the serious health condition, the employee is unable to perform the functions of his or her position with the City, and;

(4) To the extent provided by applicable law, appropriate medical facts within the knowledge of the health care provider regarding the condition that are related to the employee’s ability to perform his/her job duties.

(l) During the leave, the City may require periodic recertification by a health care provider and other periodic reports.

(m) Except as otherwise provided by law, upon return from family and medical leave, the employee shall be reinstated to the same or an equivalent position held when the leave commenced. If the employee is not returned to their original job, he/she shall be returned to a substantially similar job, unless either there is no substantially similar job position available or filling the substantially similar position would substantially undermine the City’s ability to operate safely and efficiently.

(n) Prior to returning to work, an employee who took a medical leave for his/her own serious medical condition must provide the City Manager with a certification from a health care provider that the employee is able to resume work.

(o) This section shall be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with applicable federal and California law.

SECTION 12 – OTHER LEAVES: The City Manager shall grant such other leaves as are required by law. Except as otherwise provided by law or by circumstances beyond the employee’s control, employees shall request such leave and obtain approval in advance. All such leaves shall be unpaid, unless other required by law or these Rules, but employees may use otherwise applicable paid-leave benefits to remain in paid status.

RULE VI

WORKER’S COMPENSATION

AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – WORKER’S COMPENSATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: The City provides Worker’s Compensation and Unemployment Insurance to all employees, except volunteers, in accordance with California law.

SECTION 2 – ON-THE-JOB INJURIES: All injuries suffered during working hours must be reported, in writing, immediately to the City Manager. Unless there is an emergency, a City referral slip form must be obtained from the Personnel Officer before visiting a doctor. Upon returning to work from all on-the-job injuries, employees must have an approved slip return to work certificate signed by the attending doctor.

RULE VII

EMPLOYEE EXPENSES

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – MILEAGE AND PARKING EXPENSES: An employee who receives a monthly car allowance established annually by a Resolution of the City Council may not receive reimbursement for mileage expenses. In the event that no monthly car allowance is provided, an employee who is required to use his/her private automobile for City assignments shall be reimbursed for mileage at the current standard mileage rate set by the Internal Revenue Service City Council. An employee shall be reimbursed for actual parking expenses incurred while on City assignments.

(a) All claims for mileage and parking reimbursement shall first be approved in writing by the City Manager and shall be filed on forms and in accordance with the procedures established by the City Manager.

(b) Employees using their personal car private automobile for City business shall supply the Personnel Officer with a Certificate of Insurance stating that their private automobile is covered by public liability and property damage insurance of not less than the amount required in the procedures established by the City Manager.

RULE VIII

TERMINATION PROCEDURES

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – RESIGNATION:

(a) In order to resign in good standing, an employee shall inform the City Manager, in writing, of the effective date of the resignation at lease ten (10) working days in advance. This time may be waived, in writing, by the City Manager. Failure to give notice as required by this Rule shall be cause for the City to deny future employment.

(b) An employee who is absent from work voluntarily or involuntarily for more than nine (9) eight (8) hours without written authorization and who does not present a written explanation acceptable to the City Manager as to the cause of the employee’s absence, shall be considered as having voluntarily resigned from the City employment service as of the last day worked.

SECTION 2 –RETIREMENT: The City shall pay the full 7% of any employee’s contribution to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).

RULE IX

NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT: The City is committed to a policy of equal employment opportunity. Consistent with this commitment and California and federal law, the City does not discriminate against employees or applicants because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, national origin, ancestry, age (40 and over), marital status, disability, alienage, citizenship status or medical condition (cancer-related), or any other basis prohibited by applicable federal and California law. Equal employment opportunity will be extended to all persons in all aspects of the employer-employee relationship, including hiring, training, promotion, transfer, discipline, layoff, recall discharge and termination.

SECTION 2 – POLICY AGAINST HARASSMENT:

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY.

Harassment in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, national origin, ancestry, age (40 and over), marital status, disability, alienage, citizenship status or medical condition (cancer-related), or any other basis prohibited by applicable federal and California law, and the policy of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") is prohibited. The City is committed to creating and maintaining a workplace free from unlawful harassment. That commitment includes taking all reasonable steps to prevent unlawful workplace harassment.

(1) The protections afforded by this Policy apply to applicants for employment and employees. If harassment prohibited by this Policy occurs, the City shall take appropriate corrective action against the harasser, and seek to remedy the effects of the harassment on the employee or applicant for employment. If the harasser is a non-employee, for example, an appointed commissioner or committee member, or a volunteer or vendor, such corrective action may include termination of the City’s relationship with the non-employee. If the harasser is a City Council member, corrective action may include, but is not limited to, public censure of the City Council member by the City Council.

(b) SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

(1) Sexual harassment is unlawful harassment on the basis of sex, including gender harassment and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

(2) The California Fair Employment and Housing Commission ("FEHC") regulations define sexual harassment as unwanted sexual advances, or unwelcome visual, verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Under federal law, sexual harassment includes "quid pro quo" sexual harassment, which is definesd sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when submission to sexual advances or behavior is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, when submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual. Sexual harassment also includes sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment or when such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.

(3) Sexual harassment may be committed by a member of the opposite or the same sex. Employees may be the victims of sexual harassment even if the sexual harassment is directed at others but occurs in the employee’s presence or has an indirect impact on the employee’s terms and conditions of employment.

(c) TYPES OF HARASSMENT.

(1) The following statuses are referred to in this Policy as "protected status": race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, national origin, ancestry, age (40 and over), marital status, disability, alienage, citizenship status or medical condition (cancer-related), or any other basis prohibited by applicable federal and California law.

(2) Unlawful harassment also consists of verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual because of his/her protected status, or the proposed status or his/her relatives, friends, or associates, and that:

(i) Has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment;

(ii) Has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance; or,

(iii) Otherwise adversely affects an individual’s employment opportunities.

(3) Unlawful harassment may be charged challenged even if the complainant is not the specific intended target of the conduct.

(4) The following is a partial list of the types of conduct that may constitute unlawful harassment:

(i) Verbal Harassment. This form of harassment includes, but is not limited to, epithets, jokes, derogatory comments, negative stereotyping, slurs or other verbal conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an employee or applicant based on his/her protected status, or the protected status or his/her relatives, friends, or associates.

(ii) Physical Harassment. This form of harassment includes, but is not limited to, assault, unwelcome touching, impeding or blocking movement, threatening acts, intimidating acts, hostile acts or other physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an employee or applicant based on his/he protected status or the protected status of his/her relatives, friends, or associates.

(iii) Visual Harassment. This form of harassment includes, but is not limited to, displaying pictures, posters, cartoons, drawings, or other written or graphic materials that denigrates, shows hostility or aversion or are derogatory toward an employee or applicant based on his/her protected status or the protected status of his/her relatives, friends, or associates.

(iv) Sexual Harassment. In addition to items (i) through (iii) above, this form of harassment includes, but is not limited to:

(a) Unwelcome verbal or written sexual advances or propositions;

(b) Offering or denying employment benefits or privileges in exchange for granting or withholding sexual favors;

(c) Making or threatening reprisals after the rejection of sexual advances;

(d) Leering or making gestures of a sexual nature, and displaying sexually suggestive objects, pictures, cartoons or posters;

(e) Unwelcome sexually-related or derogatory comments, epithets, slurs or jokes;

(f) Verbal abuse of a sexual nature, oral or written comments about an individual’s body, sexually degrading words used to describe an individual, sexually suggestive or obscene letters, notes, or invitations;

(g) Unwelcome touching, assaulting, impeding or blocking movements; and

(h) Gender harassment and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

(d) HARASSMENT COMPLAINT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE.

(1) Complaints of harassment or retaliation may be made orally or in writing. As used in this procedure, reference to complaints of harassment includes complaints of prohibited retaliation. Anonymous complaints will be taken seriously and investigated. However, the ability to investigate or extent of the investigation may be limited by the inability to follow-up with the complaining party. Making a complaint is not limited to the person who was the target of the harassment or retaliation.

(1 2) The City will promptly, thoroughly and objectively investigate charges of unlawful harassment. The Assistant City Manager, or the City Manager, if the Assistant City Manager is the alleged harasser, shall investigate and attempt to resolve all harassment complaints. The Assistant City Manager or the City Manager may assign responsibility to investigate harassment charges to another competent person, including an outside investigator. The City shall advise the complaining individual of his/her rights and responsibilities under the City’s harassment complaint resolution procedure and his/her right to redress unlawful harassment. Complaints and investigations shall be handled with due regard for the rights of the complainant and the alleged harasser. Information about the investigation and complaint shall only be released to individuals on a need-to-know basis, or as required by law.

(2 3) An employee who witnesses harassment prohibited by this Policy has a duty to report it to the employee’s immediate supervisor, Department Head, the Assistant City Manager, or the City Manager, if the Assistant City Manager is the alleged harasser.

(4) An immediate supervisor or Department Head receiving a complaint of harassment shall immediately report it to the Assistant City Manager, or the City Manager if the Assistant City Manager is the alleged harasser.

(5) Procedure for Complaints involving City Council Members, Commissions, Committee Members, Other Officials or the City Manager

(a) In place of the other reporting options, complaints involving City Council members, commissions, committee members or other officials should be made directly to the City Manager. If the complainant believes the City Manager is also involved in the harassment, the complaint should be made to the City Attorney. If reported to the City Manager, the City Manager shall consult with the City Attorney. For complaints involving City Council members, commissioners, committee members and other officials, the City Manager or City Attorney is hereby authorized to investigate the complaint consistent with this Rule and to retain an outside investigator without need for further authorization from the City Council. If the investigation determines a violation of this Rule occurred, the City Manager shall consult with the City Attorney and the City Manager or City Attorney, as applicable, shall advise the City Council of the results of the investigation.

(b) In place of the other reporting options, complaints involving the City Manager should be reported to the City Attorney. The City Attorney is authorized to investigate the complaint consistent with this Rule and to retain an outside investigator without need for further authorization from the City Council. If the investigation determines a violation of this Rule occurred, the City Attorney shall advise the City Council of the results of the investigation.

(3 6) Informal Procedure. An applicant or employee who believes he/she has been illegally harassed should promptly inform the harasser that such conduct is inappropriate, offensive and unwelcome, and that the harasser should immediately cease such conduct. If the harassment does not stop immediately or the employee does not wish to discuss the matter directly with the harasser, the employee should promptly discuss the matter with his/her supervisor, Department Head, the Assistant City Manager, or if the alleged harasser is the Assistant City Manager, the City Manager. The employee has the discretion to direct the complaint to any of the positions listed above. Applicants shall file harassment complaints with the Assistant City Manager, or the City Manager, if the Assistant City Manager is the alleged harasser.

(4 7) Formal Procedure.

(i) If the informal resolution procedure does not resolve the complaint to the satisfaction of the complaining employee or applicant, the employee or applicant may file a formal complaint by providing a written and signed statement to the Assistant City Manager, or, if the Assistant City Manager is the alleged harasser, to the City Manager. A formal complaint should be filed within ten (10) working days of the event(s) giving rise to the complaint. If a complaint is filed after ten (10) working days, the City shall have the sole discretion to decide whether to investigate the complaint the extent of the investigation of the complaint. The City wants complaints to be filed promptly to ensure the investigation takes place while memories and evidence are still fresh and witnesses are available, and to enable the City to take prompt remedial action, when warranted. The complaint shall include the date(s), time(s), and place(s) of incident(s) of harassment, a description of the circumstance(s), the name(s) of the person(s) involved and witnesses, if any, and any desired remedy.

(ii) The City Manager, the Assistant City Manager or a person assigned by the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager, shall investigate complaints or harassment by taking the following steps:

(a) Review the written complaint;

(b) Interview the complainant, the alleged harasser and any others who may have relevant evidence;

(c) Review pertinent documents or records;

(d) Prepare a written report regarding the findings and conclusions reached. The report shall be furnished to the complainant, the alleged harasser and the City Manager The complainant and the alleged harasser shall be notified to the results of the investigation; and,

(iii) Discipline taken against a harasser shall be determined by the nature, severity and/or frequency of the offense(s), the work record of the harasser, the likelihood of the misconduct being repeated, and any other relevant factors and evidence. The complainant shall be consulted in connection with the corrective action to be taken against the harasser and the appropriate action to remedy the effects of the harassment on the complainant. The complainant and the harasser shall be notified of the action(s) taken by the City.

(iv) Discipline imposed by the City and any appeal taken therefrom by the employee shall be in accordance with the City’s Competitive Service Employee applicable Personnel Rules.

(e) PROTECTION AGAINST RETALIATION.

Employees and applicants have the right to oppose harassment prohibited by this Policy and applicable law, to file a complaint of and to report unlawful harassment, and to cooperate in a harassment investigation free from retaliation. It is City policy to prohibit retaliation against anyone for opposing harassment prohibited by this Policy and applicable law, reporting unlawful harassment in any form, assisting in making a harassment complaint or cooperating in a harassment investigation. Persons engaged in acts of retaliation shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, including termination of employment, and/or other appropriate and feasible corrective action.

(f) ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS AGAINST HARASSMENT.

(1) Employees or job applicants who believe they have been unlawfully harassed are also entitled to file a complaint of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") or the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

(2) The DFEH will attempt to assist the parties to resolve voluntarily the dispute. If the DFEH finds evidence of illegal harassment, and settlement efforts fail, the DFEH may file a formal accusation against the employer and the alleged harasser. The accusation will lead to either a public hearing before the FEHC or a lawsuit filed on the complainant’s behalf by the DFEH. If the FEHC finds that unlawful harassment occurred, it could order remedies, including fines or damages for emotional distress from each employer or harasser found to be at fault. The FEHC may also order hiring or reinstatement, back pay and benefits, promotions, changes in the policies or practices of an employer.

(3) Similar procedures and remedies are available under federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

(4) Victims of unlawful harassment may be entitled to damages even though they have not been denied employment opportunities, pay or benefits. If unlawful harassment occurs, the City may be liable for the conduct of its managers and supervisors and for the conduct of employees and non-employees. Harassers may be held personally liable for their misconduct. Some forms of harassment are crimes.

(g) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. For more information regarding employee and applicant rights and remedies regarding unlawful harassment, an employee or applicant may contact the DFEH or the EEOC. The location of the nearest DFEH office can be obtained by calling (916) 445-9918 (voice) or (916) 324-1678 (TDD). The location of the nearest EEOC office can be obtained by calling (20) 663-4895 (voice) or (202) 663-4399 (TDD).

(h) QUESTIONS. Questions regarding this policy should be directed to the Personnel Officer.

RULE X

VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE

(ADOPTED 01/31/02)

SECTION 1 – STATEMENT OF POLICY: The City is committed to providing a safe workplace that is free of violence or the threat of violence. In support of this commitment, the City strictly prohibits employees and non-employees, while on City premises or engaged in City-related activities, from behaving in a violent or threatening manner. Under this policy, the City also seeks to prevent workplace violence before it begins and reserves the right to address behavior that reasonably suggests a propensity toward violence, even where actual violence has not yet occurred. Retaliation against a person making a report of workplace violence or cooperating in an investigation of possible workplace violence is also prohibited.

SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS:

(a)Workplace violence includes, but is not limited to the following:

(1)Fighting or challenging another person to fight, including but not limited to striking, slapping, punching, spitting or physically assaulting;

(2)Threats intended to place a person in fear of physical harm or that would cause a reasonable person to be placed in fear of physical harm;

(3)Threatening, physically aggressive or violent behavior, such as acts of intimidation, stalking or any activity that attempts to instill fear in others;

(4)Other behavior that suggests a propensity toward violence, such as belligerent speech, excessive arguing or swearing, sabotage or threats of sabotage toward City property or a demonstrated pattern of refusal to follow City policies or procedures;

(5)Throwing objects with the apparent intent to harm another person or place any person in reasonable fear of harm;

(6)Defacing or vandalizing City property; or

(7)Except as authorized by the City Manager, bringing any weapon or firearm of any kind onto City property (including parking lots) or while conducting City business.

SECTION 3 – REPORTING PROCEDURES: Any employee who witnesses or becomes aware of an instance of workplace violence, as described above, or who is a victim of workplace violence shall notify their immediate supervisor. In the event that the employee’s immediate supervisor is involved, the employee should notify the Assistant City Manager or the City Manager. Any supervisor receiving such a report shall immediately notify the Assistant City Manager or, if the Assistant City Manager is involved in the alleged violence, the City Manager. Instances of prohibited retaliation may be reported in a similar manner.

SECTION 4 – INVESTIGATION: All complaints or allegations will be investigated promptly and thoroughly. The Assistant City Manager will be responsible for assuring that an appropriate investigation is completed, except where the Assistant City Manager is alleged to be involved, in which case the City Manager will assure that an appropriate investigation is completed. To the extent possible, the City will endeavor to maintain the confidentiality of the reporting party and the investigation. However, disclosures may be necessary to conduct the investigation, in compliance with due process rights, where legally required or to protect individual safety. The complainant and, if applicable, an accused employee will be advised of the results of the investigation.

SECTION 5 – DISCIPLINE OR OTHER ACTION: If the City determines that this policy has been violated, appropriate corrective action will be taken. Corrective action may include discipline, up to and including termination. The appropriate discipline may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances of the situation. If the violent behavior involves a non-employee, the City will take action in an effort to prevent future occurrences. Corrective action involving commissions, committee members or volunteers may include severing their relationship to the City. Corrective action involving City Council members may include censure by the City Council. Action may be taken under this policy in addition to any available civil or criminal action.

RULE XI

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURES

(ADOPTED 07/05/94, AMENDED 10/18/94 AND 04/21/98)

SECTION 1 – OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT: Employees shall be allowed to engage in employment other than their job with the City, with the understanding that City employment is the highest priority and such employment does not interfere with the performance of assigned duties and does not constitute a conflict of interest. The employee must notify the City Manager in writing regarding their outside employment.

SECTION 2 – MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES: The City through the City Council possesses the sole right to operate the City and all management prerogatives remain vested with the City. In this context, except as specifically limited by express provision of these Rules, all management prerogatives, powers, authority and functions whether heretofore exercised, and regardless of the frequency or infrequency of their exercise, shall remain vested exclusively with the City. It is expressly recognized that these rights, include, but are not limited to, the right to hire, direct, assign or transfer an employee; the right to lay off employees; the right to determine and change staffing levels and work performance standards; the right to determine the content of the workday, including without limitation, workload factors; the right to determine the quality and quantity of services to be offered to the public, and the means and methods of offering those services, the right to contract or subcontract City functions, including any work performed by employees; the right to discipline employees, including the right to reprimand, suspend, reduce in pay, demote and/or terminate employees; the right to relieve employees of duty, demote, dismiss or terminate employees for non-disciplinary purposes; the right to consolidate City functions; the right to determine City functions; the right to implement, modify and delete rules, regulations, resolutions and ordinances; the right to establish, change combine wages or eliminate jobs, job functions and job classifications; the right to establish or change wages and compensation; the right to introduce new or improved procedures, methods, processes or to make technological changes; and the right to establish and change shifts, schedules of work, starting and quitting times.

SECTION 3 – INCENTIVE PROGRAM: From time to time, the City Manager may grant an incentive pay award to any employee in recognition for extraordinary work.

(a) The City Manager shall determine the amount of incentive pay per employee award. However, in no case shall the incentive pay exceed five percent (5%) of an employee’s base salary.

(b) Employees shall be limited to no more than two (2) incentive pay awards each fiscal year.



13. Proposal to Expand Advisory Board Duties. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s suggestion to expand the ability of the City’s Commissions and Committees by allowing them to propose work programs and projects to the City Council.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO EXPAND COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES DUTIES

RECOMMENDATION

Consider Mayor Pro Tem Stern’s suggestion to expand the ability of the City’s commissions and committees by allowing them to propose work programs and projects to the City Council.

BACKGROUND

Currently, the responsibilities of the City’s commissions and committees are somewhat narrowly defined. The City Clerk has briefly described their duties and responsibilities as follows:

PLANNING COMMISSION: This commission oversees major planning applications, parcel maps, variances, conditional use permits and environmental impact report drafts.

TRAFFIC COMMITTEE: This committee that serves as a public forum for traffic-related issues including placement of stop signs, traffic signals, road modifications, safety devices and posted speed limits

RECREATION AND PARKS COMMITTEE: This committee is charged with gathering public comment on matters of park planning, development, and financial planning relative to the utilization of the City’s park sites.

VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION: Created in response to a citizen initiative approved by the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes in November 1989, this commission promotes the balancing of the rights of residents with foliage and the rights of residents to restore views from their property that have been impaired by foliage. The commission accomplishes its purpose through a process of view restoration permit application, site inspections, public hearings and decisions on the application. Commission members also participate in pre-application mediation meetings that are held 1-2 times a month.

EQUESTRIAN COMMITTEE: This committee addresses the issues associated with the maintenance of large domestic animals. The committee oversees the issuance of conditional large domestic animal permits pursuant to certain procedures, and the initiation of proceedings for abatement of public nuisances not in compliance with certain sections of the City code.

FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: This committee participates in the long-range analysis of the City’s financial future during its annual review of the Five Year Financial Model prepared by staff. The committee assists the City Council by reviewing other projects that may have a financial impact on the City.

DISCUSSION

Mayor Pro Tem Stern has suggested that the various commissions and committees be encouraged to bring issues that they believe should be addressed by their commissions and committees (or the City Council if it is within the primary consideration of the City Council) to the attention of the City Council. For example, if the Planning Commission believes a portion of the Code should be re-written, or the Finance Advisory Committee feels they should address the financial impact of any particular project, they should be encouraged to bring the matter forward to the City Council. The Finance Advisory Committee may believe that certain financial options should be considered or evaluated which the City Council has not otherwise directed it to review. The Recreation and Parks Committee may have some suggestions for better meeting the recreational desires of the community. These are but a few examples. Our commissions and committees should be encouraged to bring these types of issues to the City Council for consideration. The City Council could then determine whether or not they wished to direct the commissions and committees to proceed after hearing the issue and addressing staff time or consultant time that may be involved in pursuing the matter.

Mayor Pro Tem Stern believes that there will be significant additional value and benefit to the City from allowing the commissions and committees to make suggestions to the City Council regarding ways in which the respective expertise of the commissions and committees can be taken advantage of by the City.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager



14. Agreement for Design Services. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the agreement with Tom Hollingsworth for design services to ensure graphic continuity in the use of the City’s logo and custom typeface at a cost of $200 per month.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN SERVICES RECOMMENDATION

(1) Approve the agreement with Tom Hollingsworth for design services to ensure graphic continuity in the use of the City‘s logo and custom typeface at a cost of $200 per month.

BACKGROUND

The City’s logo was designed by Tom Hollingsworth in 1978 and has been in use by the City in its tri-color mode ever since. (See attached City Logo article from the Fall 2001 Newsletter.) While the logo is unique to our City, so too is the font (Rancho Contempo) that spells out the City’s name. Mr. Hollingsworth also designed that font and adapted it for use on the City’s computer network. This font was used in the Winter 2002 edition of the City’s Newsletter.

Staff has been working with Mr. Hollingsworth for the past six months on improving the appearance of the Newsletter, more specifically, the redesign of the banner and the column spacing. His design expertise can also be used on other City publications, e.g., the two year budget, the master plans being considered for updating, on stationery, forms, printed matter and signage and in other instances where the City’s image is concerned. Attached are sample cover sheets of City publications that would be candidates for Mr. Hollingsworth’s services.

This agreement calls for a monthly rate of $200.00 per month for up to four hours of work. Hours in excess of that will be billed at $75 per hour, with reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for graphic materials upon submittal of receipts; also, reimbursement for mileage exceeding 100 miles.

FISCAL IMPACT

The cost of this contract can be paid for out of the Community Outreach program of the General Fund.

CONCLUSION

The City’s logo is the face that the City presents to its residents, the general public, tourists, contractors, service organizations, other governmental bodies and non-governmental agencies. It is important to present a modern, consistent image that represents the City in a positive manner. The various City staff functions often independently utilize the logo and font for their departmental needs without appropriate parameters, often resulting in inconsistent usage. Having a graphic consultant to review existing and new applications of the logo and font will provide much needed consistency and professionalism.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



15. Award a contract for services to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for proposed project revisions to the approved BelmontCorp.’s Belmont Village Senior Living Facility (formerly known as Marriott’s Brighton Gardens project). (Mihranian)

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a professional services agreement in an amount not to exceed $38,000 with Peri Muretta, to prepare a Supplement to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 27 for project revisions to the approved BelmontCorp.’s Belmont Village senior living project.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES TO PREPARE A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED PROJECT REVISIONS TO THE APPROVED BELMONTCORP.’S BELMONT VILLAGE SENIOR LIVING FACILITY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE MARRIOTT’S BRIGHTON GARDENS PROJECT).

Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize Staff to execute a professional services agreement for the Mayor’s signature in an amount not to exceed $38,000 with Peri Muretta, to prepare a Supplement to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 27 for project revisions to the approved BelmontCorp’s Belmont Village Assisted Living project.

BACKGROUND

On April 18, 1989, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes conditionally approved a project to allow the construction of a mixed use senior living facility for the Marriott Corporation (referred to herein as "Marriott Project")on a 33.97 acre lot located on Crestridge Road. The approved project included 250 independent living units, a 100-bed health care facility (consisting of 50 assisted living beds and 50 skilled nursing beds) and a 26,000 square foot community center building. In addition to the approval of the project applications, (Conditional Use Permit No. 131, Variance No. 182 and Grading Permit No. 1066) the City also certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 27 making certain environmental findings. Although City entitlements were obtained and were extended, none of the approved project components were constructed. Subsequently, the approved entitlements expired in April 1995.

As a result of the expired project entitlements, on September 23, 1996, the property owner, Marriott Corporation, submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 195, Grading Permit No. 1903, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24655, Sign Permit No. 842, Site Plan Review No. 7942, and Environmental Assessment No. 688 (referred herein as "Brighton Gardens"). On February 2, 1999, the City Council, on appeal, conditionally approved (Resolution No. 99-07 and 99-08) the Brighton Gardens project for the Marriott Corporation to allow the construction of a 122 unit assisted living facility for seniors on a 4.57 acre portion of the original 33.97 acre project site. As part of the revised project, the City approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 24655 allowing a land division of the 33.97 acre lot into two lots. The approved land division created one lot entirely within the City’s designated Institutional zoning district (the 4.57 acre project site) and another lot partially within the Institutional and Open Hazard zoning districts (the 29.4 acre parcel)*. Additionally, a Supplement to FEIR No. 27 was certified by the City for the Brighton Gardens project. The project entitlements for the Brighton Gardens project have been extended and remain valid until February 2, 2002, unless otherwise extended by the City Council.

*On June 15, 1999, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Parcel Map No. 25271, dividing the 29.4 acre site into two parcels consisting of: 1) A 19.63 acre parcel at the corner of Crestridge and Crenshaw; and, 2) A 9.77 acre parcel bound between the corner lot and the 4.57 acre Brighton Gardens site. Subsequent to the parcel map approval, the City prepared a Supplement to FEIR No. 27 (Marriott Project) to consider construction of a 73 unit affordable senior housing facility on the 19.63 acre parcel, which is currently owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency. On August 21, 2001 the City's Redevelopment Agency opted not to extend the exclusive negotiating agreement with the developer and is currently contemplating alternatives.

In early 2001, City Staff met with representatives of BelmontCorp., who entered into negotiations with Marriott to purchase the site and construct the assisted living facility. During the course of due diligence and preparing the engineered plans for building permits, it was discovered by BelmontCorp. that the entitlements granted by the City could not be constructed without off-site exportation due to the large amount of rock underlying the site. Therefore, with authorization from the property owner, the Marriott Corporation, BelmontCorp filed an application with the City to modify the existing entitlements so as to remove the rock and revise the size of the proposed structure. The applications for revision were submitted on September 6, 2001 and subsequently deemed complete for processing on November 5, 2001.

Based on potential impacts the proposed project revisions may have on the surrounding neighborhood and environment, Staff determined that a Supplement to Final Environmental Impact Report No, 27 would be necessary to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As a result, Staff began the process to select a qualified consultant to prepare the required environmental documents. Staff is now seeking Council authorization to award the contract to the selected environmental consultant.

DISCUSSION

On October 11, 2001, Staff sent a Request For Proposal (RFP) to seven (7) consulting firms within the greater Los Angeles area describing the "scope of work", "project description" and the "form of qualifications" needed to select a consultant for the preparation of the Supplemental EIR. In response to the RFP, the following two (2) firms submitted a proposal to the Planning Department (see attachment):

  • P & D Environmental Services - $62,315.00
  • Peri Murretta Environmental Consultant - $38,000.00

After reviewing the two proposals, with respect to the consultants’ level of experience with similar projects, understanding of the proposed project and its potential impacts, and time schedule, it appeared that both firms were highly qualified to prepare the required environmental documents. Notwithstanding, Staff selected Peri Murretta because Ms. Murretta previously prepared a Supplement to Environmental Impact Report No. 27 for the original Brighton Gardens project as well as the nearby Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project. Therefore, based on Ms. Murretta’s familiarity with the City Council approved project and the project site, Staff believes that Peri Murretta Environmental Services is the appropriate consultant to complete the Supplement EIR.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

It should be noted that the project applications were deemed complete on November 5, 2001 and are currently being processed by Staff in accordance to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Permit Streamlining Act. However, as previously noted, the proposed project consists of a revision to the existing entitlements, which are subject to expire on February 2, 2002. Prior to considering the service contract agreement for the preparation of a Supplemental EIR, the Council must first consider whether the existing entitlements (Conditional Use Permit No. 195, et. al.) may be extended. In the event that the Council does not extend the existing entitlements, the need for an environmental consultant will no longer be necessary. If this occurs, the consultant will be paid for services rendered thus far (the preparation and distribution of the Notice of Preparation) from the established trust deposit account, as agreed by the applicant, and the remaining balance in the trust deposit account will be refunded to the applicant.

CONCLUSION

Provided that the City Council extends the existing project entitlements, for the reasons noted above, Staff recommends that the Council authorize Staff to execute a professional services agreement, for the Mayor’s signature, in an amount not to exceed $38,000 with Peri Murretta for preparation of a Supplement to FEIR No. 27 for the proposed project revisions for the Belmont Village Assisted Living Facility.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The preparation of a Supplemental EIR for BelmontCorp will not directly impact the City’s General Fund nor will it have a fiscal impact to the City in that all costs associated with the preparation of the Supplement EIR will be incurred by the project applicant, BelmontCorp.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

  • Professional Services Agreement
  • Proposal by Peri Muretta
  • P & D Environmental Services Proposal


AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES

THIS AGREEMENT is executed this 31st day of January, 2002, by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (hereinafter called "CITY"), and Peri Muretta (hereinafter called "CONSULTANT").

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the CITY received an application (Conditional Use Permit No. 195 Revision ‘A’) from BelmontCorp., on behalf of the property owners, Marriott Corporation, requesting approval to revise the existing project entitlements (Conditional Use Permit No. 195, et al.) to allow additional grading, consisting of export, and constructing an additional 19,226 square feet of floor area to the approved 74,774 square foot building within the approved building footprint, on property located north and west of the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Crestridge Road. Said application will require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is described in detail in the City's Request for Proposal (RFP) dated October 11, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and CITY'S Local Guidelines require the preparation of a Supplement to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 27 (FEIR) for the proposed project revisions; and,

WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that it is professionally qualified and able to prepare the necessary Environmental Documentation in compliance with the applicable state laws and state, local guidelines, and in a format consistent with CEQA requirements.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

Section 1. CONSULTANT'S Services. Consultant shall perform professional services by preparing an Environmental Documentation for the proposed project revisions to the existing entitlements as set forth in the "Scope of Work", attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made part hereof by reference, including the following services:

(a)CONSULTANT, shall prepare, under consultation with the CITY, the following for the proposed project; (1) an Initial Study, (2) a Notice of Preparation of the Supplement to the FEIR, (3) a Draft Supplement to the FEIR, (4) a Response to Comments on the Draft Supplement to the FEIR, (5) a Final Supplement to the FEIR, (6) a Mitigating Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (7) a Notice of Determination, as specified in Exhibit "A".

The Supplement to the FEIR shall be prepared in compliance with the "Scope of Work" attached as Exhibit "A" and shall contain all items required by CEQA (as amended), the State Guidelines, and CITY'S Local CEQA Guidelines.

(b)When requested, CONSULTANT shall attend and participate in meetings with CITY staff as well as Public Hearings, which are necessary for the preparation and completion of the EIR. For meetings which CONSULTANT is requested to attend by CITY beyond the number of meetings identified in Exhibit ‘A’, CONSULTANT shall be compensated based on the rates set forth under the "Budget Summary" contained in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

(c)CONSULTANT shall supply CITY with the deliverables described in the "Scope of Work" attached as Exhibit "A", including the following documents for the proposed project:

    1. Administrative Draft and final Initial Study (IS)/Notice of Preparation (NOP)

    2. Administrative Draft and Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Report (DSFEIR)

    3. Draft Responses to Comments

    4. Administrative Draft and Final Supplement to Environmental Impact Report (including the final response to comments) (SFEIR)

    5. Mitigation Monitoring Program

    6. Notice of Determination

    7. Computer files for all documentation, with processing documents in a format useable by Microsoft Word.

(d)All reports, information, data and exhibits prepared or assembled by CONSULTANT or any subconsultants in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by CITY to the public, and CONSULTANT agrees that they shall not be made available to any individual or organization without prior written consent of the CITY prior to such release. All such reports, information, data and exhibits shall be delivered to CITY upon demand without additional cost or expense to CITY. All charts, tables, figures, and maps, which are prepared with computer-based mapping or spreadsheet programs, shall be provided to CITY in their original formats.

(e)CONSULTANT shall respond to those comments raised by CITY staff's review of the documents in order to facilitate completion thereof. Consultant shall also respond to all comments from the public, responsible agencies, and/or other interested parties regarding the Supplement to the FEIR. Letters identifying the response shall be sent to each commenting party .

(f)This agreement and the scope of work to be performed by CONSULTANT may only be amended in a written document executed by both of the parties to this agreement.

Section 2. Time of Performance. CONSULTANT shall timely perform the services described above as shown in the schedule within the attached Exhibit "B".

Section 3. Compensation.CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT, and CONSULTANT agrees to accept in full satisfaction for the services provided for hereunder, a fixed fee not to exceed $38,000 for the Supplement to FEIR, which includes all labor and sub-consultant costs, as described in the "Budget" contained in attached Exhibit "A". This fixed fee shall not include all expenses for printing, delivery, fax, phones, mileage, etc, which shall be on an at cost basis. Prior to printing of any documents, CONSULTANT shall verify with CITY the total number of documents to reproduce.

Not included in this fixed fee are expenses incurred for attending meetings beyond those specified in Section 1.(b) of this contract; analysis of key issues in addition to those identified in attached Exhibit "A", changes in the project description, plans, or scope of work requiring additional work; and printing additional copies of any document beyond the number of copies specified in Exhibit "A".

The actual costs of CONSULTANT'S services and expenses shall be itemized on the invoice form, and CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for said undisputed services and expenses. Payments shall be made based upon Consultant's monthly invoices up to the maximum amounts set forth in the following schedule:

SUPPLEMENT TO FEIR

Benchmark Item

Maximum Amount of Payments*

Task 1: Initial Study/Notice of Preparation

$5,700.00

Task 2: Screencheck Supplement to FEIR

$19,000.00

Task 3: Draft Supplement to FEIR

$24,700.00

Task 4: Final Supplement to FEIR

$34,200.00

Task 5: Mitigation Monitoring Program

$38,000.00

Receipt of Notice of Determination

Release of 5% Retention

*The maximum amount of payments serves as a cap on payments until the correlated benchmark item is completed, therefore completion of one benchmark item allows for billing up to the maximum identified for the following benchmark item. All amounts of payments shall be less the 5% retention.

Any work approved pursuant to section 1(f) of this agreement shall be included in the appropriate segment of the foregoing schedule, as determined by the City, and the maximum billing amounts shall be adjusted accordingly.

Five percent (5%) of each bill submitted by CONSULTANT shall be held by CITY in a retention account. The retained funds will be released to CONSULTANT when the environmental documentation project is successfully completed by the submittal of the final Notice of Determination.

If CONSULTANT is requested by CITY to revise or supplement the environmental documentation with additional data, information or analysis solely as a result of the CONSULTANT'S failure to comply with the requirements of CEQA, or the State or local CEQA Guidelines, CONSULTANT shall provide such revision or supplement at no additional cost to the CITY.

If changes to existing laws, rules, regulations or policies of any state, federal or local governmental authority having jurisdiction over the project occur, new, unforeseen issues arise, or comments on the documents are received from attorneys other than the City Attorney during or following the circulation of the draft environmental document, during the term of this Agreement that require modification of the environmental documentation, CONSULTANT will perform such additional services on a time-and-materials basis, at the rates set forth in Exhibit "A".

The CITY and CONSULTANT hereby acknowledge and agree that the terms of CONSULTANT'S compensation are not dependent upon the CITY'S final action on these Projects.

Section 4. Independent Contractor.CONSULTANT will act hereunder as an independent contractor. This Agreement shall not and is not intended to constitute CONSULTANT as an agent, servant, or employee of the CITY and shall not and is not intended to create the relationship of partnership, joint venture or association between the CITY and CONSULTANT.

Section 5. Assignment. This agreement may not be assigned in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of CITY.

Section 6. Consultant.Responsible Principal and Project Manager. The CONSULTANT shall have a Responsible Principal and a Project Manager who shall be principally responsible for the CONSULTANT'S obligations under this Agreement and who shall serve as principal liaison between CITY and CONSULTANT. The name of the Responsible Principal and Project Manager is Peri Muretta. Designation of another Responsible Principal or Project Manager by CONSULTANT shall not be made without the prior written consent of CITY.

Section 7. Personnel.CONSULTANT represents that it has, or shall secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform CONSULTANT'S services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT may associate with or employ associates or subconsultants in the performance of its services under this Agreement, but at all times shall be responsible for their services. CONSULTANT may not employ additional subconsultants without prior written approval of CITY. Provisions of this agreement set forth in section 1 (d) above shall be incorporated into any and all subcontracts.

Section 8. City: Liaison. CONSULTANT shall perform under the general supervision of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement of CITY ("Director") or his or her designee, and all communications, instructions and directions on the part of the CITY shall be communicated exclusively through the Director or his or her designee. Any direct communication between CONSULTANT and the project proponent shall be appropriately authorized as determined by the Director.

Section 9. Data and Services to be Furnished by CITY. All information, data, records, reports and maps as are in possession of CITY and necessary for the carrying out of this work shall be available to CONSULTANT without charge.

Section 10. Interests of CONSULTANT.The CONSULTANT affirms that it presently has no interest and shall not have any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the services contemplated by this Agreement. No person having any such interest shall be employed by or be associated with the CONSULTANT or any sub-consultant.

The parties agree:

(a) CITY has sole discretion to direct the work and evaluate the performance of CONSULTANT and CITY retains the right to terminate this Agreement or replace CONSULTANT at any time, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 herein.

(b) CITY has sole discretion to determine the amount of compensation paid to CONSULTANT, in accordance with the provisions of this agreement.

(c) CITY shall pay CONSULTANT from a CITY account under the exclusive control of CITY.

Section 11. Insurance.CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY certificates indicating compliance with the following minimum insurance requirements, to be maintained during the term of this agreement, not less than one (1) day prior to the beginning of performance under this Agreement.

1.Worker's Compensation Insurance to cover its employees, as required by the California Labor Code.

The CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors similarly to provide such compensation insurance for their respective employees.

2. Automobile liability protecting CONSULTANT in an amount not less than $500,000.00 per accident for bodily injury and $50,000.00 for property damage. Such policies of insurance shall:

(a) Be issued by an insurance company which is admitted to conduct business in the State of California and which is rated in Best’s Insurance Guide with a rating of A VII of better. Be acceptable to the City Attorney, and failure to comply with these insurance requirements shall be a material breach of the Agreement.

3. CONSULTANT shall not commence the performance of its services under this contract until the above insurance has been obtained and Certificates of Insurance has been filed with the CITY. CONSULTANT Further agrees that a clause substantially similar to this Section 11 will be included in any subcontract executed under this contract.

Section 12. Indemnification. CONSULTANT agrees to defend and indemnify the City, its officers, employees, and agents against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations, liabilities, and costs, including but not limited to reasonable costs of defense, that may be claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision or other organization to the extent caused by the negligent acts or intentional tortious acts, errors or omission of CONSULTANT or those for whom CONSULTANT is legally responsible. However, if any information or data prepared or provided by consultant is misused by an agent of the City, consultant shall not be responsible for such misuse of data.

Section 13. Termination. The executory provisions of this Agreement may be terminated by CITY upon five (5) days written notice to the CONSULTANT without further action by CITY. The executory provisions of this agreement may be terminated by the CONSULTANT upon thirty (30) days written notice to the CITY. In the event of such termination by the CITY, the CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT for work satisfactorily completed to date of such termination, but in no event to exceed the compensation described in Section 3 of this agreement, based on the percentage of completion of CONSULTANT'S work on the date of termination, provided such work is in a form usable by CITY.

Section 14. Notice.Any notice or materials required to be given to the CONSULTANT shall be deemed duly and properly given upon delivery, if sent to CONSULTANT postage prepaid to:

Peri Muretta
3 Regalo Drive
Mission Viejo, CA 92692

or personally delivered to CONSULTANT at such address or other address specified to the CITY in writing by CONSULTANT.

Any notice or materials required to be given to the CITY shall be deemed duly and properly given upon delivery, if sent to the CITY postage prepaid to:

Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
c/o City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

or personally delivered to CITY at such address or other address specified to the CONSULTANT in writing by the CITY.

Section 15. Entire Agreement.This agreement represents the entire integrated agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT.

Section 16. Litigation Costs.Should any dispute under this Agreement lead to litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees for the prosecution of the action.

Section 17. Applicable Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action arising from this Agreement, including but not limited to matters concerning validity, construction, performance or enforcement shall be exclusively in the state or federal courts located in Los Angeles County.

Section 18. Business License Required.Consultant shall obtain and maintain a City Business License prior to commencing preparation of the Environmental documentation as outlined in this agreement.

Section 19. Merger Clause.This Agreement and its Exhibits are the entire understanding of the parties, and there are no other terms or conditions, written or oral, controlling this matter. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and any of its Exhibits, the provisions of this agreement shall prevail.

Section 20. Provisions Cumulative.The foregoing are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the CITY.

Section 21. Anti-Waiver Clause.None of the provisions contained herein shall be waived because of previous failure to insist upon strict performance, nor shall any provision be waived because any other provision has been waived in whole or in part.

EXECUTED the day and year first stated above.

"CITY" CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

By _____________________________________
John McTaggart, MAYOR

 

"CONSULTANT" Peri Murreta Consultants

By______________________________________


_________________________ ___
(Name/Title)

Exhibits:
Scope of Work
Schedule



16. Request to extend the current entitlements for the BelmontCorp.’s Belmont Village Senior Living Project (formerly known as Marriott’s Brighton Garden project) (Mihranian)

Recommendation: Approve the applicant’s one-year time extension request from the date of expiration (February 2, 2002), setting the expiration date as February 2, 2003, to allow additional time to review proposed revisions to the existing project entitlements (Conditional Use Permit No. 195, et. al) for the BelmontCorp.’s Belmont Village Senior Living project.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE CURRENT ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE BELMONTCORP’S BELMONT VILLAGE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE MARRIOTT’S BRIGHTON GARDEN PROJECT).

Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the applicant’s one year time extension request from the date of expiration (February 2, 2002), thereby setting the expiration date as February 2, 2003, to allow additional time to review proposed revisions to the existing project entitlements (Conditional Use Permit No. 195, et. al) for the BelmontCorp’s Belmont Village Senior Living project.

BACKGROUND

On April 18, 1989, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes conditionally approved a project to allow the construction of a mixed-use senior living facility for the Marriott Corporation on a 33.97 acre lot located on Crestridge Road. The approved project included 250 independent living units, a 100-bed health care facility (consisting of 50 assisted living beds and 50 skilled nursing beds) and a 26,000 square foot community center building. In addition to the approval of the project applications, (Conditional Use Permit No. 131, Variance No. 182 and Grading Permit No. 1066) the City also certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 27 making certain environmental findings. Although City entitlements were obtained and were extended, none of the approved project components were constructed. Subsequently, the approved entitlements expired in April 1995.

As a result of the expired project entitlements, on September 23, 1996, the property owner, Marriott Corporation, submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 195, Grading Permit No. 1903, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24655, Sign Permit No. 842, Site Plan Review No. 7942, and Environmental Assessment No. 688. On February 2, 1999, the City Council, on appeal, conditionally approved (Resolution No. 99-07 and 99-08) the Brighton Gardens project for the Marriott Corporation to allow the construction of a 122 unit assisted living facility for seniors on a 4.57 acre portion of the original 33.97 acre project site. As part of the revised project, the City approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 24655 allowing a land division of the 33.97 acre lot into two lots. The approved land division created one lot entirely within the City’s designated Institutional zoning district (the 4.57 acre project site) and another lot partially within the Institutional and Open Hazard zoning districts (the 29.4 acre parcel)*. Additionally, a Supplement to FEIR No. 27 was certified by the City for the Brighton Gardens project.

*On June 15, 1999, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Parcel Map No. 25271, dividing the 29.4 acre site into two parcels consisting of: 1) A 19.63 acre parcel at the corner of Crestridge and Crenshaw; and, 2) A 9.77 acre parcel bound between the corner lot and the 4.57 acre Brighton Gardens site. Subsequent to the parcel map approval, the City prepared a Supplement to FEIR No. 27 (Marriott Project) to consider construction of a 73 unit affordable senior housing facility on the 19.63 acre parcel, which is currently owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency. On August 21, 2001 the City's Redevelopment Agency opted not to extend the exclusive negotiating agreement with the developer and is currently contemplating alternatives. It should be noted that the project discussed in this footnote is unrelated to the Marriott Lifecare project for which extension is sought.

When, on February 2, 1999, the City Council approved the Brighton Gardens project, a condition was included in the adopted resolution specifying that the planning entitlements were valid for two years through February 2, 2001, unless extended by the City Council.* On January 16, 2001, the City Council approved a time extension request, thereby extending the project entitlements until February 2, 2002.

*See Condition of Approval No. 4 on page 1 of the Conditions of Approval.

On September 6, 2001, an application was submitted to the Planning Department to consider revisions to the existing project entitlements. The application was submitted by BelmontCorp, which intends to purchase the property from Marriott and build an assisted living facility that differs from the Marriott design. The BelmontCorp refers to its proposed project as "Belmont Village." According to the submitted application, the proposed revisions to the Marriott project include 19,226 square feet of additional floor area and 3,060 cubic yards of increased earth movement, consisting of 15,940 cubic yards of export, which was not previously considered by the City. Since Staff determined that the proposed project revisions would require further environmental analysis, in the form of a Supplement to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 27, the processing of the applicant’s request could not be completed prior to the February 2, 2002 expiration date. Therefore, the applicant submitted a letter (see attachment) to the City on January 7, 2002, respectfully requesting a one-year time extension. The applicant’s time extension request is subject to the City Council’s consideration.

DISCUSSION

The Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.86.070 sets forth provisions for the expiration of permits upon nonuse. This section applies to projects "unless another provision of this title or a provision of the approval or permit itself provides a different period for the permit or approval in issue." (RPVMC 17.86.070 A.) The approvals for which extension is sought are subject to expiration provisions under Title 16, pertaining to subdivisions, and to specific provisions incorporated into the Conditions of Approval adopted by the City Council.

First, the applications are subject to the provisions applicable to subdivisions, which allow for an initial 2-year validity period pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and RPVMC Section 16.12.040 A. Parcel Map No. 24655 has not been recorded, and therefore is subject to expiration of approvals if not extended. The RPVMC allows for three one-year extensions after the initial two-year period. The requested extension would constitute the second of these three permissible extensions.

Second, the general conditions of approval for the project state:

  1. These approvals shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of this action [February 2, 1999] unless application for building permits is made. Extensions of up to one year may be granted by the City Council if requested prior to expiration.

The conditions of approval also incorporate a condition specifically addressing the Parcel Map, which states that the map is valid for twenty-four months, "unless extended pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act." (Condition No. 55.)

Based on the foregoing, each of the entitlements (Conditional Use Permit No. 195, Parcel Map No. 24655, Grading Permit No. 1903, and Sign Permit No. 842) require extension pursuant to the specific provisions set forth in the conditions of approval.

The language of the condition allows for "extensions", meaning more than one, but each such extension cannot exceed "one year". Therefore, the City Council can use its discretion in approving one or more extensions of up to one year per extension. The Council could, alternately, approve an extension for a period less than one year.

The Municipal Code contains criteria that are instructive when considering extension requests. These criteria include that an applicant needs to show "substantial hardships, delays beyond the control of the applicant or other good cause…", to warrant a time extension. (RPVMC Section 17.86.070 (C).) According to the applicant, during the course of preparing the engineered plans for construction of an assisted living facility on the site, the engineer discovered that the entitlements granted by the City could not be constructed without exporting of rock debris, due to the large amount of solid rock underlying the project site. The applicant proposes rock export because Staff felt that crushing the rock on-site would create more adverse impacts to the neighboring properties. Therefore, Staff believes that an extension is warranted based upon the new information that identifies the additional grading work, and the process to obtain entitlements for the proposed project revisions.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

As noted above, with authorization from the property owner, the Marriott Corporation, BelmontCorp has filed an application with the City to modify the existing entitlements. In addition to the grading modification, BelmontCorp also seeks to provide wider hallways and larger patient rooms, which would result in an increase to the overall project square footage. The applications for the proposed project revisions were submitted on September 6, 2001 and subsequently deemed complete for processing on November 5, 2001. Staff has determined that the preparation of a Supplemental EIR is necessary to address the project modifications. Therefore, provided that the Council grants an extension, Staff will also seek Council authorization to approve a service agreement for the preparation of the Supplemental EIR (as a separate item on tonight’s agenda). Once the Supplemental EIR is prepared, the entire project modification request will be brought before the City Council for consideration at a duly noticed public hearing.

In the event the existing project entitlements are not extended, the project approvals will expire on February 2, 2002 and the City will be unable to continue processing the applicant’s project revision. Thereafter, new applications would be required for any proposed use of the subject property.

Joint Workshop

On November 21, 2001, the City’s Redevelopment Agency opted not to extend an exclusive negotiating agreement with the developer of the City owned lot for a 73 unit affordable senior housing facility. At that time, the Council decided to consider alternative uses for the property. Recently, on December 18, 2001, the City Council decided to conduct a joint workshop with the Planning Commission and the Finance Advisory Committee, sometime after new appointments are made, to address uses on the City owned lot, along with alternative uses for the privately owned lot located between the City’s lot and the Marriott owned lot, that is the subject of this time extension request.

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to the Conditions of Approval for the original Brighton Gardens project, Staff believes that the applicant’s request to extend the project entitlements an additional year is warranted due to substantial hardship related to the additional grading required to implement the project, and the time needed to process revised entitlement applications.

ALTERNATIVES

The following alternatives are available for the Council’s consideration:

  1. Approve a one-year extension as requested by the applicant and recommended by staff; or,
  2. Approve an extension of less than one year to allow adequate time for the Council to study the land uses in the vicinity of the project site; or,
  3. Deny the requested time extension.

FISCAL IMPACT

The extension of the project entitlements for the Belmont Village project will not directly impact the City’s General Fund nor will it have a fiscal impact to the City in that all costs associated with the processing and construction of the project will be incurred by the applicant.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

  • Time Extension Letter
  • Conditions of Approval
  • RPVMC Section 17.86.070



17. City Council and Staff Team Building Workshop. (Evans)

Recommendation: Consider the suggestion of Councilmember Clark to schedule a City Council and Staff Workshop for the purpose of team-building.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE:JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT:CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF TEAM BUILDING WORKSHOP

RECOMMENDATION

Consider the suggestion of Councilmember Clark to schedule a City Council and Staff Workshop for the purpose of team-building.

BACKGROUND

Councilmember Clark has suggested that a team-building workshop with City Council and management staff would be desirable as soon as practicable. The workshop would focus on communications between the City Council and staff and offer the Council an opportunity to convey their vision and priorities to everyone at the same time.

DISCUSSION

The Council/staff workshop would be more effective with a facilitator and a pre-determined agenda. The facilitator would interview each Councilmember, and key staff members, prior to finalizing the agenda. The workshop could probably be accomplished in a four-hour period.

The City Council has set an ambitious schedule for the month of February. In addition to the regularly scheduled meetings, the Council will meet on Saturday February 9th and Saturday February 23rd to interview applicants for Commissions and Committees. The first Saturday in March (March 2nd) is the Annual Whale of a Day celebration. Given the current weekend commitments, staff recommends a weekday or evening meeting, rather than another Saturday.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager



18. Code Enforcement Case No. COD 001-00025 Status Report on a Code Enforcement Case Regarding Non-Permitted Commercial Antennae at 5905 Mossbank Drive. (Fox)

Recommendation: Receive and file, and provide further direction to Staff as deemed appropriate.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. COD2001-00025: STATUS REPORT ON A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE REGARDING NON-PERMITTED COMMERCIAL ANTENNAE AT 5905 MOSSBANK DRIVE

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Receive and file, and provide further direction to Staff as deemed appropriate.

BACKGROUND

Mayor McTaggart has asked for this matter to be agendized for review by the City Council on behalf of the complainant in the case.

DISCUSSION

On March 20, 2001, the City received an anonymous complaint regarding commercial antennae at a single-family residence at 5905 Mossbank Drive. Code Enforcement Staff conducted a site investigation on March 26, 2001 and determined that a violation existed. A "first notice" letter was sent to the property owner on April 3, 2001, giving the property owner until May 7, 2001 to remove the antennae or contact the Planning Division regarding the process to legalize them.

The property owner met with Planning Staff on May 1, 2001 to discuss the legalization process, and upon further discussion with Code Enforcement Staff, was given until June 6, 2001 to submit to the City a written course of action to correct the violation. When this information was not submitted timely, the City sent a "second notice" letter to the property owner on June 14, 2001. Over the next three months, Code Enforcement Staff had several conversations with the property owner explaining why the antennae needed to be either legalized or removed, but the antennae were not removed nor were the necessary applications to legalize them submitted. Accordingly, on September 4, 2001, the City issued a "final notice" letter to the property owner, giving him until September 28, 2001 to correct the violation. The September 28th deadline passed without the removal of the antennae or the submittal of appropriate applications.

An administrative hearing between the property owner and Code Enforcement and City Attorney Staff was scheduled for November 29, 2001. At the November 29th hearing, the property owner asserted his belief that some—if not all—of the existing antennae might be "grandfathered" because they were installed when the old County Code was in effect. The property owner also claimed to be in possession of documentation to prove that at least some of the antennae were legally installed. As a result of the hearing, City Staff agreed to further research the possibility that the County Code might have allowed some of the existing antennae without permits, and the property owner was asked to compile any information he had about previous permits for the antennae for presentation to the City.

Staff has completed its review of the old County Code and determined that commercial antennae would have required the approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). Furthermore, the City has received no additional information from the property owner, although there have been further claims by the complainant about the recent installation of additional equipment and antennae on the site. As such, the City Attorney’s office is in the process of notifying the property owner that the antennae are not "grandfathered" and must be either removed or an application for their legalization submitted to the Planning Division, or legal action will be taken to ensure compliance. In addition, Code Enforcement Staff is in the process of verifying whether additional antennae and/or equipment have been added on the site.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The property owner and the complainant have both been advised of the City Council’s discussion of this matter on tonight’s agenda.

CONCLUSION

Code Enforcement Case No. COD2001-00025 is an open Code Enforcement case that is currently being handled jointly by Code Enforcement and City Attorney Staff. As discussed above, City Staff is currently determining the appropriate course of action to bring the property at 5905 Mossbank Drive into compliance with City Codes—as quickly as possible—while protecting the rights of all affected parties.

FISCAL IMPACT

The City Council’s review of this matter will have no fiscal impact upon the City.

ALTERNATIVES

The following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:

  1. Receive and file this report; and/or,
  2. Provide further direction to Staff as deemed appropriate.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



19. Quarterly "Off-Site" City Council Meetings. (Evans)

Recommendation: Provide staff with direction.

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2002

SUBJECT: QUARTERLY "OFF-SITE" CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

RECOMMENDATION

Provide Staff with direction.

DISCUSSION

Currently, the City Council conducts its regular meetings in the Council Chambers at Fred Hesse Community Park. Councilman Clark has proposed that the City Council conduct "off-site" Council meetings at various locations throughout the City on a quarterly basis. The most likely locations for these meetings would be City park facilities and school auditoriums.

Submitted:
Les Evans, City Manager


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers to report on Council assignments.)



ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.



CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST


Based on Government Code Section 54954.5
(All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections)


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR


G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

Property: Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029,
7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022

City Negotiators: City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, and Keith Lenard.

Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

Property: APN 7564-005-001, 7572-001-001 TO 004, 06 AND 07, 7581-023-011

City Negotiators: City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement, and Keith Lenard.

Negotiating Parties: Barry Hon and Michael Walker.

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL


Anticipated Litigation:
(G.C 54956.9(b)

A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council/Agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council/Agency.

___________1____________
(Number of Potential Cases)

Claim against the City by Chandler’s Palos Verdes Sand and Gravel Inc.

Initiation of Litigation:
G.C. 54956.9(c)

______________1_____________
(Number of Potential Cases)

The City is deciding whether to file a lawsuit to obtain an easement.