Agenda — King City City Council, March 14, 2023

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

CITY OF KING CITY COUNCIL
AND
Sitting as SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF

THE RDA FOR THE CITY OF KING
AND
Sitting as PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

FOR THE CITY OF KING
TUESDAY MARCH 14, 2023
6:00 P.M.

CITY HALL
212 S. VANDERHURST AVENUE
KING CITY, CALIFORNIA 93930
The City Council meeting will be conducted in hybrid in-person/virtual format.

To join the meeting virtually, please use the link below to join the Zoom meeting:
https://bit.ly/3e0zvaR
Meeting ID: 881 5287 9536
Or by telephone: 1-669-900-9128
Passcode: 052933
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, Please contact the City Clerk's Office (831-386-5925) at least 48 hours prior to the Meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting. * Please submit all correspondence for City Council PRIOR to the meeting with a copy to the City Clerk.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL: Council Members Robert Cullen, Carlos DeLeon, Mayor Pro Tem Carlos Victoria, and Mayor Mike LeBarre

3. FLAG SALUTE

4. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS

5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. National Small Business Development Center Day Proclamation B. General Aviation Appreciation Month Proclamation

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Any member of the public may address the Council for a period not to exceed three minutes’ total on any item of interest within the jurisdiction of this Council that is not on the agenda. The Council will listen to all communications; however, in compliance with the Brown Act, the Council cannot act on items not on the agenda. Comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not to any individual Council Member. Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, staff member or member of the audience is not permitted.

7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS & COMMITTEE REPORTS
Individual Council Members may comment on Council business, his or her Council activities, City operations, projects or other items of community interest. Council Members may also request staff to report back at a subsequent meeting on any matter or take action to direct staff to prepare a staff report for a future agenda.

8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Comments presented by the City Manager, City Attorney or other staff on City business and/or announcements.

9. CONSENT AGENDA
The following items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Members of the audience may speak on any item(s) listed on the Consent Agenda. Any Council Member, the City Manager, or the City Attorney may request that an item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to allow for full discussion.

The Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. Items withdrawn from the Consent Agenda may be considered by separate motions at the conclusion of the discussion of each item.

A. Consideration: Meeting Minutes of February 28, 2023, Council Meeting Recommendation: approve and file.

B. Consideration: City of King Check Register February 16, through February 28, 2023
Recommendation: receive and file.

C. Consideration: King KCCP Payments for The Month of January 2023 Recommendation: receive and file.

D. Consideration: King KCCP Payments for The Month of February 2023 Recommendation: receive and file.

E. Consideration: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of King Amending Chapter 17.03 of Title 17 of the King City Municipal Code Pertaining to Commercial Cannabis Dispensaries
Recommendation: waive the second reading by title only and adopt an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 17.03 of Title 17 of the King City Municipal Code pertaining to commercial cannabis dispensaries.

F. Consideration: Code Enforcement Officer Safety Policies and Procedures Recommendation: adopt a Resolution establishing code enforcement officer safety policies and procedures.

G. Consideration: Second Amendments to Contract Professional Service Agreements for Janitorial Services
Recommendation: 1) approve a second amendment to the contract professional services agreement with Magic Cleaning Services for City building janitorial services extending it to June 30, 2023; and 2) approve a second amendment to the contract professional services agreement with Magic Cleaning Services for City parks janitorial services extending it to June 30, 2023.

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None

11. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Consideration: Release of a Request for Proposal By the Cities of Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield, and King City to Select a Qualified Contractor to Collect Solid Waste, Recyclables and Organic Waste Within the Boundaries of Each City as a Single Franchise Collection Zone
Recommendation: approve the release of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for collection of solid waste, recyclables and organic waste with the intent to jointly select and award contract(s) to one franchise waste hauler for all the South Monterey County cities.

12. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
Announcement(s) of any reportable action(s) taken in Closed Session will be made in open session and repeated at the beginning of the next Regular City Council meeting as this portion of the meeting is not recorded.

None

13. ADJOURNMENT
The City of King is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 5(A)
5(B)
Not official minutes of the meeting.

RE D U C E R E U S E R E C Y C L E
“To manage Salinas Valley solid waste as a resource, promoting sustainable, environmentally sound and cost-effective practices through an integrated system of waste reduction, reuse, recycling, innovative technology, customer service, and education.”

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

M E E T I N G HI G H L I G H T S
February 16, 2023
Revised 2023 Meetings Calendar
The Executive Committee meetings were moved to 5:30 p.m. on the first Thursday of the month (Thursdays, two weeks before each Board of Directors meeting). Revised 2023 Meetings Calendar.

The Board of Directors and Executive Committee meetings will be held in person starting March. Virtual public participation will remain available via Zoom.

Atlas Organics Update
In March 2022 the Board approved an agreement with Atlas Organics to begin operations of the processing and marketing of organics at the Johnson Canyon Landfill effective July 1, 2022. The approval of the agreement included site improvements and the
incorporation of the use of innovative technology. The
Board received a brief overview of Atlas Organics’ other operations throughout the country and an update on the
timeline for site improvements. The construction project is estimated to be completed towards the end of June.

Advanced Organics Technology Development
Part of the Authority’s mission is to search for innovative technology to assist in the goal of diversion of waste and organics from the landfill.

Staff has identified four types of technologies that have been deemed adequate and available for the Authority and were presented to the Board. Pre-processing, Wet Anaerobic
Digestion, High Solids Anaerobic Digestion, and Autoclave technologies were explained in detail. A Request for Interest will be released to obtain further information on available
developers and technology specifics.

Preliminary Budget 2023-24 Direction
Once again, the preliminary operating and CIP budget of $24,555,000 was presented to the Board for feedback. The preliminary budget is balanced as presented and includes increases to the organics program tipping fees, and the transportation surcharge fees. The Board requested more information at the January meeting for two out of the four options of rate adjustment to AB 939 and/or Solid Waste Tipping Fees available to fund the budget. These two options were explained in detail and the estimated rate impact on the rate payers were discussed. The Board provided direction to staff which included scheduling both the rate hearing and budget adoption for the March Board Meeting.

FINANCIAL REPORT FOR MONTH ENDED DECEMBER 2022 (50% OF THE FISCAL YEAR) Revenue collected $ 12,552,854 (52.8% of Estimated Revenue of $23,764,900) Expenditures for operations $ 11,100,336 (51.7% of Operating Budget of $21,450,000) Cash balance $ 33,018,092
7(A)
Not official minutes of the meeting.
“Manejar los residuos sólidos del Valle de Salinas como un recurso, promocionando prácticas sostenibles y ecológicamente racionales y practicas costos eficaces a través de un sistema integrado de reducción, reutilización, reciclaje, tecnología innovadora, servicio al cliente y educación.”

R E D U C I R R E U T I L I Z A R R E C I C L A R

JUNTA DIRECTIVA

N O T A S DE S T A C A D A S
16 de febrero 2023
(Agencia gubernamental de gestión de residuos sólidos)
Calendario de Reuniones Revisado de 2023
Las reuniones del Comité Ejecutivo se trasladaron a las 5:30 p.m. el primer jueves de cada mes (jueves, dos semanas antes de cada reunión del Consejo). Calendario de Reuniones 2023 revisado.

Las reuniones del Consejo y del Comité Ejecutivo serán en persona a partir de marzo. Participación pública seguirá disponible virtual a través de Zoom.

Actualización de Atlas Organics
En marzo del 2022, el Consejo aprobó un acuerdo con Atlas Organics para comenzar las operaciones de procesamiento y comercialización de productos orgánicos en el basurero de Johnson Canyon a partir del 1 de julio 2022. La aprobación del acuerdo incluyó mejoras en el establecimiento y la incorporación del uso de tecnología innovadora. El consejo recibió una breve descripción general de las otras operaciones de Atlas Organics en todo el país y una actualización sobre el cronograma para las mejoras del establecimiento. Se estima que el proyecto de construcción esté terminado a finales de junio.

Desarrollo de Tecnología Orgánica Avanzada
Parte de la misión de la Agencia es buscar tecnología innovadora para ayudar en el objetivo de desviar los desechos y material orgánico del basurero. El personal ha identificado cuatro tipos de tecnologías que se han considerado adecuadas y disponibles para la
Agencia y que se presentaron al Consejo. Se explicaron en detalle las tecnologías de preprocesamiento, digestión
anaeróbica húmeda, digestión anaeróbica con alto contenido de sólidos y autoclave. Se publicará una solicitud de interés para obtener más información sobre los desarrolladores disponibles y las especificaciones de la tecnología.

Presupuesto Preliminar 2023-24 Dirección
Una vez más, se presentó al Consejo el presupuesto operativo y CIP preliminar de $24,555,000 para su retroalimentación. El presupuesto preliminar está equilibrado tal como se presentó e incluye aumentos en las tarifas del programa orgánico y las tarifas de recargo por transporte. El Consejo solicitó más información en la reunión de enero para dos de las cuatro opciones de ajuste de tarifas a AB 939 y/o Tarifas de Vertido de Desechos Sólidos disponibles para financiar el presupuesto. Estas dos opciones se explicaron en detalle y se habló del impacto de la tarifa estimada en los contribuyentes. El Consejo brindó instrucciones al personal, lo que incluyó la programación de la audiencia de tarifas y la adopción del presupuesto para la reunión del Consejo de marzo.

INFORME FINANCIERO DEL MES FIN ALIZADO EN DICIEMB RE 2022 (50% DEL AÑ O FISCAL) Ingresos recaudados $ 12,552,854 (52.8% del Ingreso Estimado de $23,764,900) Gastos de operaciones $ 11,100,336 (51.7% del Presupuesto Operativo de $21,450,000) Saldo de caja $ 33,018,092

Page 1 of 4 ends

City Council Meeting
February 28, 2023

1.__CALL TO ORDER:

Regular Meeting called to order at 6:00pm by Mayor LeBarre.

2.__ROLL CALL:

City Council: Mayor Mike LeBarre, Council member, Carlos DeLeon, Rob Cullen Mayor Pro Tem Carlos Victoria
City Staff: City Manager Steve Adams; City Attorney Roy Santos; City Clerk, Erica Sonne.

3.__FLAG SALUTE:

The flag salute was led by Mayor LeBarre.

4. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS:

None

5.__PRESENTATIONS:

A. Mayor LeBarre presented American Red Cross 2023 Proclamation to Patsy Gasca who was remote to accept, and Ms. Gasca gave a small presentation.

B. California Department of Insurance’s’- Richie Sayavong presented a PowerPoint on California Department of Insurance which gave provided contact information in case of problems.

6. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS:

None

7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

Council Member Cullen stated Solid Waste Authority will be on the 16th of March, Salinas Valley Fair board meeting the 20th, damage the flood did was discussed and Poultry division of the livestock is cancelled again this year. Monterey Wine competition March 11th, Salinas Valley Fair Kick-off Dinner April 15th. He reminded of Nate Holaday’s celebration of life on Thursday. Citizen, Business, Friend and Hermie Robles Award of the Year Dinner this weekend.

Mayor Pro Tem Victoria had nothing to report out tonight.

Council Member DeLeon had nothing to report out tonight.

Mayor LeBarre stated he will participate in Read Across America Thursday. He was happy to see all the people for the Celebration of Life for Councilmember Acosta. She will be missed.

8. CITY STAFF REPORTS AND COMMENTS:

City Manager Steve Adams stated work is being done on Clean California grant. Blood Drive on March 10th at the Recreation Center. It was announced that the youth center through Sun Street will be named Darlene Acosta in her honor.
9(A)

Page 2 of 4 ends

City Attorney Roy Santos stated he had nothing to report out tonight.

9. CONSENT
A. Consideration: Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2023, Council Meeting B. Consideration: City of King Check Register February 1, through February 15, 2023 C. Consideration: Resolution Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1 D. Consideration: Cancellation of July 25, 2023 Meeting E. Consideration: Consideration of Award of Bid for the Dive Pool Resurfacing Project, Including Adopting Finding of a Categorical Exemption Pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines F. Consideration: Approval of Change Order No 1.1, Adding Purple Pipe to Pearl Street, to the 2022 King City Sewer Improvements Project, Including Adopting Finding of a Categorical Exemption, Pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines
G. Consideration: Participation in Additional National Opioid Settlements H. Consideration: Disposition of Three RV Trailers to the King City Fundamental Baptist Church Action: Motion to approve consent agenda items A—G by and Victoria seconded by DeLeon.

AYES: Council Members: LeBarre, DeLeon, Cullen, Victoria, NOES: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

Council member Cullen has received a concern from a public safety standpoint on the trailers for the unhoused. He asked staff to have language that has protection for the City. It was reminded that this is a TUP good for only a year.

Action: Motion to approve consent agenda item H by and Cullen seconded by Victoria.

AYES: Council Members: LeBarre, DeLeon, Cullen, Victoria, NOES: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

10. PUBLIC HEARING:

A. Consideration: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of King Amending Chapter 17.03 of Title 17 of the King City Municipal Code Pertaining to Commercial Cannabis Dispensaries City Manager Steve Adams introduced this item.

Karen Jernigan wanted to remind council that there is a cost every time we change an ordinance.

Action: Motion to introduce an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 17.03 of Title 17 of the King City Municipal Code pertaining to commercial cannabis dispensaries to be read by title only, open the hearing, allow for public testimony, close the hearing, waive first reading of the Ordinance, and approve introduction of the Ordinance DeLeon seconded by Victoria.

AYES: Council Members: LeBarre, DeLeon, Cullen, Victoria, NOES: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

Page 3 of 4 ends

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

11. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Consideration: Community Choice Aggregation Full-Service Agreement with Pilot Power Group, Inc.

City Manager Steve Adams introduced this item.

Kelly Foley Pilot Power representative further introduced this item.

Rich Chapman Pilot Power CFO was in chambers for questions.

Council member Cullen would like to see more marketing for Pilot Power.

Mayor Pro Tem shared his concern about customer service as he had first had experience.

Council member DeLeon had questions about opting in.

Action: Motion to 1) approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a new Community Choice Aggregation Full-Service Agreement with Pilot Power Group, Inc. (“Pilot”) to continue operation of King City Community Power (KCCP); and 2) authorize the City Manager to make minor non-substantive changes to the agreement, if necessary, in a form approved by the City Attorney by Cullen seconded by Victoria.

AYES: Council Members: LeBarre, DeLeon, Cullen, Victoria, NOES: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

Council member Cullen recused himself due to a conflict and left the meeting.

B. Consideration: Award of Bid for the King City Downtown Plaza Construction Project City Engineer Octavio Hurtado introduced this item.

Karen Jernigan spoke in support of this project and thanked staff for all the hard work going into it.

Action: Motion to 1) award the base bid for the King City Downtown Plaza Construction Project as proposed by low bidder, F Loduca Co. in the amount of $1,790,154.55; and 2) authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed ten percent. by and Victoria seconded by DeLeon.

AYES: Council Members: LeBarre, DeLeon, Victoria,
NOES: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members: Cullen,
ABSTAIN: Council Members:

12. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
A. None
ADJOURNMENT:

Mayor LeBarre adjourned the meeting honoring the memory of Councilmember Acosta at 7:10p.m. on a motion by DeLeon and second by Victoria passed unanimously.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Approved Signatures:

Mayor, Michael LeBarre City Clerk, Erica Sonne
City of King City of King
Item No. 9(B)

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MARCH 14, 2023

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MIKE HOWARD, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: CONSIDERATION OF CITY OF KING CHECK REGISTER
FEBRUARY 16 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2023
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended City Council receive and file.

BACKGROUND:

At least once a month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Council, a copy of the invoices paid for the previous month.

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this item is to provide the Council an opportunity to review and monitor ongoing expenditures. These documents are attached.

COST ANALYSIS:

There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No Environmental Review required for this item.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration:

1. Receive and file the report; or

2. Provide other direction to staff regarding requests for additional information.

Item No.

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MARCH 14, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MIKE HOWARD, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: CONSIDERATION OF CITY OF KING KCCP PAYMENTS FOR
THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2023
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended City Council receive and file.

BACKGROUND:

At least once a month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Council, a copy of the invoices paid for the previous month.

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this item is to provide the Council an opportunity to review and monitor ongoing expenditures. These documents are attached.

COST ANALYSIS:

There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No Environmental Review required for this item.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration:

1. Receive and file the report; or

2. Provide other direction to staff regarding requests for additional information. 9(C)

Item No.

It is recommended City Council receive and file.

BACKGROUND:

At least once a month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Council, a copy of the invoices paid for the previous month.

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this item is to provide the Council an opportunity to review and monitor ongoing expenditures. These documents are attached.

COST ANALYSIS:

There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No Environmental Review required for this item.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration:

1. Receive and file the report; or

2. Provide other direction to staff regarding requests for additional information. 9(D)

Item No. 9 (E)

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MARCH 14, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
RE: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KING
AMENDING CHAPTER 17.03 OF TITLE 17 OF THE KING CITY

MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL CANNABIS

DISPENSARIES
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the City Council waive the second reading by title only and adopt an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 17.03 of Title 17 of the King City Municipal Code pertaining to commercial cannabis dispensaries.

BACKGROUND:

At the February 25, 2020 meeting, the City Council adopted an Ordinance allowing commercial cannabis storefront dispensaries. The Ordinance limited the number of dispensaries to a maximum of two and only in the following areas:
• The highway service area west of the freeway excluding properties located on Canal Street;
• The C2 zone; and
• The First Street corridor and highway service zoned areas on First Street from Ellis Street to Highway 101.

Under the process for selecting those eligible for the limited number of permits, applicants are required to participate in a pre-application process. Applications are evaluated by an outside third party based upon criteria set forth in the Ordinance and must meet a minimum threshold score. If more than two finalists exist, the top two applicants are selected through a lottery and are then eligible to apply for their conditional use permit (CUP), cannabis operations permit and other approvals required before allowing them to operate.

The intent was to establish a time limit for the top two applicants of 6 months to obtain their State license and 18 months to operate or their approval would

CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.03 OF TITLE 17 OF THE KING CITY MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO

COMMERCIAL CANNABIS DISPENSARIES
MARCH 14, 2023
PAGE 2 OF 3
become void. The next applicant on the list would then become eligible. The purpose of doing this was to ensure that the limited number of approvals wouldn’t be wasted with businesses not serious about or without the means to proceed in a timely manner.

Staff has determined there are discrepancies in the terminology used in the Ordinance. It establishes the time limits, but they are based on the time from issuance of a permit. The problem is that those selected through the preapplication process are not technically issued a permit. It is only an approval to proceed with the process. Issuance of what is referred to as the “cannabis operations permit” does not occur until the last step in the process.

As a result, the City has approved two applicants, but they have both exceeded the time limits. The first one selected was over two years ago and have not even begun building improvements or received a cannabis operations permit. Given the lack of clarity in the Ordinance regarding when the time limit starts and ends, staff has not been able to enforce the time restriction. Therefore, the City Attorney has drafted a recommended amendment to the Ordinance for Council consideration that will better define and establish time restrictions.

The Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the Ordinance at their meeting on February 7th. The City Council introduced the Ordinance at the February 28th meeting.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed amended Ordinance would make modifications to the time limit provisions. If adopted, applicants would have 9 months from the time they are selected in the pre-application process to obtain their conditional use permit and building permit or their selection in the pre-application process would be void.

They would then have an additional 9 months to obtain their operations permit and begin operation or their pre-selection process approval would be void.

Since the existing applicants have not had clear direction regarding the time restrictions, it is proposed to grant an extension for their pre-application process selection in order make the process as fair as possible. Therefore, under the proposed amended Ordinance, existing applicants will be granted a 12-month extension from the date of adoption of the Ordinance. Both have indicated they can meet that deadline for operation.

01222.0001/727660.1 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-816

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KING AMENDING CHAPTER 17.03 OF TITLE 17 OF THE KING CITY MUNICIPAL CODE

PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY
WHEREAS, the City of King (“the City”) has the authority, under its police power, to enact regulations for the public peace, morals, and welfare of the City, California Constitution Article XI, section 7; and
WHEREAS, in 1996, with the adoption of Proposition 215, the California voters approved the Compassionate Use Act (Health and Safety Code § 11362.5) to ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use cannabis for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician, without fear of criminal prosecution under limited, specified circumstances; and WHEREAS, in 2004, the State Legislature enacted SB 420 to clarify the scope of the Compassionate Use Act and provide additional statutory guidance regarding medical cannabis use.

These statutes are codified at Health and Safety Code § 11362.7 et seq. and allow cities and counties to adopt supplemental rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2015, almost 20 years after passage of the Compassionate Use Act, the Governor signed the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (“Act”), comprised of California legislative bills AB 243, AB 266, and SB 643. The Act creates a comprehensive state licensing system for the commercial cultivation, manufacture, retail sale, transport, distribution, delivery, and testing of medical cannabis, all subject to local control. One of the purposes of the Act is to ensure uniformity among jurisdictions that wished to allow commercial cannabis operations; and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2016, the Governor signed SB 837, effective immediately, changing the terms in the Act from “medical marijuana” or “marijuana” to “medical cannabis” or “cannabis”, and making other technical changes to the Act. SB 83 7 also adopted regulations relating to the use and diversion of water in connection with the cultivation of cannabis; and WHEREAS, in 2016, the City adopted Title 17, Chapter 17.03 et seq., of the King City Municipal Code pertaining to Medical Cannabis Activity. The Medical Cannabis Ordinance places complete bans and regulations on medical cannabis activity in the City based upon various health, safety and welfare and land use findings relating to cannabis cultivation, dispensing, and consumption, which findings are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, in November of 2016 the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”) was approved by a majority of California voters. The purpose of AUMA is to establish a comprehensive system to legalize, control and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of nonmedical cannabis, including cannabis products. Adults, age 21 and older, will be allowed to possess cannabis and grow certain amounts at home for personal use; and WHEREAS, the AUMA did not provide for a specific effective date, thus the provisions of the AUMA regarding personal use, possession, and cultivation of cannabis became effective the day after the November 8, 2016; and
01222.0001/727660.1 2
WHEREAS, the AUMA’s proposed Health & Safety Code section 11362.1(a)(3), will make it lawful under state and local law for any person twenty-one (21) years of age or older to “Possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process not more than six living cannabis plants and possess the cannabis produced by the plants”; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to enact regulations governing commercial cultivation of cannabis at this time; and
WHEREAS, the AUMA’s proposed Health & Safety Code section 11362.2(b) explicitly allows a city to “enact and enforce reasonable regulations to reasonably regulate” the cultivation of cannabis so long as the City does not prohibit the cultivation of up to six plants “inside a private residence, or inside an accessory structure to a private residence located upon the grounds of a private residence that is fully enclosed and secure”; and WHEREAS, several California cities have reported negative impacts of cannabis cultivation and related activities, including but not limited to offensive odors, criminal activity, (such as trespassing, theft, violent robberies and robbery attempts, and the illegal sale and distribution of cannabis), and public health and safety concerns (such as fire hazards and problems associated with mold, fungus, and pests); and
WHEREAS, cannabis plants, as they begin to flower and for a period of two months or more, produce a strong odor, offensive to many people, and detectable far beyond property boundaries if grown outdoors or if grown indoors without proper ventilation, odor control, and other regulations; and
WHEREAS, due to the value of cannabis plants and their strong smell (which alerts others to their locations), cannabis cultivation has been linked to break-ins, robbery, armed robbery, theft and attendant violence and injury, creating an increased risk to public safety; and WHEREAS, unregulated cannabis cultivation can be harmful to the welfare of the surrounding community and its residents and constitute a public nuisance, in that cannabis cultivation has been shown to involve avoidance of environmental laws and regulations, and has resulted in the pollution of waters and navigable waterways in the State of California; and WHEREAS, the indoor cultivation of cannabis has potential adverse effects to the structural integrity of the buildings in which cannabis is cultivated, and the use of high wattage grow lights and excessive use of electricity increases the risk of fire, which presents a clear and present danger to the buildings, its occupants, and neighboring buildings and residents; and WHEREAS, unregulated indoor cultivation of cannabis can be harmful to the public health, safety and welfare, given electrical modifications risk fires, poor irrigation can cause mold, overloaded circuits can leave entire neighborhoods in the dark, plant chemicals can cause illness, improper carbon dioxide mixed with insufficient ventilation can cause injury or death, and structural changes put first responders in danger if they rush into the unknown; and WHEREAS, the Attorney General’s August 2008 Guidelines for the Security and NonDiversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use recognize that the cultivation or other concentration of cannabis in any location or premises without adequate security increases the risk 01222.0001/727660.1 3
that nearby homes or businesses may be negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering and/or crime; and
WHEREAS, MMRSA and AUMA mandated comprehensive state licensing and regulatory framework for cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, transporting, testing and dispensing cannabis and cannabis products; however, implementing regulations have yet to be written and state licenses may not be available until 2018; and WHEREAS, there are numerous well publicized studies and reports, as well as numerous documented incident in Monterey County and throughout the State, which show that unregulated cannabis activities have a significant adverse effect on the community; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the absence of a formal regulatory framework the adverse impacts frequently associated with commercial cannabis activities will occur, resulting in an unregulated and potentially significant negative impact upon the environment and upon public health, safety, and welfare of the community; and
WHEREAS, outdoor cannabis cultivation and unregulated indoor cannabis cultivation are likely to generate these negative effects on the public health, safety, and welfare in the City, based on the experiences of other cities; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-described express statutory authority and its police power, the City desires to explicitly prohibit the outdoor cultivation of commercial cannabis for both recreational and medical use; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-described express statutory authority and its police power, the City also desires to enact reasonable regulations for the indoor cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution, or consumption of commercial recreational and medical cannabis; and
WHEREAS, absent clear regulation, cannabis cultivation in the City poses a potential threat to the public peace, health, and safety, and, unless the City takes action to regulate it, the secondary impacts described above are likely to occur very soon after the passage of the AUMA; and
WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, residents, visitors and businesses, and in preserving the peace and quiet of the neighborhoods within the City by regulating the commercial cultivation of recreational and medical cannabis; and
WHEREAS, nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to: (1) allow any person to engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance; or (2) allow any activity relating to the cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution, or consumption of cannabis which is illegal under state or federal law; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to regulation commercial cannabis activities, both recreational and medical, within the boundaries of the City.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of King does hereby ordain as follows:
01222.0001/727660.1 4
SECTION 1. The above recitals are incorporated are hereby by reference.

SECTION 2. The Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it will have a significant effect on the environment, and merely provides for ministerial regulations and procedures. (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).) It is also exempt because it consists of regulations and restrictions on activities to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of natural resources and the environment by prohibiting environmentally destructive components of unregulated cannabis cultivation. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15307 and 15308.) SECTION 3. The Sub-Section of Chapter 17.03, Section 17.03.040, of Title 17, of the King City Municipal Code specifically identified below is amended to read as follows; all other portions of Chapter 17.03 not amended remain in full force and effect:

Chapter 17.03

COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY
Section 17.03.040 Licenses and permits.
(h) Issuance of a commercial cannabis storefront dispensary permit shall be governed by the following requirements and/or limitations:
(10) The commercial cannabis storefront dispensary permit shall become void should the permittee fail to commence operations of the storefront dispensary within eighteen months of the issuance of the permit by the City.

A selected storefront dispensary permit applicant shall obtain a City issued Conditional Use Permit and all applicable building permits within nine (9) months of successfully completing the pre-application process as set forth in this Chapter; failure to meet the nine (9) month timeline shall automatically terminate their pre-application approval and authorization to apply for and/or be issued a cannabis permit or other permits required to operate the storefront dispensary. Further, a selected storefront dispensary permit applicant shall commence operations at the storefront dispensary within eighteen (18) months of successfully completing the pre-application process as set forth in this Chapter; failure to meet the eighteen (18) month timeline shall automatically terminate their pre-application approval and authorization to apply for and/or be issued a cannabis permit or other permits required to operate the storefront dispensary. Termination of a preapplication approval and authorization, cannabis permit application and/or cannabis permit pursuant to this section shall not be subject to appeal.

Nothing in this section shall prevent or prohibit a selected applicant whose pre-application approval and authorization, cannabis permit application and/or cannabis permit has been terminated from re-applying to a future pre-application process. Current selected storefront dispensary permit applicants shall have twelve (12) months from the enactment of this amendment by the City Council to commence operations of their storefront dispensary; failure to commence operations of their storefront dispensary 01222.0001/727660.1 5
within the twelve (12) month timeline shall automatically terminate their pre-application approval and authorization to apply for and/or be issued a cannabis permit or other permits required to operate the storefront dispensary.

SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) calendar days after its final passage and adoption. Within fifteen (15) calendar days after its adoption, the Ordinance, or a summary of the Ordinance, shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced by the City Council after waiving reading, except by Title, at a regular meeting thereof held on the _____ day of _________________ 2023, and adopted the Ordinance after the second reading at a regular meeting held on the ____ day of _______________ 2023, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST
ERICA SONNE, City Clerk

CITY OF KING
By:

MIKE LEBARRE, Mayor
I, ______________________________, City Clerk of the City of King, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of the Ordinance passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of King on the date and by the vote indicated herein. 01222.0001/861166.1
Item No. 9 (F)

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MARCH 14, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER; AND
ROY C. SANTOS, CITY ATTORNEY
RE: CONSIDERATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution establishing code enforcement officer safety policies and procedures.

BACKGROUND:

Senate Bill ("SB") 296 established Penal Code section 829.7, which requires each local jurisdiction that employs a Code Enforcement Officer to evaluate the risks, threats and hazards applicable to their Code Enforcement Officer(s) and develop appropriate safety standards. The Resolution was developed in order to ensure the City’s compliance with the requirements of Penal Code section 829.7. As the risks, threats and hazards to Code Enforcement Officers evolve, it may be necessary for the City to amend their adopted safety standards to remain in compliance with Penal Code section 829.7 and the Resolution allows for prompt responsiveness to any safety issues which may arise for code enforcement officers.

DISCUSSION
This Resolution is intended to serve as the City’s policies and procedures for code enforcement officer safety standards and training programs in order to comply with the requirements of Penal Code section 829.7. Senate Bill 296 established Penal Code Section 829.7 which reads, in part, “(b) Each local jurisdiction that employs code enforcement officers shall develop code enforcement officer safety standards appropriate for the code enforcement officers employed in their jurisdiction”. Policy and procedure development, professional training, protective equipment and

CITY COUNCIL

CONSIDERATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY POLICIES

AND PROCEDURES
MARCH 14, 2023
PAGE20F 3
assessment of the hazards and risks encountered by code enforcement officers are all necessary elements in the development of appropriate safety standards and mitigation methods. This Resolution contains elements of policies and procedures recommended by the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (CACEO) to assist jurisdictions in developing standards and training. City Staff and the City Attorney's Office have carefully evaluate the City's code enforcement needs, code enforcement officer duties and community dynamics when creating this Resolution and its policies and procedures. This Resolution is designed to be revised by the City as appropriate to fit the growth and development of its code enforcement needs and to promptly address any safety issues which may arise for the City's code enforcement officers.

Some of the key items recommended in the policy include the following:
• Proper investigative techniques
• Reporting of threats, assaults and batteries
• Guidelines for use of force and prevention of the need for use of force • Guidelines for self defence
• Procedures for alertness, reporting and communications • Inspections and warrants
• Protective equipment
• Training
• Record keeping
COST ANALYSIS:

This Resolution will not significantly impact the City budget since most of the policies and procedures are already in practice by the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The Resolution is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly.

Most of the terms and scope of city discretion are guided by existing State and Federal law. The Resolution does not authorize any specific development or installation on any specific piece of property within the City's boundaries.

Alternatively, the Resolution is exempt from CEQA because the City Council's adoption of the Resolution is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines,§ 15061(b)(3).
01222.0001/861166.l

CITY COUNCIL

CONSIDERATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY POLICIES

AND PROCEDURES
MARCH 14, 202 3
PAGE 3 OF 3
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Adopt the Resolution;

2. Direct staff to amend the resolution;

3. Direct staff to prepare additional policies and procedures for consideration; or

4. Provide staff with other direction relating to compliance with Penal Code section 829.7.

Submitted by: ��9
Roy San os,City Attorney
Approved by: -�)
Steven Adams, City Manager
01222.0001/861166.l
01222.0001/859322.2
RESOLUTION NO. ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KING ESTABLISHING

CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, the City of King (“the City”) has the authority, under its police power, to enact regulations for the public peace, morals, and welfare of the City, California Constitution Article XI, section 7; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City’s express statutory authority and its police power, the City desires to enact reasonable regulations establishing code enforcement officer safety guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, residents, visitors and businesses, and in preserving the peace and quiet of the neighborhoods within the City by providing the services of a code enforcement officer within the city limits; and
WHEREAS, this resolution is intended to establish safety guidelines for code enforcement officers within the city limits to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the officers, businesses and city residents; and
WHEREAS, nothing in this resolution shall be construed to: (1) allow any person to engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance; or (2) allow any activity relating to code enforcement officer safety within the city limits which is illegal under state or federal law; and
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of King hereby resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are incorporated are hereby by reference.

SECTION 2. The resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it will have a significant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).) Further, the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance is not a project, as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, either directly or indirectly, and is therefore not subject to environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(3).

SECTION 3. Policy No. 027 - Code Enforcement Officer Safety.

The City Council of the City of King hereby adopts by this resolution, Policy No. 027 - Code Enforcement Officer Safety to ensure the safety of Code Enforcement personnel while conducting their responsibilities; and, it is further intended to serve as the City’s policies and procedures for code enforcement officer safety standards and training programs in order to comply with the requirements of Penal Code section 829.7.

SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE.

This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. ///
01222.0001/859322.2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the _____ day of _________________ 2023, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST
ERICA SONNE, City Clerk

CITY OF KING
By:

MIKE LEBARRE, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

ROY C. SANTOS, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
I, ______________________________, City Clerk of the City of King, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of the Ordinance passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of King on the date and by the vote indicated herein.

Policy Number:
027
Policy Name:

CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY
Issued:
7/1/22
Revised:

Policy Purpose:

The purpose of this policy is to establish safety guidelines for code enforcement officers within the City limits to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the officers, businesses and City residents.

To Whom Does This Policy Apply:

All City employees associated with City Code Enforcement.

Issued By:

Steven Adams, City Manager
King City Issue 3/28/23 Page 1 of 7 027 Code Enforcement Officer Safety I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to ensure the safety of Code Enforcement personnel while conducting their responsibilities. It is intended to serve as the City’s policies and procedures for code enforcement officer safety standards and training programs in order to comply with the requirements of Penal Code section 829.7.

II. POLICY
A. Officer Safety
The safety and welfare of our personnel is extremely important and a high priority for management and supervision. Code Enforcement Officers are expected to act in a professional manner when dealing with the public; however, if they are dealing with hostile individuals, officers are expected to avoid confrontation and remove themselves from the situation as quickly and safely as possible.

Many potential officer safety issues can be avoided by following proper investigative techniques:
• Reviewing prior cases to determine any potential safety hazards or potential hostile individuals.
• Becoming familiar with the geographical area of the complaint, prior to initial contact.
• Speaking with officers who investigated previous complaints. • Having additional resources available, such as a second Code Enforcement Officer, a supervisor, law enforcement or animal control when warranted.

Supervisors will be made aware of all potentially harmful situations, prior to any initial contact, in order to develop strategies to best address those hazards.

B. Threats, Assaults and Batteries
All threats, assaults and batteries directed at Code Enforcement Officers, shall be reported to supervision, management, and law enforcement immediately. Officers should obtain information as safely as possible about the subject making the threat, assault, or battery, including their intent, ability, and desire to carry out their actions. This information will be vital for law enforcement and Code Enforcement supervisors.

Code Enforcement and Police Departments are expected to share information regarding known and potential dangerous occupant(s) of properties under investigation by code enforcement, and take necessary steps to mitigate the risk of harm to the inspectors. These steps include, but King City Issue 3/28/23 Page 2 of 7 027 Code Enforcement Officer Safety are not limited to, obtaining assistance from law enforcement in making any and all contacts with such individual(s), officers reporting their location prior to making contact and after completing the inspection or other contact, and adhering to safety standards, training, and protocols.

C. Use of Force
Code Enforcement Officers will exercise good judgment at all times if force is necessary. The ability to leave the location prior to any confrontation taking place is the best course of action. Code Enforcement Officers shall utilize the least amount of force necessary to mitigate the threat and safely leave the area. Any force utilized by the Code Enforcement Officer must be reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances then known to the officer.

Mere verbal threats of violence, verbal abuse, or hesitancy in following commands does not justify the use of physical force without additional facts or circumstances substantiating an imminent potential for physical harm.

However, if a Code Enforcement Officer is receiving threats, particularly threats of violence even without additional manifestations of intent to carry it out, the Code Enforcement Officer should immediately retreat to a safe location and notify the law enforcement and a supervisor.

D. General Safety

1. Self-Defense
Code Enforcement Officers have two defense options:
a. Leave the scene (walk, run, crawl, drive, etc.) and call for help. b. If a Code Enforcement Officer cannot leave the scene, such as being cornered or held, they may utilize reasonable force until such time as they are able to safely leave the scene or assistance arrives. Code Enforcement Officers may use
defensive tactics skills, as well as issued equipment to defend against an attack; however, any such use of force shall be reasonable as described within this resolution.

Unreasonable application of physical force on a person is a violation of law, which may result in criminal prosecution of the Code Enforcement Officer and potential civil liability to the Code Enforcement Officer.

King City Issue 3/28/23 Page 3 of 7 027 Code Enforcement Officer Safety

2. Priorities
A Code Enforcement Officer’s safety is first priority. An officer cannot help others if hurt or incapacitated, and if the officer is injured, this compounds the original problem. The safety of others is the next priority. Assistance should come from other department employees, or emergency service agencies, including the Police Department.

3. Alertness
A crucial part of officer safety is staying alert and anticipating potential risks. This requires the use of all senses to observe the surroundings, hear a threat, speak persuasively, or feel that an attack is imminent. Being alert applies not only in the field, but also at the office.
• Pay attention to individuals who come to the office. Making eye contact and greeting them tells them that they have been noticed and acknowledged.
• Watch for unusual circumstances and check in with them. If you find someone in a restricted area, inform them that the area is not open to the public, guide them to a public area of the building, and offer assistance. If you find a strange package in an unusual place notify a supervisor and do not touch it until it can be confirmed to be harmless.
• Plan an escape route. This includes emergency escape
routes as outlined in your agency’s emergency action plan, and potential escape routes when in the field. Every time contact is made, consider what options are available if something goes wrong. This is extremely important when
dealing with hostile people.
• Know the location of visits and inspections. If immediate help is necessary, it may not be possible to review a map for directions.
• When talking to individuals. try to maintain at least an arm’slength of distance and a bladed, balanced stance on firm ground to be able to dodge a sudden lunge, punch, or kick. A bladed stance is when one foot is in front of the other and the body is at an angle to the individual in front of the officer. • Avoid standing downhill, facing the sun, or at the edge of something that could lead to a trip and fall.
• Be aware of nearby objects that could be used as weapons by a hostile individual, such as garden tools, screwdrivers, knives, 2x4s, pipes, etc. Guide the individual towards a more King City Issue 3/28/23 Page 4 of 7 027 Code Enforcement Officer Safety neutral area. If it is not possible to move to another area of the property, move objects out of reach.

The decision to use physical force places a tremendous
responsibility on Code Enforcement Officers. Code Enforcement Officers should clearly understand that the standard for determining whether the force utilized was reasonable based upon the totality of the circumstance then known to the officer.

4. Reporting
Code Enforcement Officers are required to immediately report all officer safety issues to a supervisor. This includes any force used in self-defense, verbal altercations, or incidents where a police officer had to arrest a party. After notification, the Code Enforcement Officer will also submit a written report of the incident to a supervisor.

5. Use of Radio/Cell Phone Communications
Code Enforcement Officers are required to advise office staff and/or supervisor of where they generally will be during the course of a shift.

Officers shall keep their electronic calendar up to date.

All Code Enforcement Officers will be assigned a radio and call sign.

The number will coincide with the procedures set forth by the King City Police Department.

Code Enforcement Officer will limit their use of the radio to only essential information to ensure the channel remains open for priority traffic.

6. Missing Officer
Office staff shall call or radio Code Enforcement Officers periodically while out in the field. If a Code Enforcement Officer fails to promptly respond to phone calls or radio communication, office staff shall begin to contact other office staff and the supervisor to ascertain the missing Code Enforcement Officer whereabouts. A search team should immediately be dispatched with at least one, and if feasible, two Code Enforcement Officers to check the last known and future locations. Electronic means for GPS locating of the vehicle or cellular device should be implemented, if available.

If met with negative results, conduct a systematic search of the area to help locate the missing Code Enforcement
Officer’s vehicle and/or person. If the Code Enforcement King City Issue 3/28/23 Page 5 of 7 027 Code Enforcement Officer Safety Officer still is not located, begin to call the Code Enforcement Officer’s personal emergency contacts to verify the Code Enforcement Officer did not leave abruptly without notifying staff. If still unable to locate, notify Police and provide the information attained above, to help locate the Code
Enforcement Officer.

7. Service of Inspection and/or Abatement Warrants
Code Enforcement Officers may need to obtain inspection and/or abatement warrants from time to time. Prior to serving or executing such warrant(s), the Code Enforcement Officer shall notify the City Attorney, their immediate supervisor, the City Manager and coordinate with the King City Police Department to ensure a police officer is present at the service or execution of the warrant(s). The officer shall coordinate with law enforcement present on how to make contact with the occupant(s) and the best method for entry. Forcible entry shall not be used unless a judge has authorized it in the warrant(s). Code Enforcement Officers shall not serve or execute an inspection warrant without the presence of law enforcement and the Code Enforcement Officer shall report their position to dispatch when arriving and leaving the location subject to the warrant(s).

8. Protective Equipment
Code Enforcement Officers may encounter environmental conditions which may be hazardous, such as mold, asbestos, insect infestation, feces, and airborne contaminants. As such, each Code Enforcement Officer will be provided with an emergency medical kit and personal protective equipment. Based on the known or reasonably anticipated situation, each officer is required to wear or utilize the most appropriate equipment when entering hazardous areas. The protective equipment should be worn at all times until the Code Enforcement Officer believes hazardous conditions have been abated or when the officer has left the hazardous area or property.

Below is a list of some of the equipment provided to each officer.

Each officer is responsible for periodic inspection and inventory of stated equipment. If an officer finds equipment to be defective or requires replacement, please notify supervisor immediately. Listed below is Agency-provided personal protective equipment:
a. Respiratory protective gear-particulate mask, respirator etc. b. Blood-borne pathogen kit- including disposable gloves and hand sanitizer
c. Potable water
d. Basic first aid kit
King City Issue 3/28/23 Page 6 of 7 027 Code Enforcement Officer Safety e. ANSI approved eye protection
f. ANSI approved head protection
g. Tyvek suit or other overalls
h. Leather or work gloves
i. CPR shield or mask

9. License Plate Confidentiality
A Code Enforcement Officer shall not utilize their personal vehicle in the performance of job duties if an agency-provided vehicle is available for the Code Enforcement Officer’s use. If a Code Enforcement Officer must use a personal vehicle, the Code Enforcement Officer is encouraged to apply for license plate confidentiality under Vehicle Code section 1808.4, subdivision (a)(19), or other applicable law. If a Code Enforcement Officer’s personal vehicle is not parked in a location secured against public access, and in other situations deemed necessary, the Code Enforcement Officer is encouraged to apply for license plate confidentiality. If the Code Enforcement Officer is engaged in enforcing the Vehicle Code or municipal ordinances related to parking, the Code Enforcement Officer is encouraged to apply for license plate confidentiality under Vehicle Code Section 1808.4(a) (19) or other applicable law. The agency shall assist the Code Enforcement Officer in completing and obtaining approval of such application as is necessary and appropriate.

10. Training
Continual training is essential for Code Enforcement Officers to maintain the skills required for their individual positions. All Code Enforcement Officers must receive the initial training essential to perform their duties. This may be on-the-job training provided by supervisor and/or experienced Code Enforcement Officer.

All Code Enforcement Officers are required to successfully complete the 832 PC course as prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) prior to exercising the powers of a peace officer. The initial 40-hour course shall be completed within one year of their date of hire as a code enforcement officer.

The City recommends Code Enforcement Officers attend training opportunities provided by the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (CACEO) and other training organizations in order to become Certified Code Enforcement Officers. Once certified, officers must attend continuing education courses to maintain their certification.

King City Issue 3/28/23 Page 7 of 7 027 Code Enforcement Officer Safety

11. Record Keeping
It is important for the City to document and maintain Code Enforcement Officer training records, including copies of all outside training and certifications the officer receives in their personnel file.

CITY COUNCIL

CONSIDERATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY POLICIES

This Resolution will not significantly impact the City budget since most of the policies and procedures are already in practice by the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

CITY COUNCIL

CONSIDERATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY POLICIES

AND PROCEDURES
MARCH 14, 202 3
PAGE2OF 3
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Adopt the Resolution;

2. Direct staff to amend the resolution;

3. Direct staff to prepare additional policies and procedures for consideration; or

4. Provide staff with other direction relating to compliance with Penal Code section 829.7.

Submitted by: ��9
Roy San os,City Attorney
Approved by: -�)
Steven Adams, City Manager
01222.0001/861166.l
Item No. 9 (G)

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MARCH 14, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
RE: CONSIDERATION OF SECOND AMENDMENTS TO CONTRACT

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS FOR JANITORIAL

SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the City Council: 1) approve a second amendment to the contract professional services agreement with Magic Cleaning Services for City building janitorial services extending it to June 30, 2023; and 2) approve a second amendment to the contract professional services agreement with Magic Cleaning Services for City parks janitorial services extending it to June 30, 2023.

BACKGROUND:

Janitorial services have been traditionally provided by in-house staff. Cleaning of City facilities was provided two to three days per week. One of the measures the City took during the early period of the pandemic to increase employee safety was to increase janitorial services in City buildings to daily, including City Hall, the Police Station and the Recreation Center.

This was accomplished by contracting for the services. Following a competitive bid process, the City Council approved a contract with Magic Cleaning Services effective February 23, 2021. On June 8, 2021, a one-year extension was approved to February 23, 2023.

Once park facilities were reopened to the public, a new contract was established to add park restroom janitorial services on April 13, 2021. It was due to expire on April 13, 2022 and was also extended on June 8, 2021 for one year to now expire on April 13, 2023.

CITY COUNCIL

CONSIDERATION OF SECOND AMENDMENTS TO CONTRACT

PROFESSION SERVICE AGREEMENTS FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES
MARCH 14, 2023
PAGE 2 OF 3
DISCUSSION:

One of the agreements recently expired and the expiration of the other is approaching. Staff recommends extending both agreements to the end of the fiscal year.

Since COVID-19 assistance funding will no longer be available, it is anticipated the City will need to resume pre-pandemic facility cleaning service levels under the upcoming new budget. This will involve either returning to providing in-house cleaning services at reduce intervals, contracting for cleaning services at a reduced amount through a new bidding process, or a combination of both options. This extension will provide staff time to determine through the budget process the recommended course of action and appropriate notification to the contractor regarding any changes to the service provision.

COST ANALYSIS:

A portion of the costs for the contract services during the pandemic have been submitted to FEMA for reimbursement from disaster relief funds. Staff is waiting to find out if the reimbursement will be approved. On March 8, 2022, the City Council approved a plan for American Rescue Plan (ARPA) funds, which included $247,000 for janitorial services. This amount included funding for the extension of the agreements through June 30, 2023. Therefore, no General Fund revenues will be expended and no additional appropriation is needed.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Cleaning services are not a “project” for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. No further action is required under CEQA for City Council action at this time.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration:

1. Approve the proposed amendments to the agreements;

2. Modify and approve the amendments;

3. Approve one of the amendments but not the other;

4. Do not approve the amendments and direct staff to begin providing in-house cleaning services at this time; or

5. Provide other direction to staff.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Item No. 11 (A)

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

BY:

RE:

MARCH 14, 2023

HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER

PATRICK MATHEWS, GENERAL MANAGER AND ELIA

ZAVALA, CONTRACTS AND GRANTS ANALYST, SALINAS

VALLEY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY

CONSIDERATION TO RELEASE A REQUEST FOR

PROPOSALS BY THE CITIES OF GONZALES, SOLEDAD,

GREENFIELD, AND KING CITY TO SELECT A

QUALIFIED CONTRACTOR TO COLLECT SOLID WASTE,

RECYCLABLES, AND ORGANIC WASTE WITHIN THE

BOUNDARIES OF EACH CITY AS A SINGLE FRANCHISE

COLLECTION ZONE
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the City Council approve the release of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for collection of solid waste, recyclables and organic waste with the intent to jointly select and award contract(s) to one franchise waste hauler for all the South Monterey County cities.

BACKGROUND:

The City’s Revised and Restated Franchise Agreement (Agreement) with USA Waste of California, dba Waste Management (WM) for the subject services is due to expire on June 30, 2025. The Cities of Gonzales, Soledad, and Greenfield’s franchise agreement with Tri-Cities Disposal & Recycling is also due to expire on the same date. This contract term alignment allows all South Monterey County Cities to jointly solicit competitive bids and evaluate service proposals and select the proposal that best serve the Cities’ needs. A competitive bid process for waste collection services in King City has not been conducted since 1996 when the original contract with Waste Management (then Carmel Marina Corp.) was approved. It is common, and recommended, for cities to solicit competitive bids for these services about every 16 to 20 years.

CITY COUNCIL

CONSIDERATION TO RELEASE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS BY THE

CITIES OF GONZALES, SOLEDAD, GREENFIELD, AND KING (CITIES) TO

SELECT A QUALIFIED CONTRACTOR TO COLLECT SOLID WASTE,

RECYCLABLES, AND ORGANIC WASTE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF

EACH CITY AS A SINGLE FRANCHISE COLLECTION ZONE
MARCH 14, 2023
PAGE 2 OF 3
DISCUSSION:

The alignment of the terms of the franchise agreements for all the South Monterey County cities provides a unique opportunity to partner and conduct a competitive bid process for a new contract for waste, recycling, and organic waste collection contract through an RFP process. A goal of the joint RFP is to attract competitive bids and rates due to the increased economies of scale. The RFP intends to select a contractor to provide uniform collection services for all four cities with some customizable options for each of the cities, such as waste transfer options, billing structure, and other additional services. This Request for Proposals (RFP) will be issued and administered by the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority (Authority) on behalf of by the Cities of Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield, and King (Cities) to select a qualified contractor to provide collect garbage, recyclables, and organic waste within the boundaries of each City as a single franchise collection zone.

The RFP document proposes to continue the collection services provided under the current Franchise Agreement to include cart-based services for residential and small business and bin or debris box-based services for business and multifamily facilities. However, the Cities are updating the scope of services to assure compliance with most recent State mandates, such as AB 1826, AB 341 and SB 1383. Residential cart services will continue to receive unlimited recycling and organic waste collection, along with a new curbside household battery collection and free bulky waste collection services. Commercial bin services will include providing recycling collection capacity at a minimum weekly volume and collection frequency equivalent to each customer’s weekly garbage capacity, with provision to increase recycling capacity above this minimum level for a small surcharge. Commercial cart services will include up to one cubic yard of recyclables collection at no additional cost, with the same surcharge provision for any additional capacity. All commercial customers are also required to subscribe to an adequate level of organics collection per AB 1826 and SB 1383 unless specifically exempted from this service by the Cities. These services will be required of all residents and businesses within each Cities’ franchise zone.

The Cities intend to enter into a ten-year agreement for services with extension options, to be negotiated with selected vendor, but not to exceed 20 years in total term. The selected contractor will be required to provide services from July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2035. While the intent of the RFP is to award a joint contract, the jurisdictions reserve the right to award contracts to different haulers at their discretion.

CITY COUNCIL

CONSIDERATION TO RELEASE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS BY THE

CITIES OF GONZALES, SOLEDAD, GREENFIELD, AND KING (CITIES) TO

SELECT A QUALIFIED CONTRACTOR TO COLLECT SOLID WASTE,

RECYCLABLES, AND ORGANIC WASTE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF

EACH CITY AS A SINGLE FRANCHISE COLLECTION ZONE
MARCH 14, 2023
PAGE 3 OF 3
The RFP timeline is as follows:

Formal issuance of RFP to proposers...............................................March 17, 2023 Receive letters of intent (mandatory)/initial written questions ..............April 10, 2023 Pre-proposal conference (mandatory) .................................................April 21, 2023 Deadline for final Written Questions.....................................................May 12, 2023 Cities/Authority issues written response to questions ...........................June 3, 2023 Proposal submission deadline ............................................................June 30, 2023 Interviews & Shortlisting (if required) .................................................... August 2023 Public presentations by selected proposers.................................... September 2023 Cities to receive recommended contractor selection
& authorize negotiations ............................................. September - October 2023 Franchise Agreement(s) negotiations completed................... January – March 2024 Final Franchise Agreement(s) to Cities
for Deliberations/Public Comment/Approval .............................March - June 2024 Estimated full implementation of services:

Incumbent(s)............................................................................................1-2 months New Contractor(s).................................8-12 months, and no later than July 1, 2025 COST ANALYSIS:

The new Franchise Agreement includes a provision for reimbursement of costs for franchise procurement and negotiations. The awarded contractor will reimburse the cost of franchise procurement and negotiations for all the involved parties a collective amount not-to-exceed $125,000. Each party, including the City of King, will track its costs and submit for reimbursement upon completion of negotiations. This one-time reimbursement is due to the City no later than August 31, 2025.

The proposed Franchise Agreement also proposes to help reimburse the City’s costs through an SB 1383 regulatory reimbursement fee of $25,000 per year, a $10,000 franchise administration fee, and an additional $20,000 franchise administration fee for the cost of the City’s contract with the Salinas Valley Waste Authority. In addition, the Franchise Fee is proposed to be increased from 18% to 20% to equal the existing amounts of the other jurisdictions. This should generate roughly an additional $60,000 per year.

Exhibit 1

King City City CouncilMarch 14, 2023

King City City Council
March 14, 2023