Montclair City Council
June 6, 2022

CITY OF MONTCLAIR

CITY COUNCIL

SUCCESSOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,

MONTCLAIR HOUSING CORPORATION, MONTCLAIR

HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND MONTCLAIR COMMUNITY

FOUNDATION MEETINGS
AGENDA
MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2022
7:00 p.m.

Location
Council Chamber
5111 Benito Street
Montclair, CA 91763
Webinar Link
https://zoom.us/j/93717150550
Dial #
1–669–900–6833
Meeting ID
937–1715–0550
Mayor
Javier “John” Dutrey
Mayor Pro Tem
Bill Ruh,
Council Members
Tenice Johnson
Corysa Martinez
Benjamin “Ben” Lopez
City Manager
Edward C. Starr
City Attorney
Diane E. Robbins
City Clerk
Andrea M. Myrick

REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE

CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, MONTCLAIR HOUSING CORPORATION,

MONTCLAIR HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND MONTCLAIR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION to be held in the Council Chambers
5111 Benito Street, Montclair, California
Monday, June 6, 2022
7:00 p.m.

Remote Participation Information:

Zoom Link: https://zoom.us/j/93717150550
Dial Number: 1 (669) 900–6833
Meeting ID: 937–1715–0550
If you want to submit a public comment or speak on an agenda item, including public hearing and closed session items, please complete a Speaker Card in the Council Chambers or online at https://www.cityofmontclair.org/public-comment/. The Mayor/Chair (or the meeting’s Presiding Officer) will call on those who submitted requests to speak at the appropriate times during the meeting. Those who did not submit a request to speak who are present at the meeting location may raise their hand during Public Comment to request to speak. Those participating remotely may request speak using the “raise hand” function in Zoom or may dial *9 if on the phone, and then *6 to un–mute when called on to speak. Written comments (200–word limit per agenda item, and 200–word limit for all non–agenda items combined) and requests to speak can also be emailed to [email protected] at least one hour before the meeting begins.

Video recordings of Council meetings are available on the City's website at https://www.cityofmontclair.org/council-meetings/ and can be accessed by the end of the business day following the meeting.

AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER City Council [CC], Successor Agency Board [SA], Montclair Housing Corporation Board [MHC],
Montclair Housing Authority Commission [MHA],
Montclair Community Foundation Board [MCF]
II. INVOCATION
In keeping with our long–standing tradition of opening our Council meetings with an invocation, this meeting may include a nonsectarian invocation. Such invocations are not intended to proselytize or advance any faith or belief or to disparage any faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation.

III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. ROLL CALL
V. PRESENTATIONS
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
During Public Comment, you may comment on any subject that does not appear on this agenda. Each speaker has up to five minutes. The meeting’s presiding officer may provide more or less time to accommodate speakers with special needs or a large number of speakers waiting in line. (Government Code Section 54954.3).

If you did not submit a Speaker Card and would like to speak on an item on the Consent Calendar, please raise your hand during Public Comment to announce the agenda item you would like to provide comments on. The presiding officer will pull the item from the Consent Calendar and will then call on you to speak at the time of the item’s consideration.

Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the meeting bodies are prohibited from participating in substantial discussion of or taking action on items not listed on the agenda.

VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Second Reading — Consider Adoption of Ordinance No. 22–1001 Amending Sections Within Chapter 6.02; Amending Section 6.16.020; Repealing Sections 6.16.025 and 6.16.030; and Adding Chapter 6.17 to the Montclair Municipal Code Establishing a Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Program [CC] 5

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 1 of 347 Page No.

B. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 22–3350 Granting Final Adoption of the 5006 and 5010 Mission Boulevard Industrial Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2022030195) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Approving the Project Under Case No. 2022–07 [CC]
Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 22–3351 Approving a General Plan Amendment to Change the Land Use Designation of Two Parcels Totaling 2.5 Acres from “General Commercial” to “Business Park” [CC] Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 22–3352 Approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393 to Merge Three Parcels Into a Single 5.13–Acre Site at 5006 and 5010 Mission Boulevard [CC] 30
VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes

1. Regular Joint Meeting — May 16, 2022 [CC/SA/MHC/MHA/MCF] 336 B. Administrative Reports

1. Consider Approval of Warrant Register & Payroll Documentation [CC] 64

2. Consider Authorizing Mayor Dutrey to Sign a Letter of Support for Governor Newsom’s Proposed CARE Court Program [CC] 65

3. Consider Amending the 2019–2024 Capital Improvement Program to Add the Fire Station No. 2 Landscaping Project [CC]
Consider Authorizing a $30,000 Appropriation from 2021 Lease Revenue Bond Funds for Costs Related to the Construction of the Fire Station No. 2 Landscaping Project [CC]
Consider Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Staff to Advertise for Bid Proposals for the Fire Station No. 2 Landscaping Project [CC] 102

4. Consider Authorizing the Purchase of Four Pepper Projectile Systems, Spare Tanks, and Projectiles, Defined as Military Equipment Under Assembly Bill 481 [CC]
Consider Authorizing a $5,700 Appropriation from the Federal Asset Forfeiture Fund to Purchase Four Pepper Projectile Systems, Spare Tanks, and Projectiles [CC] 105

5. Consider Authorizing the Purchase of a Lenco BearCat G3 Tactical Armored Vehicle, Defined as Military Equipment Under Assembly Bill 481, and Required Radio Components, Installation, and Applied Graphics in the Total Amount of $336,600 from the Public Safety Grant Fund [CC] Consider Authorizing a $2,110.24 Appropriation from the Federal Asset Forfeiture Fund to Purchase an Armored Oil Pan Guard for the Lenco BearCat G3 Tactical Armored Vehicle [CC] 107
C. Agreements

1. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 22–20 Amending Agreement No. 05–03 with San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA Contract No. 22–1002771) Assigning Maintenance Responsibilities to the City of Montclair for the Portion of the Pacific Electric Trail Between Monte Vista Avenue and Claremont Boulevard, Subject to Any Revisions Deemed Necessary by the City Attorney [CC] 110
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 2 of 347 Page No.

2. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 22–47 with the San Bernardino County Office of Emergency Services Authorizing the Receipt of $16,186 from the FY 2021 Emergency Management Performance Grant/American Rescue Plan Act [CC]
Consider Authorizing Director of Public Safety/Police Chief Robert Avels to Sign Said Agreement [CC]
Consider Authorizing a $16,186 Appropriation from the Public Safety Grant Fund for the Purchase of Equipment to Upgrade the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) [CC]
Consider Authorizing Appropriations from the Contingency Fund in the Amounts of $16,186 as a Dollar–for–Dollar Match to Receive the Grant Funds, and $6,056.82 to Cover the Remaining Balance of the EOC Upgrade Costs [CC] 140

3. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 22–50 with Chaffey Joint Union High School District for Specialized Law Enforcement Services During Fiscal Year 2022–23, Subject to Any Revisions Deemed Necessary by the City Attorney [CC] 153

4. Consider Amending the 2019–2024 Capital Improvement Program to Add the Sunset Park Improvement Project [CC]
Consider Approval of Agreement No. 22–52 with L.D. King, Inc., for Design Services for the Sunset Park Improvement Project in the Amount of $248,990, Subject to Any Revisions Deemed Necessary by the City Attorney [CC]
Consider Authorizing a $50,388 Appropriation from California Department of Parks and Recreation Per Capita Grant Funds and a $198,602 Appropriation from 2021 Lease Revenue Bond Funds for Design Services for the Sunset Park Improvement Project [CC] 158

5. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 22–56 with CPS HR Consulting for Recruitment Test Rental Services [CC]
Consider Authorizing Human Services Director Marcia Richter to Sign Said Agreement and Related Documents [CC] 184

6. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 22–57 with the San Bernardino County Department of Aging and Adult Services to Accept an Award to Provide the Senior Citizen Nutrition Program [CC]
Consider Authorizing Human Services Director Marcia Richter to Sign Said Agreement and Any Amendments Thereto [CC] 193

7. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 22–58 with Ontario–Montclair School District to Support the Montclair After–School Program, Subject to Any Revisions Deemed Necessary by the City Attorney [CC] 281

8. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 22–59 with Ontario–Montclair School District to Support the Montclair After–School Summer Expanded Learning Program, Subject to Any Revisions Deemed Necessary by the City Attorney [CC] 296
D. Resolutions

1. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 22–3349 Authorizing Placement of Liens on Certain Properties for Delinquent Sewer and Trash Charges [CC] 311 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 3 of 347 Page No.

2. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 22–3353 Correcting the Appropriations Limit Established for Fiscal Year 2021–22 Pursuant to Article 13–B of the California Constitution and to Section 7910 of the Government Code [CC] 317

3. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 22–3354 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Agreements with the California Department of Transportation for the Sunset Park Beautification Project [CC] 319

4. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 22–3355 Making Factual Findings in Compliance with AB 361 for the Continuation of Public Meeting Teleconferencing During Public Health Emergencies for the Period of June 6, 2022, through July 6, 2022 [CC] 322

5. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 22–3356 Approving a List of Projects to be Funded in FY 2022–23 by Senate Bill 1, the California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 [CC] 326
IX. PULLED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
X. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Department Reports

1. Human Services — Upcoming Events and Programs
B. City Attorney

1. Request for City Council to Meet in Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Regarding Conference with Designated Labor Negotiator Edward C. Starr [CC]
Agency: City of Montclair
Employee Management
Associations: Montclair City Confidential Employees Association Montclair General Employees Association
Montclair Fire Fighters Association
Montclair Police Officers Association
C. City Manager/Executive Director
D. Mayor/Chairperson
E. Council Members/Directors
F. Committee Meeting Minutes (for informational purposes only)

1. Public Works Committee Meeting — March 17, 2022 330

2. Personnel Committee Meeting — May 16, 2022 335
XI. CLOSED SESSION
XII. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
The next regular joint meeting of the City Council, Successor Agency Board, Montclair Housing Corporation Board, Montclair Housing Authority Commission, and Montclair Community Foundation Board will be held on Monday, June 20, 2022, at 7:00 p.m.

Reports, backup materials, and additional materials related to any item on this Agenda distributed to the meeting bodies after publication of the Agenda packet are available for public inspection in in the Office of the City Clerk between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. Please call the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 625–9416 or send an e–mail to [email protected] to request documents via e–mail.

If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 625–9416 or e–mail [email protected]. Notification prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 35.102–35.104 ADA Title II)
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk, hereby certify that I posted, or caused to be posted, a copy of this Agenda not less than 72 hours prior to this meeting on the City’s website at https://www.cityofmontclair.org/agendas/ and on the bulletin board adjacent to the north door of Montclair City Hall at 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, CA 91763 on Thursday, June 2, 2022.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 4 of 347

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JUNE 6, 2022
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO.: A
FILE I.D.: REF020
DEPT.: FINANCE
PREPARER: J. KULBECK
SUBJECT: SECOND READING — CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 22–1001 AMENDING SECTIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 6.02; AMENDING SECTION 6.16.020; REPEALING SECTIONS 6.16.025 AND 6.16.030; AND ADDING CHAPTER 6.17 TO THE

MONTCLAIR MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A MANDATORY ORGANIC WASTE

DISPOSAL REDUCTION PROGRAM
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: In September 2016, the State Legislature set short– lived climate pollutants reduction targets for California in Senate Bill (SB) 1383 as a statewide effort to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses (such as methane, a byproduct of organic waste) to combat climate change.

SB 1383 establishes statewide targets to reduce the amount of organic waste disposal in landfills (50 percent reduction by 2020 and 75 percent by 2025). It also set a goal to recover at least 20 percent of edible food that is thrown away by 2025 by donating it to people in need. The State defines “organic waste” as food, landscape and pruning trimmings, lumber, wood, manure, cardboard, paper products, printing and writing paper, and other plant and animal–based products. From 2016–2020, the California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) worked to develop regulations to achieve the goals of SB 1383. These new regulations were finalized by CalRecycle in November 2020 and took effect in January 2022. In accordance with SB 1383, all jurisdictions must adopt a mandatory organic waste disposal reduction ordinance.

The City Council adopts ordinances to make changes to the Montclair Municipal Code (MMC) and set local regulations. Adopting an ordinance requires two approved readings by the City Council, each held at separate public hearings. An ordinance may be adopted only after the second reading is held at a regular City Council meeting occurring at least five days after the introduction of the proposed ordinance. If substantial changes to the ordinance are approved, the amended ordinance must be re–introduced at a public hearing at least five days prior to conducting the second reading and adopting the ordinance.

The City Council is requested to conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 22–1001 establishing a mandatory organic waste disposal reduction program and adopt the ordinance. A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached for City Council’s review and consideration.

BACKGROUND: In September 2016, Governor Brown signed into law SB 1383, the Short– lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, directing public agencies to reduce organic waste disposal by 75% and increase edible food recovery by 25 percent, by 2025.

SB 1383 is the most significant waste reduction mandate to be adopted in California in the last 30 years.

SB 1383 was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by diverting organic waste from landfills as the decomposition of such materials emit methane—a climate pollutant 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Studies demonstrate that landfills are the MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 5 of 347 third largest producer of methane, and responsible for 21 percent of the state’s anthropogenic (caused by humans) methane emissions.

In accordance with SB 1383, all jurisdictions must adopt a mandatory organic waste disposal reduction ordinance. CalRecycle provided model language for the mandatory SB 1383 ordinance, and cities were advised to adjust the language in the model ordinance based on their respective needs. A draft of the proposed ordinance was shared with the City’s franchise waste hauler, Burrtec. Additionally, SB 1383 mandates that all businesses and residents, as well as multifamily housing developments, have access to recycling programs that capture food scraps, landscaping debris, and other organic waste items.

As defined by SB 1383, organic waste refers to green waste, wood waste, food waste, and fibers such as paper or cardboard. SB 1383 regulations outline specific requirements related to organic collection, edible food recovery, and compliance tracking and monitoring. SB 1383 also mandates significant action by local jurisdictions, residential and commercial organics generators, haulers, and facilities to significantly reduce organics landfill disposal.

The City will be responsible for implementing the following practices to maintain compliance with SB 1383:
 Provide organic waste collection services to all residents and businesses;  Adopt an ordinance to inspect and enforce compliance with SB 1383;  Establish an edible food recovery program for local food generators;  Conduct annual education and outreach to all generators;  Procure certain levels of recovered organic waste products such as compost, mulch, and renewable natural gas; and
 Maintain records for SB 1383 compliance for annual reporting requirements.

Adopting Ordinance No. 22–1001 will mandate organic waste generators, haulers, and other entities subject to the requirements of SB 1383 to comply with the regulatory requirements. Specific sections in this ordinance include:
 Recycling requirements for single–family generators and commercial businesses;  Recovery requirements for commercial edible food generators and food recovery organizations;
 Service requirements for haulers;
 Waivers for generators;
 Procurement requirements for city departments, service providers, and vendors; and  Inspections, investigations, and enforcement.

Although SB 1383 took effect on January 1, 2022, as long as jurisdictions have a plan in place to implement the requirements of SB 1383, CalRecycle will focus on compliance assistance first and dedicate enforcement efforts to serious offenders.

In addition to adoption of an organic waste recycling and food recovery ordinance, SB 1383 requires that the City have ordinances or other enforceable mechanisms in place for compliance with the CALGreen Building Standards Code (“CALGreen”) and a Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (“MWELO”). The City is already compliant with the aforementioned programs through MMC Chapters 10.30 and 11.60, respectively.

However, the CALGreen and MWELO provisions specific to solid waste and recycling programs are reiterated in this ordinance for clarity and ease of administration and interpretation.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 6 of 347 Annual education and outreach to all generators is a requirement of SB 1383. This requirement will be accomplished by utilizing inserts in the City’s sewer and trash billings, as well as Burrtec involvement in distributing information at the City's Country Fair Jamboree and National Night Out events. Information regarding compliance for residents and businesses will also be posted on the City’s website with links to CalRecycle’s web page for more in–depth information.

In addition, SB 1383 requires jurisdictions to procure a targeted amount of organic waste products in the form of compost, mulch, renewable natural gas (RNG), and/or electricity generated from biomass conversion of municipal–solid–waste–derived organic waste.

Burrtec will coordinate with the City to assist in meeting our recycled organic waste procurement targets as required by SB 1383 requirements.

SB 1383 also requires the City to procure paper products that are recyclable and contain at least 30 percent of post–consumer recycled content. The City’s Purchasing Manual will require an update to comply with these requirements and will be brought to City Council at a later date.

Recordkeeping and reporting to CalRecycle are additional requirements of SB 1383. The City must keep records of all aspects of this program including organic collection services, hauler program, contamination minimization, waivers, education and outreach, edible food recovery program, recycled organic waste procurement, recycled paper procurement, commercial edible food generators, and jurisdiction inspection and enforcement. Burrtec and City staff will utilize a robust database software system designed specifically for tracking efforts as they relate to solid waste services, program compliance, and organics diversion.

Beginning January 1, 2024, the City must begin enforcing SB 1383 regulations and take action against non–compliant entities. Cities are also subject to penalties if found by CalRecycle to be non–compliant.

Compliance with SB 1383 will require an amendment to the City’s current franchise agreement with Burrtec, including adjustments to the current residential and commercial refuse rates. City staff is working with Burrtec to bring a resolution to City council in the near future for approval of these amendments.

FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 22–1001 would have no discernable impact to the City’s General Fund. Future franchise fee rate adjustments approved by the City must comply with Proposition 218 requirements and are pass–through costs between Burrtec and the rate payer.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 22–1001 amending sections within Chapter 6.02; amending Section 6.16.020; repealing Sections

6.16.025 and 6.16.030; and adding Chapter 6.17 to the Montclair Municipal Code entitled Establishing a Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Program.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 7 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 1 of 22
ORDINANCE NO. 22–1001

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTCLAIR AMENDING SECTIONS WITHIN CHAPTERS 6.02
(DEFINITIONS); REPEALING SECTIONS 6.16.025 (COMMERCIAL

RECYCLING AND ORGANIC WASTE RECYCLING/DIVERSION)
AND 6.16.030 (GARBAGE TO BE WRAPPED) OF THE MONTCLAIR
MUNICIPAL CODE; AND ADDING CHAPTER 6.17 ESTABLISHING

A MANDATORY ORGANIC WASTE DISPOSAL REDUCTION

PROGRAM
WHEREAS, a city council may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 939 of 1989, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (California Public Resources Code Section 40000, et seq., as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time), requires cities and counties to reduce, reuse, and recycle (including composting) solid waste generated in their jurisdictions to the maximum extent feasible before any incineration or landfill disposal of waste, to conserve water, energy, and other natural resources, and to protect the environment; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 341 of 2011 places requirements on businesses and multi–family property owners that generate a specified threshold amount of solid waste to arrange for recycling services and requires the City to implement a mandatory commercial recycling program; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 1826 of 2014 requires businesses and multi–family property owners that generate a specified threshold amount of solid waste, recycling, and organic waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that waste, requires cities to implement a recycling program to divert organic waste from businesses subject to the law, and requires cities to implement a mandatory commercial organics recycling program; and
WHEREAS, SB 1383, the Short–lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (“CalRecycle”) to develop regulations to reduce organics in landfills as a source of methane. As adopted by CalRecycle, these SB 1383 regulations (“SB 1383 Regulations”) place requirements on multiple entities including the City of Montclair, residential households, commercial businesses and business owners, commercial edible food generators, haulers, self– haulers, food recovery organizations, and food recovery services to support achievement of statewide organic waste disposal reduction targets; and WHEREAS, the SB 1383 Regulations require the City to adopt and enforce an ordinance or other enforceable mechanism to implement relevant provisions of the SB 1383 Regulations, and to reduce community food insecurity by requiring commercial edible food generators to arrange to have the maximum amount of their edible food, that would otherwise be disposed, be recovered for human consumption; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance implements the requirements of AB 341, AB 1826, and the SB 1383 Regulations; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2022 the City Council conducted a first reading of the proposed Ordinance in consideration of Ordinance No. 22–1001 to amend portions of Chapter 6.02, repeal Sections 6.16.025 and 6.16.030, and add Chapter 6.17; and WHEREAS, the City Council moved to set a public hearing to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 22–1001 for Monday June 6, 2022; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on June 6, 2022, in the Council Chambers located at 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M.

Brown Act. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AND ORDAINED by the Montclair City Council as follows:

SECTION I. The foregoing Recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth in full within the body of this Ordinance.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 8 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 2 of 22
SECTION II. The Montclair Municipal Code for the City of Montclair (“Code”) shall be amended to add new and replace certain definitions to Chapter 6.02 DEFINITIONS, Section 6.02.010 as follows:

Black Container has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(28) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Black Container Waste. Per the definition provided in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(28), the Black Container may actually be black, or black with a gray lid.

Black Container Waste means Solid Waste that is collected in a Black Container that is part of a three–container Organic Waste collection service that prohibits the placement of Organic Waste in the Black Container as specified in 14 CCR Sections 18984.1(a) and (b), or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 17402(a)(65).

Blue Container has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(5) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Source Separated Recyclable Materials or Source Separated Blue Container Organic Waste.

Brown Container has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(5.5) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Source Separated Food Waste.

CalRecycle means California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, which is the Department designated with responsibility for developing implementing, and enforcing SB 1383 Regulations.

California Code of Regulations or CCR means the State of California Code of Regulations. CCR references in Chapter 6.17 are preceded with a number that refers to the relevant title of the CCR (e.g., “14 CCR” refers to Title 14 of CCR).

City means the City of Montclair, California, within its jurisdictional boundaries.

City Enforcement Official means the City Manager or his/her authorized designee(s) who is/are partially or wholly responsible for enforcing the ordinance.

Commercial Business or Commercial means a firm, partnership, proprietorship, joint–stock company, corporation, or association, whether for–profit or nonprofit, strip mall, industrial facility, or a multifamily residential dwelling, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(6). A Multi–Family Residential Dwelling that consists of fewer than five (5) units is not a Commercial Business for purposes of implementing Chapter 6.17.

Commercial Edible Food Generator includes a Tier One or a Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator as defined herein below of this Section 6.02.010 or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(73) and (a)(74). For the purposes of this definition, Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services are not commercial Edible Food Generators pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(7).

Compliance Review means a review of records by a City to determine compliance with Chapter 6.17.

Community Composting means any activity that Composts green material, agricultural material, food material, and vegetative food material, alone or in combination, and the total amount of feedstock and Compost on–site at any one time does not exceed 100 cubic yards and 750 square feet, as specified in 14 CCR Section 17855(a)(4); or as otherwise defined by 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(8).

Compost has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 17896.2(a)(4), which stated, as of the effective date of Chapter 6.17, that “Compost” means the product resulting from the controlled biological decomposition of organic Solid Wastes that are Source Separated from the municipal Solid Waste stream, or which are separated at a centralized facility.

Compostable Plastics or Compostable Plastic means plastic materials that meet the ASTM D6400 standard for Compostability, or as otherwise described in 14 CCR Section 18984.1(a)(1)(A) or 18984.2 (a)(1)(C).

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 9 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 3 of 22
Container Contamination or Contaminated Container means a container, regardless of color, that contains Prohibited Container Contaminants, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(55).

C&D means construction and demolition debris.

Designee means an entity that a city contracts with or otherwise arranges to carry out any of the City’s responsibilities of Chapter 6.17 as authorized in 14 CCR Section 18981.2. A designee may be a government entity, a hauler, a private entity, or a combination of those entities.

Edible Food means food intended for human consumption, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(18). For the purposes of Chapter 6.17 or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(18), “Edible Food” is not Solid Waste if it is recovered and not discarded. Nothing in Chapter 6.17 or in 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 requires or authorizes the Recovery of Edible Food that does not meet the food safety requirements of the California Retail Food Code.

Enforcement Action means an action of the City to address non–compliance with Chapter 6.17 including but not limited to, issuing administrative citations, fines, penalties, or using other remedies.

Excluded Waste means hazardous substance, hazardous waste, infectious waste, designated waste, volatile, corrosive, medical waste, infectious, regulated radioactive waste, and toxic substances or material that facility operator(s), which receive materials from the City and it Generators, reasonably believe(s) would, as a result of or upon acceptance, transfer, processing, or disposal, be a violation of local, State, or Federal law, regulation, or ordinance, including without limitation: land use restrictions or conditions, waste that cannot be disposed of in Class III landfills or accepted at the facility by permit conditions, waste that, in City’s or its Designee’s reasonable opinion, would present a significant risk to human health or the environment, cause a nuisance or otherwise create or expose City, or its Designee, to potential liability; but not including de minimis volumes or concentrations of waste of a type and amount normally found in Single–Family or Multi–Family Solid Waste after implementation of programs for the safe collection, processing, recycling, treatment, and disposal of batteries and paint in compliance with Sections 41500 and 41802 of the California Public Resources Code.

Food Distributor means a company that distributes food to entities including, but not limited to, Supermarkets and Grocery Stores, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCRE Section 18982(a)(22).

Food Facility has the same meaning as in Section 113789 of the Health and Safety Code.

Food Recovery means actions to collect and distribute food for human consumption that otherwise would be disposed, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(24).

Food Recovery Organization means an entity that engages in the collection or receipt of Edible Food from Commercial Edible Food Generators and distributes that Edible Food to the public for Food Recovery either directly or through other entities or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(25), including, but not limited to:

1. A food bank as defined in Section 113783 of the Health and Safety code;

2. A nonprofit charitable temporary food facility as defined in Section 113842 of the Health and Safety code; and

3. A Food Recovery Organization is not a commercial Edible Food Generator for the purposes of Chapter 6.17 and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(7).

If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(25) for Food Recovery Organization differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(25) shall apply to Chapter 6.17.

Food Recovery Service means a person or entity that collects and transports Edible Food from a Commercial Edible Food Generator to a Food Recovery Organization MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 10 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 4 of 22
or other entities for Food Recovery, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982 (a)(26). A Food Recovery Service is not a Commercial Edible Food Generator for the purposes of Chapter 6.17 and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(7).

Food Scraps means all food such as, but not limited to, fruits, vegetables, meat, poultry, seafood, shellfish, bones, rice, beans, pasta, bread, cheese, and eggshells.

Food Scraps excludes fats, oils, liquids, and grease when such materials are source Separated from other Food Scraps.

Food Service Provider means an entity primarily engaged in providing food services to institutional, governmental, commercial, or industrial locations of others based on contractual arrangements with these types of organizations, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(27).

Food–Soiled Paper is Compostable paper material that has come in contact with food or liquid, such as, but not limited to, Compostable paper plates, paper coffee cups, napkins, and pizza boxes.

Food Waste means Food scraps, and Food–Soiled Paper.

Gray Container has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982.2(a)(28) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Gray Container Waste. For the purpose of Chapter 6.17, Gray Container has the same meaning as Black Container and can be used interchangeably.

Gray Container Waste means Solid Waste that is collected in a Gray Container that is part of a three–container Organic Waste collection service that prohibits the placement of Organic Waste in the Gray Container as specified in 14 CCR Sections 18984.1 (a) and (b), or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 17402(a)(6.5). For the purposes of Chapter 6.17, Gray Container Waste has the same meaning as Black Container Waste and can be used interchangeably.

Green Container has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982.2(a)(29) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste. No preference or requirement for a “Green Container” made in Chapter 6.17 shall prevent or prohibit the use of additional containers duly authorized by the City and its Designee for purposes of Source Separated Organic Waste to the extent permitted by SB 1383, such as a “brown” container as further authorized by 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(5.5).

Grocery Store means a store primarily engaged in the retail sale of canned food; dry goods; fresh fruits and vegetables; fresh meats, fish, and poultry; and any area that is not separately owned within the store where the food is prepared and served, including without limitation a bakery, deli, and meat and seafood departments, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(30).

Hauler Route means the designated itinerary or sequence of stops for each segment of the City’s collection service area, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(31.5).

High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility means a facility that is in compliance with the reporting requirements of 14 CCR Section 18815.5(d) and meets or exceeds an annual average Mixed Waste organic content Recovery rate of 50 percent between January 1, 2022 and December 31, 2024, and 75 percent after January 1, 2025, as calculated pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18815.5(e) for Organic Waste received from the “Mixed waste organic collection stream” as defined in 14 CCR Section 17402(a)(11.5); or, as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(35).

Inspection means a site visit where a City reviews records, containers, and an entity’s collection, handling, recycling, or landfill disposal of Organic Waste or Edible Food handling to determine if the entity is complying with requirements set forth in Chapter 6.17, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(35).

Large Event means an event, including, but not limited to, a sporting event or a flea market, that charges an admission price, or is operated by a local agency, and serves an average of more than 2,000 individuals per day of operation of the event, at a location that includes, but is not limited to, a public, nonprofit, or privately owned park, parking lot, golf course, street system, or other open space when being used for MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 11 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 5 of 22
an event. If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(38) differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(38) shall apply to Chapter 6.17.

Large Venue means a permanent venue facility that annually seats or serves an average of more than 2,000 individuals within the grounds of the facility per day of operation of the venue facility. For purposes of Chapter 6.17 and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, a venue facility includes, but is not limited to, a public, nonprofit, or privately owned or operated stadium, amphitheater, arena, hall, amusement park, conference or civic center, zoo, aquarium, airport, racetrack, horse track, performing arts center, fairground, museum, theater, or other public attraction facility. For purpose of Chapter 6.17 and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, a site under common ownership or control that includes more than one Large Venue that is contiguous with other Large Venues in the site, is a single Large Venue. If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(39) differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a(39) shall apply to Chapter 6.17.

Local Education Agency means a school district, charter school, or county office of education that is not subject to the control of City or county regulations related to Solid Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(40).

Multi–Family Residential Dwelling or Multi–Family means of, from, or pertaining to residential premises with five (5) or more dwelling units. Multi–Family premises do not include hotels, motels, or other transient occupancy facilities, which are considered Commercial Businesses.

MWELO refers to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), 23 CCR, Division 2, Chapter 2.7.

Non–Compostable Paper includes but is not limited to paper that is coated in plastic material that will not breakdown in the Composting process, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(41).

Non–Organic Recyclables means non–putrescible and non–hazardous recyclable wastes including but not limited to bottles, cans, metals, plastics and glass, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(43).

Notice of Violation (NOV) means a notice that a violation has occurred that includes a compliance date to avoid an action to seek penalties, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(45).

Organic Waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food–soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste. Solid Wastes containing material originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products, including but not limited to food, green material, landscape and pruning waste, organic textiles and carpets, lumber, wood, Paper Products, Printing and Writing Paper, manure, biosolids, digestate, and sludges or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(46). Biosolids and digestate are as defined by 14 CCR Section 18982(a).

Organic Waste Generator means a person or entity that is responsible for the initial creation of Organic Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(48).

Paper Products include, but are not limited to, paper janitorial supplies, cartons, wrapping, packaging, file folders, hanging files, corrugated boxes, tissue, and toweling, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(51).

Printing and Writing Papers include, but are not limited to, copy, xerographic, watermark, cotton fiber, offset, forms, computer printout paper, white wove envelopes, manila envelopes, book paper, note pads writing tablets, newsprint, and other uncoated writing papers, posters, index cards, calendars, brochures, reports, magazines, and publications, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(54).

Prohibited Container Contaminants means the following; (i) discarded materials placed in the Blue Container that are not identified as acceptable Source Separated Recyclable Materials for the City’s Blue Container; (ii) discarded materials placed in the Brown Container that are not identified as acceptable Source Separated Food Waste for the City’s Brown Container; (iii) discarded materials placed in the Green Container that are not identified as acceptable Source Separated Green Container MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 12 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 6 of 22
Organic Waste for the City’s Green Container; (iv) discarded materials placed in the Black Container that are acceptable Source Separated Recyclable materials and/or Source Separated Green Container Organic Wastes to be placed in City’s Green Container and/or Blue Container; and, (v) Excluded Waste placed in any container.

Nothing in Chapter 6.17 shall prevent or prohibit the use of additional containers duly authorized by the City and its Designee for purposes of Source Separated materials to the extent permitted by SB 1383, such as a “brown” container as further authorized by 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(5.5).

Recovered Organic Waste Products means products made from California, landfill–diverted recovered Organic Waste processed in a permitted or otherwise authorized facility, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(60).

Recovery means any activity or process described in 14 CCR Section 18983.1(b), or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(49).

Recyclable Materials means those materials that are suitable for recycling, including but not limited to Non–Organic Recyclables, Paper Products, and Printing and Writing Papers.

Recycled–Content Paper means Paper Products and Printing and Writing Paper that consists of at least 30 percent, by fiber weight, postconsumer fiber, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(61).

Renewable Gas means gas derived from Organic Waste that has been diverted from a California landfill and processed at an in–vessel digestion facility that is permitted or otherwise authorized by 14 CCR to recycle Organic Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(62).

Restaurant means an establishment primarily engaged in the retail sale of food and drinks for on–premises or immediate consumption, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(64).

Route Review means a visual Inspection of containers along a Hauler Route for the purpose of determining Container Contamination, and may include mechanical Inspection methods such as the use of cameras, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(65).

SB 1383 means Senate Bill 1383 of 2016 approved by the Governor September 19, 2016, which added Sections 39730.5, 39730.6, 39730.7, and 39730.8 to the Health and Safety code, and added Chapter 13.1 (commencing with Section 42652) to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, establishing methane emissions reduction targets in a Statewide effort to reduce emissions of short–lived climate pollutants as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time.

SB 1383 Regulations or SB 1383 Regulatory means or refers to, for the purposes of Chapter 6.17, the Short–Lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Reduction regulations developed by CalRecycle and adopted in 2020 that created 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 and amended portions of regulations of 14 CCR and 27 CCR.

Self–Hauler means a commercial generator, approved by the City to haul Solid Waste, Organic Waste or recyclable material he or she has generated to another person using his or her own equipment in accordance with Section 6.17.080. Self–hauler also includes a person who back–hauls waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(66). Back–haul means generating and transporting Organic Waste to a destination owned and operated by the Generator using the Generator’s own employees and equipment, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(66)(A).

Single–Family means of, from, or pertaining to any residential premises with fewer than five (5) units.

Solid Waste has the same meaning defined in State Public Resources Code Section 40191, which defines Solid Waste as all putrescible and nonputrescible solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles and parts thereof, discarded home and industrial appliances, dewatered, treated, or chemically fixed sewage sludge which is not hazardous waste, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semisolid wastes, and other discarded solid and semisolid wastes, with the exception that Solid Waste does not include any of the following wastes:

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 13 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 7 of 22

1. Hazardous waste, as defined in the State Public Resources Code Section 40141.

2. Radioactive waste regulated pursuant to the State Radiation Control Law (Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 114690) of Part 9 of Division 104 of the State Health and Safety Code.

3. Medical waste regulated pursuant to the State Medical Waste Management Act (Part 14 (commencing with Section 117600) of Division 104 of the State Health and Safety Code). Untreated medical waste shall not be disposed of in a Solid Waste landfill, as defined in State Public Resources Code Section 40195.1. Medical waste that has been treated and deemed to be Solid Waste shall be regulated pursuant to Division 30 of the State Public Resources Code.

Source Separated means materials, including commingled recyclable materials, that have been separated or kept separate from the Solid Waste Stream, at the point of generation, for the purpose of additional sorting or processing those materials for recycling or reuse in order to return them to the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new, reused, or reconstituted products, which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in the marketplace or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 17402.5(b)(4). For the purposes of the ordinance, Source Separated shall include separation of materials at the point of generation by the Generator, property owner, property owner’s employee, property manager, or property manager’s employee into different containers for the purpose of collection such that Source Separated materials are separated from Black Container Waste or other Solid Waste for the purposes of collection and processing.

Source Separated Blue Container Organic Waste means Source Separated Organic Waste that can be placed in a Blue Container that (i) is limited to the collections of those Organic Wastes and Non–Organic Recyclables as defined in Section 18982(a)(43), or as otherwise defined by Section 17402(a)(26.7), and (ii) excludes any Prohibited Container Contaminants.

Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste means Source Separated Organic Waste that can be placed in a Green Container that is specifically intended for the separate collection of Organic Waste by the Generator, excluding, but not limited to: Source Separated Blue Container Organic Waste, Non–Compostable Paper, Paper Products, Printing and Writing Paper, and any other Prohibited Container Contaminants.

Source Separated Recyclable Materials means Source Separated Non–Organic Recyclables and Source Separated Blue Container Organic Waste.

State means the State of California.

Supermarket means a full–line, self–service retail store with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000), or more, and which sells a line of dry grocery, canned goods, or nonfood items and some perishable items, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(71).

Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generator means a Commercial Edible Food Generator that is one of the following:

1. Supermarket.

2. Grocery Store with a total facility size equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet.

3. Food Service Provider.

4. Food Distributor.

5. Wholesale Food Vendor.

If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(73) of Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generator differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(73) shall apply to Chapter 6.17.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 14 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 8 of 22
Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator means a Commercial Edible Food Generator that is one of the following:

1. Restaurant with 250 or more seats, or a total facility size equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet.

2. Hotel with an on–site Food Facility and 200 or more rooms.

3. Health facility with an on–site Food Facility and 100 or more beds.

4. Large Venue.

5. Large Event.

6. A State agency with a cafeteria with 250 or more seats or total cafeteria facility size equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet.

7. A Local Education Agency facility with an on–site Food Facility.

If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(74) of Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(74) shall apply to Chapter 6.17.

Waste materials mean and include but is not limited to paper, cardboard, carpets, rugs, clothing, books, boots, shoes, straw, packing barrels, ashes, discarded building materials and the like, except flammable liquids such as gasoline, kerosene and similar toxic substances shall not be included.

Wholesale Food Vendor means a business or establishment engaged in the merchant wholesale distribution of food, where food (including fruits and vegetables) is received, shipped, stored, prepared for distribution to a retailer, warehouse, distributor, or other destination, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(76).

SECTION III. The Code shall be amended to revise Section 6.16.020(A) as noted below; and to repeal existing Sections 6.16.025 and 6.16.030:

6.16.020 – Receptacle required.

A. All garbage, rubbish and waste materials as defined in Chapter 6.02 of this title shall be deposited in a single receptacle or receptacles designated container as required, which may be provided by the City or its duly authorized agent.

When garbage is deposited with waste material, rubbish or refuse, the receptacle shall be of a plastic or otherwise impervious material with a tight– fitting cover.

SECTION IV. Chapter 6.17 entitled, “MANDATORY ORGANIC WASTE DISPOSAL REDUCTION PROGRAM” shall be added to the code, as follows:

Chapter 6.17 – MANDATORY ORGANIC WASTE DISPOSAL REDUCTION PROGRAM

6.17.010 – Purpose and Findings.

A. State recycling law, Assembly Bill 939 of 1989, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (California Public Resources Code Section 40000, et seq., as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time), requires cities and counties to reduce, reuse, and recycle (including composting) Solid Waste generated in their cities to the maximum extent feasible before any incineration or landfill disposal; of waste, to conserve water, energy, and other natural resources, and to protect the environment.

B. State recycling law, Assembly Bill 341 of 2011 (approved by the Governor of the State of California on October 5, 2011, which amended Sections 41730, 41731, 41734, 41735, 41736, 41800, 42926, 44004, and 50001 of, and added Sections 40004, 41734.5, and 41780.01 and Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 42649) to Part 3 of Division 30 of, and added and repealed Section 41780.02 of, the Public Resources Code, as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time), places requirements on businesses and Multi–Family property owners that generate MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 15 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 9 of 22
a specified threshold amount of Solid Waste to arrange for recycling services and requires cities to implement a Mandatory Commercial Recycling program.

C. State organics recycling law, Assembly Bill 1826 of 2014 (approved by the Governor of the State of California on September 28, 2014, which added Chapter 12.9 (commencing with Section 42649.8) to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, relating to Solid Waste, as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time), requires businesses and Multi–Family property owners that generate a specified threshold amount of Solid Waste, Recycling, and Organic Waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that waste, requires cities to implement a recycling program to divert Organic Waste from businesses subject to the law, and requires cities to implement a Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling program.

D. SB 1383, the Short–lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, requires CalRecycle to develop regulations to reduce organics in landfills as a source of methane. The regulations place requirements on multiple entities including cities, residential households, Commercial Businesses and business owners, Commercial Edible Food Generators, haulers, Self–Haulers, Food Recovery Organizations, and Food Recovery Services to support achievement of Statewide Organic Waste disposal reduction targets.

E. SB 1383, the Short–lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, requires cities to adopt and enforce an ordinance or enforceable mechanism to implement relevant provisions of SB 1383 Regulations. This ordinance will also help reduce food insecurity by requiring Commercial Edible Food Generators to arrange to have the maximum amount of their Edible Food, that would otherwise be disposed, be recovered for human consumption.

6.17.020 – Requirements for Single–Family Generators.

Single–Family Organic Waste Generators shall subscribe to City’s at–least three– container collection service, which includes a Blue Container, Green Container, and Black Container, and shall comply with the following requirements:

A. Shall subscribe to City’s Organic Waste collection services for all Organic Waste generated as described in Section 6.17.020(B). City or its Designee shall have the right to review the number and size of a generator’s containers to evaluate adequacy of capacity provided for each type of collection service for proper separation of materials and containment of materials; and, Single–Family generators shall adjust their service level for collection services as requested by the City or its Designee. Generators may additionally manage their Organic Waste by preventing or reducing their Organic Waste, managing Organic Waste on site, and/or using a Community Composting site pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(c).

B. Shall participate in the City’s Organic Waste collection service(s) by placing designated materials in designated containers as described below, and shall not place Prohibited Container Contaminants in collection containers.

1. Generator shall place Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste, including Food, in the Green Container; Source Separated Recyclable materials in the Blue Container; and Black Container Waste in the Black Container. Generators shall not place materials designated for the Black Container into the Green Container or Blue Container.

2. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent or prohibit the use of additional containers duly authorized by the City and its Designee for purposes of Source Separated materials to the extent permitted by SB 1383, such as a “brown” container as further authorized by 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(5.5).

6.17.030 – Requirements for Commercial Businesses.

Generators that are Commercial Businesses, including Multi–Family Residential Dwellings of five (5) and more units shall:

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 16 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 10 of 22
A. Subscribe to City’s at–least three–container collection services and comply with requirements of those services as described below in Section

6.17.030(B). City or its Designee shall have the right to review the number and size of a generator’s containers and frequency of collection to evaluate adequacy of capacity provided for each type of collection service for proper separation of materials and containment of materials; and, Commercial Businesses shall adjust their service level for their collections services as requested by the City or its Designee.

B. Participate in the City’s Organic Waste collection service(s) by placing designated materials in designated containers as described below.

1. Generator shall place Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste in the Green Container; Source Separated Brown Container Food Waste in the Brown Container; Source Separated Recyclable Materials in the Blue Container; and Black Container Waste in the Black Container. Generator shall not place materials designated for the Black Container into the Green Container, Brown Container, or Blue Container.
a. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent or prohibit the use of additional containers duly authorized by the City and its Designee for purposes of Source Separated materials to the extent permitted by SB 1383, such as a “brown” container as further authorized by 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(5.5).
b. To comply with subsection B of this section, property owners of multifamily complexes may require its contracted landscapers to recycle the green waste materials and provide satisfactory proof that the materials are being properly recycled in a manner consistent with 14 CCR Sections 18984.1 and 18984.2 or shall hall Organic Waste to a High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility as specified in 14 CCR Section 18984.3.

2. Supply and allow access to adequate number, size and location of collection containers with sufficient labels or colors (conforming with Subsections 3(a) and 3(b) below) for employees, contractors, tenants, and customers, consistent with City’s Blue Container, Green Container, Brown Container, and Black Container collection service.

3. Excluding Multi–Family Residential Dwellings, provide containers for the collection of Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste, Source Separated Brown Container Food Waste, and Source Separated Recyclable Materials in all indoor and outdoor areas where disposal containers are provided for customers, for materials generated by that business. Such containers do not need to be provided in restrooms. If a Commercial Business does not generate any of the materials that would be collected in one type of container, then the business does not have to provide that particular container in all areas where disposal containers are provided for customers. Pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(b), the containers provided by the business shall have either:
a. A body or lid that conforms with the container colors provided through the collection service provided by City, with either lids conforming to the color requirements or bodies conforming to the color requirements or both lids and bodies conforming to color requirements. A Commercial Business is not required to replace functional containers, including containers purchased prior to January 1, 2022, that do not comply with the requirements of the subsection prior to the end of the useful life of those containers, or prior to January 1, 2036, whichever comes first.
b. Container labels that include language or graphic images, or both, indicating the primary material accepted and the primary materials prohibited in that container, or containers with imprinted text or graphic images that indicate the primary materials accepted and primary materials prohibited in the container. Pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.8, the container labeling requirements are required on new containers commencing January 1, 2022.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 17 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 11 of 22

4. Multi–Family Residential Dwellings are not required to comply with container placement requirements or labeling requirements in Subsection 3(a) or (b) pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(b).

5. To the extent practical through education, training, Inspection, and/or other measures, excluding Multi–Family Residential Dwellings, prohibit employees from placing materials in a container not designated for those materials per the City’s Blue Container, Green Container, Brown Container, and Black Container collection service.

6. Excluding Multi–Family Residential Dwellings, periodically inspect Blue Containers, Green Containers, Brown Containers, and Black Containers for Prohibited Container Contamination and inform employees if containers are Contaminated and of the requirements to keep Contaminants out of those containers pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(b)(3).

7. Annually provide information to employees, contractors, tenants, and customers about Organic Waste Recovery requirements and about proper sorting of Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste, Source Separated Brown Container Food Waste, and Source Separated Recyclable Materials.

8. Provide education information before or within fourteen (14) days of occupation of the premises to new tenants that describes requirements to keep Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste, Source Separated Brown Container Food Waste, and Source Separated Recyclable Materials separate from Black Container Waste (when applicable) and the location of containers and the rules governing their use at each property.

9. Provide or arrange access for City or its Designee to their properties during all Inspections conducted in accordance with Section 6.17.120 of this Chapter to confirm compliance with the requirements of this Chapter.

10. Accommodate and cooperate with City’s program for Inspection of the contents of containers for Prohibited Container Contaminants, which may be implemented by City at a later date, to evaluate Generator’s compliance with this Section 6.17.030(B).

11. At Commercial Business’s option and subject to any approval required from the City, implement a program for Inspection of the contents of its Blue Containers, Green Containers, Brown Containers, and Black Containers for the purpose of monitoring the contents of containers to determine appropriate levels of service and to identify Prohibited Container Contaminants.

12. If a Commercial Business wants to self–haul, meet the Self–Hauler requirements in Section 6.17.080 of this Chapter.

13. Nothing in this Section prohibits a generator from preventing or reducing waste generation, managing Organic Waste on site, or using a Community Composting site pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(c).

14. Commercial Businesses that are Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators shall comply with Food Recovery requirements, pursuant to Section 6.17.050.

6.17.040 – Waivers for Generators.

A. De Minimis Waivers – City may waive a Commercial Business’ obligation (including Multi–Family Residential Dwellings) to comply with some or all of the Organic Waste Requirements of this Chapter if the Commercial Business provides documentation that the business generates below a certain amount of Organic Waste material as described in Section 6.17.040(A)(2) below.

Commercial Businesses requesting a de minimis waiver shall:

1. Submit an application specifying the services that they are requesting a waiver from and provide documentation as noted in Section

6.17.040(A)(2) below.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 18 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 12 of 22

2. Provide documentation that either:
a. The Commercial Business’ total Solid Waste collection service is two cubic yards or more per week and Organic Waste subject to collection in a Blue Container or Green Container comprises less than 20 gallons per week per applicable container of the business’ total waste; or,
b. The Commercial Business’ total Solid Waste collection service is less than two cubic yards per week and Organic Waste subject to collection in a Blue Container or Green Container comprises less than 10 gallons per week per applicable container of the business’ total waste.

3. Notify City if circumstances change such that Commercial Business’ Organic Waste exceeds the threshold required for waiver, in which case the waiver will be rescinded.

4. De minimis waivers are valid for a period not to exceed 5 years and subject to reverification by the City at any time.

B. Physical Space Waivers – City may waive a Commercial Business’ or property owner’s obligations (including Multi–Family Residential Dwellings) to comply with some or all of the recyclable materials and or Organic Waste collection service requirements if the City has evidence from its own staff, hauler, licensed architect, or licensed engineer demonstrating that the premises lacks adequate space for the collection containers required for compliance with the Organic Waste collection requirements of Section

6.17.030. A Commercial Business or property owner may request a physical space waiver through the following process:

1. Submit an application specifying the type(s) of collection services for which they are requesting a compliance waiver.

2. Provide documentation that the premises lacks adequate space for SB 1383–mandated containers, including documentation from its hauler, licensed architect, or licensed engineer.

3. Physical space waivers are valid for a period not to exceed 5 years and subject to reverification by the City or Designee at any time.

6.17.050 – Requirements for Commercial Edible Food Generators.

A. Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generators must comply with the requirements of this Section commencing July 1, 2022, or other date as set by Resolution of the City Council, and Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators must comply commencing January 1, 2024, pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.3.

B. Large Venue or Large Event operators not providing food services, but allowing for food to be provided by others, shall require Food Facilities operating at the Large Venue or Large Event to comply with the requirements of this Section, commencing January 1, 2024.

C. Commercial Edible Food Generators shall comply with the following requirements:

1. Arrange to recover the maximum amount of Edible Food that would otherwise be disposed.

2. Contract with, or enter into a written agreement with Food Recovery Organizations or Food Recovery Services for: (i) the collection of Edible Food for Food Recovery; or, (ii) acceptance of the Edible Food that the Commercial Edible Food Generator self–hauls to the Food Recovery Organization for Food Recovery.

3. Shall not intentionally spoil Edible Food that is capable of being recovered by a Food Recovery Organization or a Food Recovery Service.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 19 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 13 of 22

4. Allow City’s designated enforcement entity or designated third party enforcement entity to access the premises and review records pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.4.

5. Keep records that include the following information, or as otherwise specified in 14 CCR Section 18991.4:
a. A list of each Food Recovery Service or Organization that collects or receives its Edible Food pursuant to a contract or written agreement established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b).
b. A copy of all contracts or written agreements established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b).
c. A record of the following information for each of those Food Recovery Services or Food Recovery Organizations:
(i) The name, address and contact information of the Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization.
(ii) The types of food that will be collected by or self–hauled to the Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization.
(iii) The established frequency that food will be collected or self– hauled.
(iv) The quantity of food, measured in pounds recovered per month, collected or self–hauled to a Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization for Food Recovery.

6. No later than April 1st of each year commencing no later than April 1, 2023, for Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generators and April 1, 2024, for Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators provide an annual Food Recovery report to the City that includes the records listed in Section 6.17.050(C)(5)(c).

D. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to limit or conflict with the protections provided by the California Good Samaritan Food Donation Act of 2017, the Federal Good Samaritan Act, or share table and school food donation guidance pursuant to Senate Bill 557 of 2017, (approved by the Governor of the State of California on September 25, 2017, which added Article 13 [commencing with Section 49580] to Chapter 9 of Part 27 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code, and to amend Section 114079 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to food safety, as amended, supplemented, superseded and replaced from time to time).

6.17.060 – Requirements for Food Recovery Organizations and Services.

A. Food Recovery Services collecting or receiving Edible Food directly from Commercial Edible Food Generators, via a contract or written agreement established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b), shall maintain the following records, or as otherwise specified by 14 CCR Section 18991.54(a)(1).

1. The name address, and contact information for each Commercial Edible Food Generator from which the service collects Edible Food.

2. The quantity in pounds of Edible Food collected from each Commercial Edible Food Generator per month.

3. The quantity in pounds of Edible Food transported to each Food Recovery Organization per month.

4. The name, address, and contact information for each Food Recovery Organization that the Food Recovery Service transports Edible Food to for Food Recovery.

B. Food Recovery Organizations collecting or receiving Edible Food directly from Commercial Edible Food Generators, via a contract or written agreement established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b), shall maintain the following records, or as otherwise specified by 14 CCR Section 18991.5(a)(2):

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 20 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 14 of 22

1. The name, address, and contact information for each Commercial Edible Food Generator from which the organization receives Edible Food.

2. The quantity in pounds of Edible Food received from each Commercial Edible Food Generator per month.

3. The name, address, and contact information for each Food Recovery Service that the organization receives Edible Food from for Food Recovery.

C. Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services shall inform Generators about California and Federal Good Samaritan Food Donation Act protection in written communications, such as in their contract or agreement established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b).

D. Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services that have their primary address physically located in the City and contract with or have written agreements with one or more Commercial Edible Food Generators pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b) shall report to the city the Commercial Edible Food Generator is located in the total pounds of Edible Food recovered in the previous calendar year from the Tier One and Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators the Food Recovery Organizations or Food Recovery Services have established contracts or written agreements with pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b) no later than April 1 beginning in 2023.

E. In order to support Edible Food Recovery capacity planning assessments or other studies conducted by the City or its designated entity, Food Recovery Services and Food Recovery Organizations operating in the City shall provide information and consultation to the City, upon request, regarding existing, or proposed new or expanded, Food Recovery capacity that could be accessed by the City and its Commercial Edible Food Generators. A Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization contacted by the City shall respond to such request for information within 60 days, unless a shorter timeframe is otherwise specified by the City.

6.17.070 – Requirements for Haulers and Facility Operators.

A. Exclusive franchise hauler, providing residential, Commercial, or industrial Organic Waste collection services to Generators within the City’s boundaries shall meet the following requirements as a condition of approval of a contract, agreement, or similar contractual authorization with the City to Collect Organic Waste:

1. Provide written notice to the City starting July 1, 2022, and annually thereafter pursuant to 14 CCR 18988.1(a)(1) or as facilities change; identify the facilities to which they will transport Organic Waste including facilities for Source Separated Recyclable materials and Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste.

2. Transport Source Separated Recyclable materials and Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste to a facility, operation, activity, or property that recovers Organic Waste as defined in 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hauler shall not be required to transport any containers with Prohibited Container Contaminants to a facility, operation, activity, or property that recovers Organic Waste.

3. Obtain approval from the City to haul Organic Waste, unless it is transporting Source Separated Organic Waste to a Community Composting site or lawfully transporting C&D in a manner that complies with 14 CCR Section 18989.1, Section 6.17.090 hereof.

4. The authorization of the exclusive franchise hauler to collect Organic Waste shall comply with any education, equipment, signage, container labeling, container color, contamination, monitoring, and reporting requirements relating to the collection of Organic Waste contained within its franchise agreement with the City.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 21 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 15 of 22

5. A Hauler is not required to replace functional containers, including containers purchased prior to January 1, 2022, that do not comply with the requirements of this ordinance prior to the end of the useful life of those containers, or prior to January 1, 2036, whichever comes first.

6. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, nothing in this Chapter shall restrict or otherwise prohibit Haulers from meeting compliance requirements by any alternative methods or procedures, provided it complies with SB 1383, the SB 1383 Regulations, and/or any other applicable law, as may be amended from time to time, or being relieved of, or delaying compliance with such requirement pursuant to SB 619.

B. Requirements for Facility Operators and Community Composting Operations.

1. Owners of facilities, operations, and activities that recover Organic Waste, including, but not limited to, Compost facilities, in–vessel digestion facilities, and publicly–owned treatment works shall, upon request, provide information regarding available and potential new or expanded capacity at their facilities, operations, and activities, including information about throughput and permitted capacity necessary for planning purposes. Entities contacted by the City shall respond within 60 days.

2. Community Composting operators, upon City request, shall provide information to the City to support Organic Waste capacity planning, including, but not limited to, an estimate of the amount of Organic Waste anticipated to be handled at the Community Composting operation.

Entities contacted by the city shall respond within 60 days.

6.17.080 – Self–Hauler Requirements.

A. Self–Haulers shall source separate all recyclable materials and Organic Waste (materials that the City otherwise requires Generators to separate for collection in the City’s organics and recycling collection program) generated on–site from Solid Waste in a manner consistent with 14 CCR Sections 18984.1 and 18984.2, or shall haul Organic Waste to a High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility as specified in 14 CCR Section 18984.3.

B. Self–Haulers shall haul their Source Separated Recyclable Materials to a facility that recovers those materials; and haul their Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste to a Solid Waste facility, operation, activity, or property that processes or recovers Source Separated Organic Waste.

Alternatively, Self–Haulers may haul Organic Waste to a High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility.

C. Self–Haulers that are Commercial Businesses (including Multi–Family Residential Dwellings) shall keep a record of the amount of Organic Waste delivered to each Solid Waste facility, operation, activity, or property that processes or recovers Organic Waste; this record shall be provided to the City quarterly. The records shall include the following information:

1. Delivery receipts and weight tickets from the entity accepting the waste.

2. The amount of material in cubic yards or tons transported by the Generator to each entity.

3. If the material is transported to an entity that does not have scales on– site, or employs scales incapable of weighing the Self–Haulers’ vehicle in a manner that allows it to determine the weight of materials received, the Self–Hauler is not required to record the weight of material but shall keep a record of the entities that received the Organic Waste.

D. Self–Haulers that are Commercial Businesses (including Multi–Family Self– Haulers) shall provide information collected in Section 6.17.080(C) to the City if requested and within ten (10) days of such request.

E. A residential Organic Waste Generator that self–hauls Organic Waste, to the extent permitted by this Municipal Code, is not required to record or report information in Section 6.17.080(C).

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 22 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 16 of 22

6.17.090 – Compliance with CALGreen Requirements.

A. Persons applying for a permit from the City for new construction and building additions and alternations shall comply with the requirements of this Section and all required components of the California Green Building Standard Code, 24 CCR, Part 11, known as CALGreen, as amended, if its project is covered by the scope of CALGreen or more stringent requirements of the City. If the requirements of CALGreen are more stringent than the requirements of this Section, the CALGreen requirements shall apply.

Project applicants shall refer to City’s building code for complete CALGreen requirements.

B. For projects covered by CALGreen or more stringent requirements of the City, the applicants must, as a condition of the City’s permit approval, comply with the following:

1. Where five (5) or more Multi–Family dwelling units are constructed on a building site, provide readily accessible areas that serve occupants of all buildings on the site and are identified for the storage and collection of Blue Container and Green Container materials, consistent with the at– least three container collection program offered by the City, or comply with provision of adequate space for recycling for Multi–Family and Commercial premises pursuant to Sections 4.408.1, 4.410.2, 5.408.1, and 5.410.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code, 24 CCR, Part 11 as amended provided amended requirements are more stringent than the CALGreen requirements for adequate recycling space effective January 1, 2020.

2. New Commercial construction or additions resulting in more than 30% of the floor area shall provide readily accessible areas identified for the storage and collection of materials, consistent with the at–least three container collection program offered by the City, or shall comply with provision of adequate space for recycling for Multi–Family and Commercial premises pursuant to Sections 4.408.1, 4.410.2, 5.408.1, and 5.410.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code, 24 CCR, Part 11 as amended provided amended requirements are more stringent than the CALGreen requirements for adequate recycling space effective January 1, 2020.

3. Comply with CALGReen requirements and applicable law related to management of C&D, including diversion of Organic Waste in C&D from disposal. Comply with all written and published City policies, ordinances, and/or administrative guidelines regarding the collection, recycling, diversion, tracking, and/or reporting of C&D.

6.17.100 – Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance Requirements (MWELO).

A. Property owners or their building or landscape designers, including anyone requiring a building or planning permit, plan check, or landscape design review from the City, who are constructing a new (Single–Family, Multi– Family, public, institutional, or Commercial) project with a landscape area greater than 500 square feet, or rehabilitating an existing landscape with a total landscape area greater than 2,500 square feet, shall comply with Sections 492.6(a)(3)(B), (C), (D), and (G) of the MWELO, including sections related to use of Compost and mulch as delineated in this Section 6.17.100.

B. The following Compost and mulch use requirements that are part of the MWELO are also included as requirements of this Chapter. Other requirements of the MWELO are in effect and can be found in 23 CCR, Division 2, Chapter 2.7.

C. Property owners or their building or landscape designers that meet the threshold for MWELO compliance outlined in Section 6.17.100(A) above shall:

1. Comply with Sections 492.6 (a)(3)(B), (C), (D), and (G) of the MWELO, which requires the submittal of a landscape design plan with a soil preparation, mulch, and amendments section to include the following:

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 23 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 17 of 22
a. For landscape installations, Compost at a rate of a minimum of four cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of permeable area shall be incorporated to a depth of six (6) inches into the soil. Soils with greater than six percent (6%) organic matter in the top six (6) inches of soil are exempt from adding Compost and tilling.
b. For landscape installations, a minimum three– (3–) inch layer of mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers, or direct seeding applications where mulch is contraindicated. To provide habitat for beneficial insects and other wildlife up to five percent (5%) of the landscape area may be left without mulch. Designated insect habitat must be included in the landscape design plan as such. c. Organic mulch materials made from recycled or post–consumer materials meeting procurement requirements under 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 12, shall (i) take precedence over inorganic materials or virgin forest products unless the recycled post–consumer organic products are not locally available, and (ii) comply with 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 12. Organic mulches are not required where prohibited by local fuel modification plan guidelines or other applicable local ordinance.

2. The MWELO compliance items listed in this Section are not an inclusive list of MWELO requirements; therefore, property owners or their building or landscape designers that meet the threshold for MWELO compliance outlined in Section 6.17.100(A) shall consult the full MWELO for all requirements.

D. If, after the adoption of this Chapter, the California Department of Water Resources, or its successor agency, amends 23 CCR, Division 2, Chapter 2.7, Sections 492.6(a)(3)(B), (C), (D), and (G) of the MWELO September 15, 2015 requirements in a manner that requires jurisdictions to incorporate the requirements of an updated MWELO in a local ordinance, and the amended requirements include provisions more stringent than those required in this Section, the revised requirements of 23 CCR, Division 2, Chapter 2.7 shall be enforced.

6.17.110 – Procurement Requirements for City Departments, Direct Service Providers, and Vendors.

A. City departments, and direct service providers to the City, as applicable, must comply with the City–adopted procurement policy for Recovered Organic Waste Product Recycled–Content Paper.

B. All vendors providing Paper Products and Printing and Writing Paper to the City shall:

1. If fitness and quality are equal, provide Recycled–Content Paper Products and Recycled–Content Printing and Writing Paper that consists of at least 30 percent, by fiber weight, postconsumer fiber instead of non–recycled products whenever recycled Paper Products and Printing and Writing Paper are Available at the same or lesser total cost than non–recycled items.

2. Provide Paper Products and Printing and Writing Paper that meet Federal Trade Commission recyclability standards as defined in 16 CFR Section 260.12 of Code of Federal Regulations.

3. Certify in writing, under penalty of perjury, the minimum percentage of postconsumer material in the Paper Products and Printing and Writing Paper offered or sold to the City. This certification requirement may be waived if the percentage of postconsumer material in the Paper Products, Printing and Writing Paper, or both can be verified by a product label, catalog, invoice, or a manufacturer or vendor internet website.

4. Certify in writing, on invoices or receipts provided, that the Paper Products and Printing and Writing Paper offered or sold to the City is eligible to be labeled with an unqualified recyclable label as defined in 16 CFR Section 260.12 of Code of Federal Regulations.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 24 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 18 of 22

5. Provide records to the City’s designated personnel member for purposes of Recovered Organic Waste Product procurement recordkeeping in accordance with the City’s Recycled–Content Paper procurement policy(ies) of all Paper Products and Printing and Writing Paper purchases within thirty (30) days of the purchase (both recycled–content and non– recycled content, if any is purchased) made by any division or department or employee of the City. Records shall include a copy (electronic or paper) of the invoice or other documentation of purchase, written certifications as required in Sections 6.17.110(B)(3) and (B)(4) of this Chapter for recycled–content purchases, purchaser name, quantity purchased, date purchased, and recycled content (including products that contain none), and if non–recycled content Paper Products or Printing and Writing Papers are provided, include a description of why Recycled–Content Paper Products or Printing and Writing Papers were not provided.

6.17.120 – Inspections and Investigations.

A. City representatives and/or its designated entity, including Designees are authorized to conduct Inspections and Investigations, at random or otherwise, of any collection container, collection vehicle loads, or transfer, processing, or disposal facility for materials collected from Generators, or Source Separated materials to confirm compliance with this Chapter by Organic Waste Generators, Commercial Businesses (including Multi–Family Residential Dwellings), property owners, Commercial Edible Food Generators, Self–Haulers, Food Recovery Services, and Food Recovery Organizations, subject to applicable laws. This Section does not allow City to enter the interior of a private residential property for Inspection.

B. Organic Waste Generators, Commercial Businesses (including Multi–Family Residential Dwellings), property owners, Commercial Edible Food Generators, Self–Haulers, Food Recovery Services, and Food Recovery Organizations shall provide or arrange for access during all Inspections (with the exception of residential property interiors) and shall cooperate with the City’s personnel or its Designee during such Inspections and Investigations.

Such Inspections and Investigations may include confirmation of proper placement of materials in containers, Edible Food Recovery activities, records, or any other requirement of this Chapter describe herein. Failure to provide or arrange for: (i) access to an entity’s premises, or (ii) access to records for any Inspection or Investigation is a violation of this Chapter and may result in penalties described.

C. Any records obtained by the City during its Inspections and other reviews shall be subject to the requirements and applicable disclosure exemptions of the Public Records Act set forth in Government Code Section 6250 et seq.

D. City representatives/personnel and/or Designee are authorized to conduct any Inspections or other Investigations of Organic Waste Generators, Commercial Businesses (including Multi–Family Residential Dwellings), property owners, Commercial Edible Food Generators, Self–Haulers, Food Recovery Services, and Food Recovery Organizations as reasonably necessary to further the goals of this Chapter, subject to applicable laws.

E. City shall accept written complaints from persons regarding an entity that may be potentially non–compliant with SB 1383 Regulations, including receipt of anonymous complaints.

6.17.130 – Enforcement.

A. A violation of any provision of this Chapter shall constitute grounds for issuance of a Notice of Violation and assessment of a fine by a City Enforcement Official or representative. Enforcement Actions under this Chapter include, but are not limited to, issuance of an administrative citation and assessment of a fine. In addition to the procedures in this section 6.17.130, the City may enforce this Chapter consistent with the procedures in Montclair Municipal Code Chapter 1.04.

B. Other remedies allowed by law may be used for enforcement, including but not limited to civil action or prosecution as misdemeanor or infraction. The MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 25 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 19 of 22
City may pursue civil actions in the California courts to seek recovery of unpaid administrative citations. The City may choose to delay court action until such time as a sufficiently large number of violations, or cumulative size of violations exist such that court action is a reasonable use of City staff and resources.

C. Responsible Entity for Enforcement.

1. Enforcement pursuant to this Chapter may be undertaken by the City Enforcement Official or his/her designee authorized and legally able to undertake such action.
a. The City Enforcement Official or his/her designee will interpret this Chapter; determine the applicability of waivers, if violation(s) have occurred; implement Enforcement Actions; and, determine if compliance standards are met.
b. The City Enforcement Official or his/her designee may issue Notices of Violation(s).

D. Process for Enforcement

1. The City Enforcement Official or his/her designee will monitor compliance with this Chapter randomly and through compliance Reviews, Route Reviews, Investigation of complaints, and an Inspection program. Section 6.17.120 establishes City’s right to conduct Inspections and Investigations.

2. City may issue an official notification to notify regulated entities of its obligations under the ordinance.

3. Contamination Prevention.
a. For incidences of Prohibited Container Contaminants found by City or its Designee in containers, City will issue a Notice of Violation to any Generator found to have Prohibited Container Contamination in a container. Prior to issuance of a Notice of Violation, City or its Designee may provide an informal warning(s) or notice(s) of Container Contaminants via cart tag or other similar means including, but not limited to mailings, e–mail, or other electronic messages to the Generator and may include photographic evidence of the violation. Thereafter, any Notice of Violation shall be provided by the City via mail within two (2) days after City determines a violation has occurred with respect to Prohibited Container Contaminants. If the City or its Designee observes Prohibited Container Contaminants in a Generator’s containers on more than two (2) occasion(s) in any calendar year starting January 1, the City may assess an administrative fine or penalty on the Generator in accordance with Section 6.17.130(E).
b. In addition to 6.17.130(D)(3)(a), Designee may implement through Designee’s City–approved service rate structure a Contamination service charge for customers committing incidents of Prohibited Container Contaminants. Designee shall provide such customers with written notice and/or cart tags, or such other procedures required under any contract, agreement, or similar contractual authorization between the City and its Designee, prior to levying any contamination service charge. The foregoing Contamination service charges shall not be considered an administrative fine or penalty.

Any disputes arising from the assessment of a Contamination service charge shall be adjudicated pursuant to the customer complaint resolution process provided under the terms of any contract, agreement, or similar contractual authorization between the City and its Designee assigned to collect Organic Waste.

4. With the exception of violations of Generator Contamination of container contents addressed under Section 6.17.130(D)(3), City shall issue a Notice of Violation requiring compliance within 60 days of issuance of the notice.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 26 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 20 of 22

5. Absent compliance by the respondent within the deadline set forth in the Notice of Violation, City shall commence an Enforcement Action to impose penalties, via an administrative citation and fine pursuant to the City’s requirements contained in Section 6.17.130(J), Table 1, List of Violations.

Notices shall be sent to “owner” at the official address of the owner maintained by the tax collector for the City or if no such address is available, to the owner at the address of the dwelling or Commercial property or to the party responsible for paying for the collections services, depending upon available information.

E. Penalty Amounts for Types of Violations. The penalty levels for City–issued Notices of Violations are as follows:

1. For a first violation, the amount of the base penalty shall be $100 per violation.

2. For a second violation, the amount of the base penalty shall be $200 per violation.

3. For a third violation, the amount of the base penalty shall be $500 per violation.

F. Compliance Deadline Extension Considerations. The City may extend the compliance deadlines set forth in a Notice of Violation issued in accordance with this Section 6.17.130 if it finds that there are extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the respondent that make compliance within the deadlines impracticable, including the following:

1. Acts of God such as earthquakes, wildfires, flooding, and other emergencies or natural disasters;

2. Delays in obtaining discretionary permits or other governments agency approvals; or,

3. Deficiencies in Organic Waste recycling infrastructure or Edible Food Recovery capacity and the City is under a corrective action plan with CalRecycle pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18996.2 due to those deficiencies.

G. Appeals Process. Persons receiving an administrative citation containing a penalty for an uncorrected violation may request a hearing to appeal the citation pursuant to the appeal procedures in Montclair Municipal Code Section 1.08.010.

H. Education Period for Non–Compliance. Beginning on and after January 1, 2022, City or its Designee will conduct Inspections, Route Reviews or waste evaluations, and Compliance Reviews, depending upon the type of regulated entity, to determine compliance with this Chapter, and if City or its designee determines that Organic Waste Generator, Self–Hauler, hauler Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generator, Food Recovery Organization, Food Recovery Service or other entity is not in compliance, it shall provide educational materials to the entity describing its obligations under this Chapter and a notice that compliance is required by July 1, 2022, or other date as set by resolution of the City Council, and that violations may be subject to administrative civil penalties starting on January 1, 2024.

I. Civil Penalties for Non–Compliance. Beginning January 1, 2024, if the City or its designee determines that an Organic Waste Generator, Self–Hauler, hauler, Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator, Food Recovery Organization, Food Recovery Service or other entity is not in compliance with this Chapter City and its Designee shall document that noncompliance or violation, and City shall issue a Notice of Violation, and take Enforcement Action pursuant to this Section 6.17.130, as needed.

J. Enforcement Table – Non–exclusive List of Violations. Table 1 below provides a non–exclusive list of violations of this Chapter, which may subject an entity to an Enforcement Action pursuant to this Section

6.17.130.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 27 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 21 of 22
Table 1. List of Violations

REQUIREMENT DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION
Commercial Business and
Commercial Business Owner
Responsibility Requirement
Section 6.17.030
Commercial Business fails to provide or
arrange for Organic Waste collection
services consistent with City requirements
and as outlined in this Chapter, for
employees, contractors, tenants, and
customers, including supplying and
allowing access to adequate numbers,
size, and location of containers and
sufficient signage and container color.

Organic Waste Generator
Requirement
Sections 6.17.020 and 6.17.030
Organic Waste Generator fails to comply
with requirements adopted pursuant to
this Chapter for the collection and
Recovery of Organic Waste.

Hauler Requirement
Section 6.17.070
A hauler providing Residential,
Commercial or industrial Organic Waste
collection service fails to transport
Organic Waste to a facility, operation,
activity, or property that recovers Organic
Waste, as prescribed by this Chapter.

Hauler Requirement
Section 6.17.070
A hauler providing Residential,
Commercial or industrial Organic Waste
collection service fails to obtain applicable
approval issued by the City to haul
Organic Waste as prescribed by this
Chapter.

Hauler Requirement
Section 6.17.070
A hauler fails to keep a record of the
applicable documentation of its approval
by the City, as prescribed by this Chapter.

Self–Hauler Requirement
Section 6.17.080
A generator who is a Self–Hauler fails to
comply with the requirements of 14 CCR
Section 18988.3(b).

Commercial Edible Food Generator
Requirement
Section 6.17.050
Tier One Commercial Edible Food
Generator fails to arrange to recover the
maximum amount of its Edible Food that
would otherwise be disposed by
establishing a contract or written
agreement with a Food Recovery
Organization or Food Recovery Service
and comply with this Section commencing
July 1, 2022, or other date as set by
Resolution of the City Council.

Commercial Edible Food Generator
Requirement
Section 6.17.050
Tier Two Commercial Edible Food
Generator fails to arrange to recover the
maximum amount of its Edible Food that
would otherwise be disposed by
establishing a contract or written
agreement with a Food Recovery
Organization or Food Recovery Service
and comply with this Section commencing
January 1, 2024.

Commercial Edible Food Generator
Requirement
Section 6.17.050
Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible
Food Generator intentionally spoils Edible
Food that is capable of being recovered by
a Food Recovery Organization or Food
Recovery Service.

Organic Waste Generator,
Commercial Business Owner,
Commercial Edible Food Generator,
Food Recovery Organization or
Food Recovery Service
Sections 6.17.030 and 6.17.050
Failure to provide or arrange for access to
an entity’s premises for an Inspection or
investigation.

Recordkeeping Requirements for
Commercial Edible Food Generator
Section 6.17.050
Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible
Food Generator fails to keep records, as
prescribed by Section 6.17.050.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 28 of 347 Ordinance No. 22–1001 Page 22 of 22
Recordkeeping Requirements for
Food Recovery Services and Food
Recovery Organizations
Section 6.17.060
A Food Recovery Organization or Food
Recovery Service that has established a
contract or written agreement to collect or
receive Edible Food directly from a
Commercial Edible Food Generator
pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b)
fails to keep records, as prescribed by
section 6.17.060.

6.17.140 – Coordination and Interpretation in Conjunction With Related Solid Waste Ordinances.

In interpreting this Chapter in conjunction with the City’s general Solid Waste regulations (Montclair Municipal Code Chapter 6.16), in the event of any conflict between this Chapter and Chapter 6.16 that cannot be reasonably harmonized through the application of lawful principles of statutory construction, the provision of this Chapter shall control with respect to all issues specific to the regulation of Organic and Food Waste collection, disposal, enforcement, and penalties.

SECTION V. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION VI. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after passage.

SECTION VII. Posting. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same to be posted pursuant to Government Code Section 36933.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX, 2022.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk of the City of Montclair, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 22–1001 of said City, which was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the XX day of XX, 2022, and finally passed not less than five (5) days thereafter on the XX day of XX, 2022, by the following vote, to–wit:

AYES: XX
NOES: XX
ABSTAIN: XX
ABSENT: XX
Andrea M. Myrick
City Clerk
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 29 of 347

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JUNE 6, 2022
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO.: B
FILE I.D.: LDU350/LDU375/ENV075
DEPT.: COMMUNITY DEV.

PREPARER: S. GUTIERREZ
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 22–3350 GRANTING FINAL ADOPTION OF THE 5006 AND 5010 MISSION BOULEVARD INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2022030195) AND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE PROJECT UNDER CASE NO. 2022–07
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 22–3351 APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF TWO PARCELS TOTALING 2.5 ACRES FROM “GENERAL COMMERCIAL” TO “BUSINESS PARK” CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 22–3352 APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20393 TO MERGE THREE PARCELS INTO A SINGLE 5.13–ACRE SITE AT 5006 AND 5010 MISSION BOULEVARD
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council is requested to consider adoption of Resolution Nos. 22–3350, 22–3351, and 22–3352 related to a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment and approving a Tentative Parcel Map for a proposed industrial/warehouse building on a 5.13–acre site located at 5006–5010 Mission Boulevard. Amendments to the City’s adopted General Plan Land Use Map and approval of Tentative Maps require public hearing review approval by the City Council.

Notice of the public hearing before the Montclair City Council was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on May 27, 2022. Notice was additionally posted on the City’s official website.

BACKGROUND: Applicant New Crossings, LLC submitted concurrent applications under Planning Case No. 2022–07 requesting approval of an amendment to the General Plan, a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM), and a Precise Plan of Design (PPD) to facilitate the construction of an industrial warehouse on a 5.13–acre site on the north side of Mission Boulevard. The proposed site is currently comprised of three abutting parcels that need to be combined into a single parcel for development. The proposed industrial/warehouse building is approximately 115,300 square–feet in size and requires the demolition of an existing 8,500 square–foot building and site preparation for new development. A summary of the proposed development is further described below:

Proposed Industrial Warehouse Building
Uses and Parking Requirements
Use1 Square Footage Parking Ratio: Required/Provided
Warehouse Area 107,800 1 space per 1,000 s.f. – 108/108 Mezzanine Office No. 1 (West) 2,500 1 space per 250 s.f. – 10/10 Ground Floor Office (West) 1,250 1 space per 250 s.f. – 5/5 Mezzanine Office No. 2 (East) 2,500 1 space per 250 s.f. – 10/10 Ground Floor Office (East) 1,250 1 space per 250 s.f. – 5/5 Total 115,300 138 Spaces
1Proposed building is designed to accommodate up to two separate users.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 30 of 347 On May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3–0–2 (two absent), approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Precise Plan of Design, and recommended City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Tentative Parcel Map. Hard copies of the relevant Planning Commission staff report and set of plans are included in the City Councils’ agenda packet for reference.

As mentioned above, the project requires City Council approval for the following entitlements to address an inconsistency between the General Plan and Zoning land use designations and map to combine the properties into a developable site:

General Plan Amendment (GPA) — The project site currently consists of three abutting parcels two of which amount to 2.5 acres in size having a General Plan designation that differs from the corresponding zoning designation. To make the General Plan and Zoning land use designations for the site consistent, the proposed GPA is required, as the following table indicates:

General Plan
Land Use Map Amendment
APN Current General Plan
Designation
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Existing Zoning
(No Change)
1101–311–15* General Commercial Business Park1 MIP
1101–311–17* General Commercial Business Park1 MIP
1101–311–19 Business Park Business Park MIP
*Parcels for which the General Plan Amendment is requested. 1General Plan “Business Park” land use designation and the Zoning Map “Manufacturing Industrial Park – MIP” designation are consistent.

Consistency between the General Plan and Zoning is essential to eliminate conflicts in implementing long–term objectives and the promotion of orderly development. Staff finds the proposed GPA to be appropriate and necessary to achieve consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and the City’s Official Zoning Map. Moreover, the proposed amendment would allow the development of the site in a manner that is compatible with the industrial uses of the area located along the northern side of Mission Boulevard. The proposed GPA would allow for the site to transition from a group of properties that are vacant or partially developed with a timeworn structure into a new development that will contribute positively to the streetscape and to the area long recognized as the industrial district of the City. The proposed GPA would not result in the displacement of any existing residential uses from the site, and is adequately separated from other residential uses on the south side of Mission Boulevard, by a fully developed roadway with medians and an approximate width of 120 feet. Exhibit A reflects the proposed GPA.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393 — To merge three abutting parcels into a single developable site of 5.13–acres in size. Exhibit B reflects the proposed Parcel Map.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393
Assessor Parcel Number (APN) Existing Lot Size
1101–311–15 1.59 acres
1101–311–17 0.91 acre
1101–311–19 2.63 acres
Total 5.13 acres (gross)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 31 of 347 Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393 would allow the combination of three separate parcels under common ownership to create a single site unencumbered by property lines or lack of sufficient size to develop independently. The merger of three parcels into a single parcel would create a parcel of sufficient size and shape to allow for the orderly development of the site consisting of a new building (potential two tenants), with ample room for on–site circulation, parking, and landscaping. The proposed tentative parcel map and the provisions for its design and improvement are consistent with the General Plan in that it will promote good planning practices and orderly development within the City consistent with the features and development pattern of the immediate area around the site. Access to the site will be from Mission Boulevard, a fully developed major east–west arterial roadway and nearby intersections.

The City Engineer and Fire Department have reviewed the proposed tentative parcel map and proposed development of the site, and found the proposed map to be appropriate for access and circulation.

When completed, staff believes the proposed project will be a significant improvement to the Mission Boulevard corridor consistent with others recently completed in the area.

Environmental Assessment
An Initial Study was prepared for the entire project and release for public review and comments on February 25, 2022 ending on March 16, 2022. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, staff determined that the project could have a potential significant adverse impact unless reduced to a level of less than significant by the implementation of proposed mitigation measures. Areas identified in the Initial Study as subject to potential environmental impacts include air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources. Mitigation measures for these areas were developed and included as conditions of approval for the project. On May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project.

FISCAL IMPACT: There would be no direct impact on the City’s General Fund resulting from the City Council’s adoption of the proposed three resolutions. Approval of the project would ultimately result in positive, long–term economic benefits for the City, including enhanced property values from improvements to the property.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions in relation to the development of 5006–5010 Mission Boulevard:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 22–3350 granting final adoption of the 5006 and 5010 Mission Boulevard Industrial Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2022030195) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approving the project under Case No. 2022–07;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 22–3351 approving General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of two parcels totaling 2.5 acres from “General Commercial” to “Business Park”; and

3. Adopt Resolution No. 22–3352 approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393 to merge three parcels into a single 5.13–acre site at 5006 and 5010 Mission Boulevard.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 32 of 347 CASE 2022–07

EXHIBIT A

CURRENT GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION

SUBJECT SITE

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION

SUBJECT SITE
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 33 of 347 CASE 2022–07

EXHIBIT B
PARCEL MAP NO. 20393
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 34 of 347

Resolution No. 22–3350 Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 22–3350

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL
GRANTING FINAL ADOPTION OF THE 5006 AND 5010 MISSION

BOULEVARD INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH #2022030195) AND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
APPROVING THE PROJECT UNDER CASE NO. 2022–07
WHEREAS, New Crossings Development, LLC, the authorized representative of the property owner, proposes to develop an approximately 115,300 square–foot, one–story industrial warehouse facility, parking spaces, tractor–trailer loading docks, and other associated site improvements such as landscaping, sidewalks, and internal driveways, on an approximately 5.13–acre property under Case No. 2022–07 (“Project”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, title 14, §15000 et seq.) (collectively, “CEQA”), an Initial Study analyzing all potential impacts of the Project was prepared for the City’s consideration as the lead agency under State CEQA Guidelines section 15063; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of the Initial Study, which indicated that all potential environmental impacts from the Project would be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), City staff determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) should be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Initial Study/MND (SCH #2022030195) was prepared in accordance with CEQA and circulated for public review and comment between February 25, 2022, and March 16, 2022, by: (1) filing a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“NOI”) with the State Clearinghouse; (2) filing a NOI with the San Bernardino County Clerk; (3) placing a NOI in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, a newspaper of general circulation; (4) mailing a NOI to various interested persons, agencies, and tribes; and (5) posting a NOI on the City’s website; and WHEREAS, copies of the Draft Initial Study/MND were available during the public review period at the Community Development Department at City Hall, the Montclair Branch Library, and on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15074(d), the MMRP has been prepared and includes mitigation measures for air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources, and
WHEREAS, all comments from the public, as well as any responsible, trustee, and interested agencies on the Initial Study/MND were considered and responded to; and WHEREAS, the Final Initial Study/MND consists of the responses to comments, the Initial Study/MND, and an Errata section containing minor revisions to the Initial Study/MND; and
WHEREAS, a notice of this item was advertised as a public hearing set for April 25, 2022, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on April 15, 2022, and mailed to property owners within a 300–foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the Project site in accordance with State law for consideration of the Project’s discretionary entitlements; and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2022, and May 9, 2022, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Montclair City Hall, the Planning Commission opened the duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2022, two late comment letters were received from two separate law firms representing labor unions representing unions regarding their respective concerns over the environmental impacts that the commenters allege would be caused by construction activities if the project was not required to utilize a local and skilled workforce; and
WHEREAS, given the extent and nature of the comments in both letters, there was insufficient time to adequately respond to the concerns during the meeting; and

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 35 of 347

Resolution No. 22–3350 Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, since the project was advertised as a public hearing, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and took public comments from two individuals, in addition to receiving the above–referenced comment letters. After comments were received, the Commission voted to continue the item to its regularly scheduled meeting on May 9, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Montclair City Hall, the Planning Commission opened the duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the proposed project, Final Initial Study/MND, and all evidence were presented and all persons wishing to testify in connection with the said proposal were heard and said application was fully studied.

WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Final Initial Study/MND, the MMRP, and all other relevant information contained in the administrative record regarding the Project, including all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the MND reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3–0–2, approved the Precise Plan of Design for Case No. 2022–07 for site plan, floor plans, elevations, colors, materials, and conceptual landscape plan subject to conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 22–1966; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3–0–2, recommended City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22–1964 to modify the land use designation of 2.5 acres, APNs 1101–311–15 and 1101–311–17, having the “General Commercial” land use designation to “Business Park” to allow the development of the subject site with a new industrial building; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3–0–2, recommended City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393 pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22–1965 merging three abutting parcels, APNs 1101–311–15, 1101–311–17, and 1101–311–19, into a single developable 5.13–acre parcel; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3–0–2, recommended City Council adoption of the 5006 and 5010 Mission Boulevard Industrial Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #32022030195) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving the project under Planning Case No. 2022–07 pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22–1967; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2022, the City gave public notice of the City Council’s public hearing by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation, posted the public notice at City Hall, and mailed it to all property owners within 300 feet of the project area; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2022, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Montclair City Hall, the City Council opened and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2022030195), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project under Case No. 2022–07; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2022, all persons wishing to testify in connection with the said proposal were heard and said application was fully studied; and WHEREAS, no comments or additional information submitted to the Planning Commission, and no other circumstances have produced substantial new information requiring substantial revisions that would trigger recirculation of the MND or additional environmental review of the Project under State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 36 of 347

Resolution No. 22–3350 Page 3 of 4
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and administrative record, including all oral and written comments received during the comment period, which is on file with the City and available for review. Based on the City Council’s independent review and analysis, the City Council finds that the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been completed in compliance with CEQA.

WHEREAS, Based on the Final Initial Study/MND and the administrative record, the City Council finds that the Final Initial Study/MND contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The City Council further finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Final Initial Study/MND reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further determines that the MND has not been substantially revised after public notice of its availability, nor have there been new significant environmental effects identified in the Final Initial Study/MND in response to comments and thus recirculation is not required under State CEQA Guidelines, section 15073.5. Finally, the City Council finds that the Final Initial Study/MND contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts with mitigation associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2022, the City Council approved the proposed General Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2022030195), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project under Case No. 2022–07; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080, subdivision (c)(2), the City Council adopts the Final Initial Study/MND prepared for the Project.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the MMRP, which was prepared for the Project and made a condition of Project approval.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Project as described in the Final Initial Study/MND.

1. The documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the City’s office at 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, California 91763. The custodian of these documents or other material is the City Clerk for the City of Montclair.

2. The City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San Bernardino and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of approval of the Project.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX 2022.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk of the City of Montclair, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that Resolution No. 22–3350 was duly adopted by the City Council of said city and was approved by the Mayor of said city at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the XX day of XX, 2022, and that it was adopted by the following vote, to–wit:

AYES: XX
NOES: XX
ABSTAIN: XX
ABSENT: XX
Andrea M. Myrick
City Clerk
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 37 of 347

Resolution No. 22–3350 Page 4 of 4

EXHIBIT A
Case No. 2022–07
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program (MMRP)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 38 of 347 Mitigating Monitoring and Reporting
Program
5006 and 5010 Mission
Boulevard Warehouse
Case No. 2022-7
APRIL 2022
Prepared for:

CITY OF MONTCLAIR
5111 Benito Street
Montclair, California 91763
Contact: Silvia Gutiérrez, Associate Planner
Prepared by:
3615 Main Street, Suite 103
Riverside, California 92501
Contact: Patrick Cruz, Project Manager
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 39 of 347 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 40 of 347 13716 i
APRIL 2022
Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE
1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program...................................................................................................3 TABLES
1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table.........................................................................................3 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 41 of 347

MITIGATING MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5006 AND 5010 MISSION BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
13716 ii
APRIL 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 42 of 347 13716 1
APRIL 2022
1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a public agency adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) take affirmative steps to determine that approved mitigation measures are implemented after project approval. The lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the mitigation measures incorporated into a project or included as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance with the MND during project implementation (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6(a)(1)).

This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be used by the City of Montclair (City) to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures identified in the MND for the proposed 5006 and 5010 Mission Boulevard Warehouse project (project) when construction begins. The City, as the lead agency, will be responsible for ensuring that all mitigation measures are carried out. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce impacts to below a level of significance for air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources.

The remainder of this MMRP consists of a table that identifies the mitigation measures by resource for each project component. Table 1 identifies the mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, list of mitigation measures, party responsible for implementing mitigation measures, timing for implementation of mitigation measures, agency responsible for monitoring of implementation, and date of completion. With the MND and related documents, this MMRP will be kept on file at the following location:

City of Montclair
5111 Benito Street
Montclair, California 91763
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 43 of 347

MITIGATING MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5006 AND 5010 MISSION BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
13716 2
APRIL 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 44 of 347 13716 3
APRIL 2022
2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Date of Completion
Air Quality
MM-AQ-1: Construction Equipment Emissions Reduction. The following measures shall be incorporated into the project to reduce construction criteria air pollutant emissions of PM10:

The following equipment shall make use of EPA Tier 4 Interim engines during construction: concrete/industrial saws,
generator sets, rubber tired dozers, and
tractors/loaders/backhoes. An exemption from these
requirements may be granted by the City in the event that the applicant documents that equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions are achieved from other construction equipment.1 Before an exemption may be
considered by the City, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate that two construction fleet owners/operators in the Los Angeles Region were contacted and that those
owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Interim or better
equipment could not be located within the Los Angeles
region. To ensure that Tier 4 construction equipment or better would be used during the Proposed project’s
construction, the applicant shall include this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts.

Successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground disturbing and construction activities.

During construction City of Montclair
1 For example, if a Tier 4 Interim piece of equipment is not reasonably available at the time of construction and a lower tier equipment is used instead (e.g., Tier 3), another piece of equipment could be upgraded from a Tier 4 Interim to a higher tier (i.e., Tier 4 Final) or replaced with an alternative-fueled (not diesel-fueled) equipment to offset the emissions associated with using a piece of equipment that does not meet Tier 4 Interim standards.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 45 of 347

MITIGATING MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5006 AND 5010 MISSION BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
13716 4
APRIL 2022
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Date of Completion
Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units. During construction, vehicles in loading and unloading queues shall not idle for more than 5 minutes, and shall turn their engines off when not in use to reduce vehicle emissions.

Properly tune and maintain all construction equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

Cultural Resources
MM-CUL-1: All construction personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists shall be briefed regarding inadvertent discoveries prior to the start of construction activities. A basic presentation and handout or pamphlet shall be prepared in order to ensure proper identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries. The purpose of the Workers Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP) training is to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction of the project and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the site supervisor and archaeological monitor.

Prior to construction City of Montclair
MM-CUL-2: A qualified archaeologist shall be retained and on-call to respond and address any inadvertent discoveries identified during initial excavation in native soil. Initial excavation is defined as initial construction-related earth moving of sediments from their place of deposition. As it pertains to archaeological monitoring, this definition excludes movement of sediments after they have been initially disturbed or displaced by project-related construction. A qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, should oversee and adjust monitoring efforts as During construction City of Montclair
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 46 of 347

MITIGATING MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5006 AND 5010 MISSION BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
13716 5
APRIL 2022
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Date of Completion
needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring
frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter cultural deposits or material. The archaeological monitor will be responsible for maintaining daily monitoring logs.

In the event that potential prehistoric or historical archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop and a qualified archaeologist must be notified immediately to assess the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, data recovery, or monitoring may be warranted.

If monitoring is conducted, an archaeological monitoring report shall be prepared within 60 days following completion of ground disturbance and submitted to the City for review. This report should document compliance with approved mitigation,
document the monitoring efforts, and include an appendix with daily monitoring logs. The final report shall be submitted to the South Central Coastal Information Center.

Geology and Soils
MM-GEO-1: Paleontological Construction Monitoring. If any grading activity below a depth of 10 feet below the ground surface is proposed for the project, the applicant shall retain a paleontologist to ensure the implementation of a paleontological monitoring program. The paleontologist shall meet the
requirements of a qualified paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010). The qualified Prior to construction;
during construction
City of Montclair
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 47 of 347

MITIGATING MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5006 AND 5010 MISSION BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
13716 6
APRIL 2022
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Date of Completion
paleontologist shall attend any preconstruction meetings and manage the paleontological monitor(s) if they are not doing the monitoring. A paleontological monitor shall be on site during all excavations below the depth of 10 feet below the ground surface.

The qualified paleontologist shall determine the level of monitoring required based on subsurface conditions. If
Pleistocene sedimentological indicators are not observed below 10 feet or sediments are too coarse grained for fossil
preservation (e.g,, large cobbles and boulders), the qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall spot-check excavations at five-foot intervals to determine if Pleistocene sediments are being impacted. The paleontological monitor shall be equipped with necessary tools for the collection of fossils and associated geological and paleontological data. If
sedimentological indicators conducive to the preservation of microvertebrates (as defined by SVP [2010]) are encountered, test sediment samples shall be collected to determine the presence of microvertebrate fossils. The monitor shall complete daily logs detailing the day’s excavation activities and pertinent geological and paleontological data. In the event that
paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find. Following the paleontological monitoring program, a final monitoring report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The report shall summarize the monitoring program and include geological observations and any paleontological resources recovered during paleontological monitoring for the project.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 48 of 347

MITIGATING MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5006 AND 5010 MISSION BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
13716 7
APRIL 2022
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Date of Completion
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM-HAZ-1: Prior to initiating any ground disturbing activities on the project site, the project applicant shall prepare a Soil Management Plan that is submitted and approved by the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials
Division. The Soil Management Plan shall be prepared by a qualified expert and provide all field protocols for the appropriate identification, notification, and handling/protection of suspect materials, if encountered during earthwork activities. Upon discovery of suspect soils or groundwater, the contractor shall notify the San Bernardino County Fire Department and retain a qualified professional to collect soil samples to confirm the type and extent of contamination that may be present. If
contamination is confirmed to be present, any further ground disturbing activities within areas of identified or suspected contamination shall be conducted according to a site-specific health and safety plan, prepared by a California state licensed professional.

If contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered and
constituents exceed human health risk levels, ground disturbing activities shall not recommence within the contaminated areas until remediation is complete and a “no further action” letter is obtained from the appropriate regulatory agency or direction is otherwise given by the overseeing agency that construction can commence. The project applicant shall submit the “no further action” letter or equivalent notification to the City prior to resumption of any ground disturbing activity on the relevant portion of the project site.

Prior to construction;
during construction
City of Montclair
Tribal Cultural Resources
MM-TCR-1: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for the Project, the City of Montclair (City) shall ensure that the Project Applicant retains the services of a tribal monitor(s) approved by Prior to construction;
during construction
City of Montclair
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 49 of 347

MITIGATING MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5006 AND 5010 MISSION BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
13716 8
APRIL 2022
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Date of Completion
the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation to provide Native American monitoring during ground-disturbing activities.

This provision shall be included on the Project contractor’s plans and specifications. Ground-disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation as activities that may include but are not limited to pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, borings, grading, excavation, drilling, and/or trenching within the Project area. The Project site shall be made accessible to the monitor(s), provided adequate notice is given to the construction contractor and that a construction safety hazard does not occur. The monitor(s) shall possess Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) certification. In addition, the monitor(s) shall be required to provide insurance certificates, including liability insurance.

If evidence of any tribal cultural resources is found during grounddisturbing activities, the monitor(s) shall have the capacity to halt construction in the immediate vicinity of the find to recover and/or determine the appropriate plan of recovery for the resource in consultation with a qualified archaeologist. The recovery process shall not unreasonably delay the construction process and must be carried out consistent with CEQA and local regulations.

Construction activity shall not be contingent on the presence or availability of a monitor, and construction may proceed regardless of whether or not a monitor is present on site. The monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities and general observations and whether the Native American monitor believes they observed a TCR and what action they took. The on-site monitoring shall end when the Project site grading and excavation activities are completed or prior to the completion if the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for tribal cultural resources.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 50 of 347

MITIGATING MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5006 AND 5010 MISSION BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
13716 9
APRIL 2022
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Date of Completion
MM-TCR-2: Upon discovery of any tribal cultural resources, a Native American monitor has the ability to halt construction activities in the immediate vicinity (within 50 feet) of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural resources unearthed during the Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the Native American monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation and a qualified archaeologist.

Construction work shall be permitted to continue on other parts of the Project site while evaluation and, if necessary, additional investigations and/or preservation measures take place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f)). If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation tribe shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures shall be made available through
coordination between the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation and the Project applicant. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.

Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with
subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.

During construction City of Montclair
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 51 of 347

MITIGATING MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5006 AND 5010 MISSION BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
13716 10
APRIL 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 52 of 347 Resolution No. 22–3351 Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 22–3351

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MONTCLAIR GRANTING APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT UNDER CASE 2022–07 TO CHANGE THE LAND
USE DESIGNATION OF TWO PARCELS OF LAND TOTALING 2.5
ACRES FROM "GENERAL COMMERCIAL” TO ‘’BUSINESS PARK”
(APNs 1101–311–15 AND 1101–311–17)
WHEREAS, New Crossings Development, LLC, the authorized representative of the property owner, applied for a General Plan Amendment under Case No. 2022–07; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted concurrent applications related to developing the site with a 115,300 square foot industrial building project including Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393 to merge three abutting parcels to create a single 5.13– acre site and a Precise Plan of Design (PPD); and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment (GPA) applies to two parcels totaling 2.5 acres, identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 1101–311–15 and 1101–311–17, located on the north side of Mission Boulevard approximately 250 feet east of Monte Vista Avenue; and
WHEREAS, APNs 1101–311–15 and 1101–311–17 are two of three abutting parcels under the same ownership that will be combined via Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393 to form a 5.13–acre site for a new industrial building project; and WHEREAS, APNs 1101–311–15 and 1101–311–17 are currently designated by the General Plan as “General Commercial” which is inconsistent with the “Manufacturing Industrial Park – MIP” land use designation of the Montclair Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the GPA is intended to eliminate the current inconsistency between the two land use designations by changing the General Plan land use designation from “General Commercial” to “Business Park;” and
WHEREAS, the above–referenced GPA is depicted on the attached Exhibit “A,” a table incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) (SCH #2022030195) that analyzed the proposed Project’s environmental impacts in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), which determined that proposed mitigation measures would reduce impacts to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources to less than significant, and was circulated for public review and comment between February 25, 2022 and March 16, 2022; and WHEREAS, a Final Initial Study/MND was prepared and consists of the responses to comments and the Initial Study/MND; and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2022, and May 9, 2022, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Montclair City Hall, the Planning Commission opened the duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2022, two late comment letters were received from two separate law firms representing labor unions regarding their respective concerns over the environmental impacts that the commenters allege would be caused by construction activities if the project was not required to utilize a local and skilled workforce; and WHEREAS, given the extent and nature of the comments in both letters, there was insufficient time to adequately respond to the concerns during the meeting; and WHEREAS, since the project was advertised as a public hearing, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and took public comments from two individuals, in addition to receiving the above–referenced comment letters. After comments were received, the Commission voted to continue the item to its regularly scheduled meeting on May 9, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Montclair City Hall, the Planning Commission opened the duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Project; and
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 53 of 347 Resolution No. 22–3351 Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed project at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the project were heard and said General Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map and Precise Plan of Design for the proposed 115,300 square foot industrial building was fully studied; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the proposed project, Final Initial Study/MND, and all evidence were presented and all persons wishing to testify in connection with the said proposal were heard and said application was fully studied; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3–0–2, approved the Precise Plan of Design for Case No. 2022–07 for site plan, floor plans, elevations, colors, materials, and conceptual landscape plan subject to conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 22–1966; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3–0–2, recommended City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22–1964 to modify the land use designation of 2.5 acres identified as APNs 1101–311–15 and 1101–311–17 having the “General Commercial” land use designation to “Business Park” to allow development of the subject site with a new industrial building; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3–0–2, recommended City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393 pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22–1965 merging three abutting parcels, APNs 1101–311–15, 1101–311–17, and 1101–311–19, into a single developable 5.13–acre parcel; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3–0–2, recommended City Council adoption of the 5006 and 5010 Mission Bouelvard Industiral Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #32022030195) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving the project under Planning Case No. 2022–07 purusant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22–1967; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2022, the City gave public notice of the City Council’s public hearing by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation, and posted the public notice at City Hall, and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project area; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2022, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Montclair City Hall, the City Council opened and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2022030195), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project under Case No. 2022–07; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2022, all persons wishing to testify in connection with the said proposal were heard and said application was fully studied; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2022, the City Council approved the proposed General Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2022030195), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project under Case No. 2022–07; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents and any other material, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission based its decision, is as follows: Director of Community Development, Community Development Department, City of Montclair, 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, California 91763, or by telephone at (909) 625–9477.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Montclair does hereby find and determine as follows:

1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.

2. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council finds the GPA promotes the goals and objectives of the General Plan and leaves the General Plan a compatible, MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 54 of 347 Resolution No. 22–3351 Page 3 of 5
integrated, and internally consistent statement of policies for the following reasons:

A. The proposed GPA of the subject parcels integrated and compatible with the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the General Plan in that the GPA corrects a current inconsistency with the City’s Zoning Map to allow for the subsequent development of a group of smaller parcels with substandard conditions into a new unified project site and which significantly improves the streetscape. The proposed GPA would allow for the site to transition from a mix of vacant, and partially developed parcels with timeworn structures to new high quality industrial development. As such, the GPA would provide the base for establishing the framework necessary to allow for the transformation of the project site into an attractive and orderly property and use within the industrial section of the City.

B. The GPA is integrated and compatible with the Circulation Element.

The GPA would be consistent with the General Plan’s overall goal of providing residents and visitors of the City of Montclair a circulation network which provides safe and efficient travel within and through the community. The proposed GPA and project does not impact the physical characteristics of Mission Boulevard or nearby intersections. Access to and from Mission Boulevard to the project site is direct and efficient for both the project and pedestrians and public transit utilizing the street.

C. The GPA is integrated and compatible with the Housing Element in that it does to impact or result in the removal or division of any existing residential uses on the site or adjacent neighborhoods. The closest residential uses are located on the south side of the 125– foot wide Mission Boulevard roadway. The GPA does not affect properties identified in the Housing Element as actual or potential future residential properties needed for additional housing units within the City towards implementing the goals of the City’s allocated Regional Housing Number Allocation (RHNA) via the adopted Housing Element (2014) and upcoming update in 2022.

D. The GPA is integrated and compatible with the Conservation Element in that it provides uses that would not disrupt the orderly conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources.

The project site is partially developed with no special natural resources on site. The City’s General Plan does not designate any areas of the City – including the project site –– as being within a habitat conservation plan (City of Montclair General Plan 1999).

Furthermore, the City is not within any of the regional conservation plans designated by the state (CDFW 2014). As such,
implementation of the Proposed GPA would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

E. The GPA is integrated and compatible with the Open Space Element in that it provides for uses that are consistent with and promote the adopted goals and policies for preserving and managing open space within the City. No open space resources exist on the site or in the surrounding immediate area. The proposed development will include landscaping (e.g., trees and vegetation) on the site, to improve the appearance of the site facing Mission Boulevard.

F. The GPA is integrated and compatible with the Noise Element in that it provides a pattern of land uses that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. The Montclair General Plan requires future development to comply with the standards of the Noise Element. The proposed GPA would allow the subject site to transition from a underutilized parcels with large parking fields into a well designed building that requires uses to be conducted indoors.

Moreover, mitigation measures identified in the MMRP are designed to address future short–term and long–term noise impacts associated with new both short and long term operations.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 55 of 347 Resolution No. 22–3351 Page 4 of 5
G. The GPA is integrated and compatible with the Safety Element in that it provides an appropriate land use distribution and orientation that protects the community from unreasonable risks associated with seismic, geologic, flood, and wildfire hazards. Given the urbanized nature of the site and relatively gentle slope, there is no serious threat from wildland fires or geological instability. However, the General Plan recognizes the City’s location within Seismic Zone 4, which is considered the most active seismic zone in the state.

Further, there are no designated “Earthquake Fault Zones” in the City or the subject site as confirmed by the Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Maps, geologic hazard overlays in the City of Montclair’s General Plan Safety Element, and the County of San Bernardino’s Land Use Plan General Plan (City of Montclair 1999 and County of San Bernardino 2010). Finally, as standard practice for all development in the City are required to comply with the Uniform Building Code standards and regulations, which include proper soil preparation and compaction requirements for construction.

3. The City Council hereby approves the amendment to the City of Montclair General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designations of parcels identified as APNs 1101–311–15 and 1101–311–17 from "General Commercial” to “Business Park.”
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX, 2022.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk of the City of Montclair, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that Resolution No. 22–3351 was duly adopted by the City Council of said city and was approved by the Mayor of said city at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the XX day of XX, 2022, and that it was adopted by the following vote, to–wit:

AYES: XX
NOES: XX
ABSTAIN: XX
ABSENT: XX

Andrea M. Myrick
City Clerk

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 56 of 347 Resolution No. 22–3351 Page 5 of 5

EXHIBIT A
CASE NUMBER: 2022–07
PROJECT LOCATION: 5006–5010 Mission Boulevard
APN.: 1101–311–15 and 1101–311–17
PROPERTY OWNER: New Crossings Development, LLC
authorized property owner representative
General Plan Amendment
APN Current Proposed
1101–311–15 "General Commercial" “Business Park”
1101–311–17 "General Commercial" “Business Park”
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 57 of 347 Resolution No. 22–3352 Page 1 of 6
RESOLUTION NO. 22–3352

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTCLAIR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20393,
UNDER CASE 2022–07 FOR THE MERGER OF THREE LOTS
LOCATED AT 5006 AND 5010 MISSION BOULEVARD WITHIN
THE “MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL PARK – MIP” ZONE
(APNs 1101–311–15, 1101–311–17, AND 1101–311–19)
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2022, New Crossings Development, LLC, the authorized representative of the property owner, filed applications for a General Plan Amendment (GPA), a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM), and a Precise Plan of Design (PPD) identified as Case No. 2022–07, to allow the development of a 115,300 square–foot industrial warehouse building and associated site improvements. (APN 1011–311–15, 1011–311–17, and 1011–311–19); and
WHEREAS, the subject site is currently composed of three abutting parcels located on the north side of Mission Boulevard approximately 250 feet east of Monte Vista Avenue, and addressed as 5006 and 5010 Mission Boulevard: and WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map 20393 would merge and consolidate three abutting parcels into a single developable site of 5.13 acres in size, as depicted on Exhibit “A”, a map incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the development of the subject 5.13–acre site is contingent upon City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment and the proposed Tentative Parcel Map; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) (SCH #2022030195) that analyzed the proposed Project’s environmental impacts in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), which determined that proposed mitigation measures would reduce impacts to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources to less than significant, and was circulated for public review and comment between February 25, 2022 and March 16, 2022; and WHEREAS, the availability of the Initial Study and notice of published hearing was published on February 24, 2022. Public hearing notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subject property.

WHEREAS, the minimum 20–day review and comment period for the IS/MND commenced on February 24, 2022 and concluded on March 16, 2022; and WHEREAS, copies of the IS/MND were available during the public review period at the Community Development public counter at Montclair City Hall and the Montclair Library; and
WHEREAS, staff finds the proposed map complies with the guidelines and applicable development standards of the MIP (Manufacturing Industrial Park) zone; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2022, and May 9, 2022, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Montclair City Hall, the Planning Commission opened the duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2022, two late comment letters were received from two separate law firms representing labor unions representing unions regarding their respective concerns over the environmental impacts that the commenters allege would be caused by construction activities if the project was not required to utilize a local and skilled workforce; and
WHEREAS, given the extent and nature of the comments in both letters, there was insufficient time to adequately respond to the concerns during the meeting; and WHEREAS, since the project was advertised as a public hearing, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and took public comments from two individuals, in addition to receiving the above–referenced comment letters. After comments were received, the Commission voted to continue the item to its regularly scheduled meeting on May 9, 2022; and
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 58 of 347 Resolution No. 22–3352 Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Montclair City Hall, the Planning Commission opened the duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the proposed project, Final Initial Study/MND, and all evidence were presented and all persons wishing to testify in connection with the said proposal were heard and said application was fully studied.

WHEREAS, since the project was advertised as a public hearing, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and took public comments from two individuals, in addition to receiving the above–referenced comment letters. After comments were received, the Commission voted to continue the item to its regularly scheduled meeting on May 9, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Montclair City Hall, the Planning Commission opened the duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed project at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the project were heard and said General Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map and Precise Plan of Design for the proposed 115,300 square foot industrial building building was fully studied; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the proposed project, Final Initial Study/MND, and all evidence were presented and all persons wishing to testify in connection with the said proposal were heard and said application was fully studied; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3–0–2, approved the Precise Plan of Design for Case No. 2022–07 for the site plan, floor plans, elevations, colors, materials, and conceptual landscape plan subject to conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 22–1966; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3–0–2, recommended City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22–1964 to modify the land use designation of 2.5 acres of land known as APNs 1101–311–15 and 1101–311–17 having the “General Commercial” land use designation to “Business Park” to allow development of the subject site with a new industrial building; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3–0–2, recommended City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393 pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22–1965 merging three abutting parcels, APNs 1101–311–15, 1101–311–17, and 1101–311–19, into a single developable 5.13–acre parcel; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3–0–2, recommended City Council adoption of the 5006 and 5010 Mission Boulevard Industrial Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #32022030195) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving the project under Planning Case No. 2022–07 pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22–1967; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2022, the City gave public notice of the City Council’s public hearing by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation, and posted the public notice at City Hall, and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the Amendment area; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2022, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Montclair City Hall, the City Council opened and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2022030195), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project under Case No. 2022–07; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2022, all persons wishing to testify in connection with the said proposal were heard and said application was fully studied; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2022, the City Council approved the proposed General Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 59 of 347 Resolution No. 22–3352 Page 3 of 6
(SCH #2022030195), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project under Case No. 2022–07.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council find that the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15182 based on the following findings of fact:

A. The proposed tentative parcel map to merge abutting parcels into a single developable property is designed, to the extent feasible, to provide for passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. The proposed building on the site is generally oriented, spaced, and designed to allow for access to adequate light and air.

B. The proposed tentative parcel map and the provisions for its design and improvement are consistent with the General Plan for the City of Montclair ("General Plan"). In the event that the City Council approves the General Plan Amendment, the Tentative Parcel Map would provide for land uses compatible with the land use classification for the subject site by the General Plan Amendment. The overall goal of the General Plan is to promote good planning practices and orderly development within the City and to recognize the potential of specific areas for special treatment.

C. At a combined size of 5.13 acres, the subject site is physically suitable for the proposed development of the site with a 115,300 square foot industrial warehouse building and associated site improvements as shown on Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393. The size and configuration of the site has sufficient width and depth to allow for orderly site development, the provision of on–site circulation and parking, landscaping, and the proposed building. Moreover, the project site is also located adjacent to a fully improved major arterial street that will provide good and safe access to and from the site.

D. The merger design and improvements proposed in the Tentative Parcel Map are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An environmental assessment of the project on the subject site was conducted and revealed no significant impacts to the site or surrounding area overall. The site is surrounded by new and existing urban development and streets; does not contain any bodies of water, and is not linked to any wildlife corridors. The site does not contain any evidence of known habitats of significance including rare or endangered species of plant, animal, or insect life.

E. The parcel map and improvements proposed with the development of the site are consistent with existing newer development in the immediate area and are not likely to cause serious public health problems because all site development and public improvements will be performed per the requirements of all applicable standards and codes including the zoning and building codes.

F. The Tentative Parcel Map design and type of improvements proposed do not conflict with any public easements for access through or the use of the subject site because no such easements exist on the subject site.

G. The discharge of waste into the existing sanitary sewer system from the development associated with the Tentative Parcel Map will not cause a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The entire project will be required to connect to a sanitary sewage system pursuant to California Plumbing Code and Municipal Code requirements. A sewer main exists in Mission Boulevard in close proximity to allow for easy connection.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66410 et seq., based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows with respect to approval MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 60 of 347 Resolution No. 22–3352 Page 4 of 6
of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393, attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Based on the entire record before the City Council, all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, The City Council finds the nature and extent of the dedications, reservations, exactions, impact fees, and other exactions are reasonably related to public needs and roughly proportional to the impacts created by the merger and improvement proposed in Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393. In addition, several conditions are necessary to assure the development maintains compliance with the City’s General Plan and zoning standards.

SECTION 4. Custodian of Records. The location and custodian of the documents and any other material, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission based its decision, is as follows: Director of Community Development, Community Development Department, City of Montclair, 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, California 91763, or by telephone at (909) 625–9477.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX, 2022.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk of the City of Montclair, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that Resolution No. 22–3352 was duly adopted by the City Council of said city and was approved by the Mayor of said city at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the XX day of XX, 2022 and that it was adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: XX
NOES: XX
ABSTAIN: XX
ABSENT: XX

Andrea M. Myrick
City Clerk
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 61 of 347 Resolution No. 22–3352 Page 5 of 6
Exhibit “A”
Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 62 of 347 Resolution No. 22–3352 Page 6 of 6
Exhibit “B”
Tentative Parcel Map No. 20393
Conditions of Approval

1. Developer shall comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the Montclair Municipal Code.

2. The tentative parcel map shall expire three years from the date of City Council approval unless extended under Government Code Section 66452.6. The final map shall be filed with the City Engineer and shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and all applicable Ordinances, requirements, and Resolutions of the City of Montclair.

3. The parcel map may be submitted for plan checking prior to, in conjunction with, or after the submittal of the public improvement plans. Parcel map submittals shall include a preliminary title report, reference deeds, closure calculations, reference maps, and other reference material as may be necessary to check the map. An advance plan check fee, the amount to be determined by the City Engineer, shall be required at the time map is submitted. Prior to approval of the final map, a subdivision agreement will be required. The agreement shall contain provisions for performance and payment bonds for all work within the public rights–of–way, and a monumentation bond for corner monuments in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.

4. The subdivider/applicant shall reimburse the City for costs associated with the preparation/review of the Tentative Parcel Map and/or Final Parcel Map.

5. In establishing and conducting the subject use, the applicant shall at all times comply with any laws, ordinances, and regulations of the City of Montclair, the County of San Bernardino, and the State of California. Approval of this Tentative Parcel Map shall not waive compliance with any such requirements.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 63 of 347

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JUNE 6, 2022
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 1
FILE I.D.: FIN540
DEPT.: FINANCE
PREPARER: L. LEW/V. FLORES
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER AND PAYROLL DOCUMENTATION REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council is requested to consider approval of the Warrant Register and Payroll Documentation.

BACKGROUND: Mayor Pro Tem Ruh has examined the Warrant Register dated June 6, 2022, and the Payroll Documentation dated May 8, 2022, and recommends their approval.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Warrant Register dated June 6, 2022, totals $1,998,802.04.

The Payroll Documentation dated May 8, 2022 totals $675,205.75 gross, with $468,590.13 net being the total cash disbursement.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the above–referenced Warrant Register and Payroll Documentation.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 64 of 347

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JUNE 6, 2022
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 2
FILE I.D.: STG095/HSV046
DEPT.: CITY MGR.

PREPARER: E. STARR
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AUTHORIZING MAYOR DUTREY TO SIGN A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S PROPOSED CARE COURT PROGRAM
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: In April 2022, SB1338 (the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment [CARE] Court Program) was introduced, proposing a framework for Governor Newsom’s plan for courts to compel people with serious mental illnesses and substance use disorders into treatment, while also providing participants with supportive housing and wrap–around services.

The CARE component of CARE Court is a new mental health process intended to provide assistance to people living with under– or un–treated schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders who lack medical decision–making capacity, many of whom are unhoused.

Governor Newsom has asked the State Legislature to approve CARE Court as part of the state budget — $65 million is included in Governor Newsom’s May Budget Revise for administration of CARE Court.

The May Budget Revise also proposes adding $700 million atop the $2 billion in Governor Newsom’s January 2022 budget plan — and $12 billion announced last year — to fund a variety of homelessness issues. Absent from the May Budget Revise is a long–term extension of the flexible grants included in last year’s budget that local governments have sought.

As proposed, all 58 counties in California would be required to participate in the CARES Court program. Counties failing to provide requisite services would face penalties.

The City Council is requested to authorize Mayor John Dutrey to sign a letter of support for the CARES Court program. A copy of the letter and supplemental information regarding CARES Court are attached to the agenda report.

BACKGROUND: California Governor Gavin Newsom and State Legislators are making mental health reform a major objective for the state. In April 2022, SB 1338 (the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court Program) was introduced, proposing a framework for Governor Newsom’s plan for courts to compel people with serious mental illnesses and substance use disorders into treatment, while also providing participants with supportive housing and wrap–around services.

Governor Newsom has asked the State Legislature to approve CARE Court as part of the state budget, placing the plan on track for as early as July 2022.

Under Governor Newsom’s proposal, CARE Court would make it easier to compel as many as 12,000 mentally ill homeless people into treatment centers, via a special judicial proceeding, but with a one–year limit that could be extended only by further proceedings.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 65 of 347 The CARE Court would tailor an individualized plan for each person found to be in need of intervention, offering a variety of services including psychological treatment and placement in housing programs managed by a team of medical and non–medical personnel. Each of California’s 58 counties would have to participate in the CARE Court program.

Local leaders throughout California support Governor Newsom’s proposal, arguing that it will address a portion of California’s homelessness problem and help fix the state’s broken and costly mental health care system — a system that cycles homeless people struggling with mental health issues and addictions through jails, hospitals and psychiatric centers, only to send them back out on the streets without rehabilitating them, largely because the treatment is voluntary.

Some civil rights advocates argue the problem of homelessness is caused by the cost of housing, and that homelessness will not be solved strictly through treatments for mental health or substance abuse problems. CARE Court opponents suggest that proposed system would be a reversal in California’s move away from its past era of institutionalization when the state maintained an extensive network of mental health care hospitals to which people deemed to be dangers to themselves or others were committed, often for decades, with some patients receiving severe forms of treatment.

In the mid–20th century, the state’s use of involuntary commitments came under fire, with critics arguing that the hospitals were more like prisons than treatment centers, with patients denied basic civil rights and loss of the right to self–determine care.

In 1967, then Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act (LPSA), establishing an elaborate process that would have to be followed for involuntary commitments, and limiting involuntary commitments to the profoundly disabled. The LPSA had the support of State Legislators who wanted to reduce California’s hefty costs for patient hospital care. However, the state failed to provide adequate financial support for local public mental health service providers, which continued to function for the care and treatment of mentally ill and indigent patients. Without sufficient funding, local public health service programs were unable to offer continuum of care programs, and, pursuant to the LPSA, mentally ill patients simply refused treatment. After the passage of the LPSA, state hospitals setup to treat mentally ill patients either closed, converted to other uses, or were redeveloped for other purposes. Over the past few decades, California has seen an explosion of homelessness in the state, and many of those living on the streets suffer from severe mental illnesses.

CARE Courts would compel treatment; however, as proposed, and except under unique circumstances, the program would prevent people from being placed in more restrictive settings, such as conservatorships or in prisons.

Whom would CARE Court serve?
The state estimates between 7,000 and 12,000 Californians would be eligible for CARE Court, a small fraction of the state’s total homeless population.

The most recent Federal Homelessness Count conducted in January 2020 found that California had approximately 161,000 people experiencing homelessness — increasing by an estimated 10,270 people from year–to–year (January 2019 to January 2020).

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 66 of 347 A CARE Court fact sheet says the program “is not for everyone experiencing homelessness or mental illness.” Instead, it “focuses on people with schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders who lack medical decision–making capacity — before they get arrested and committed to a State Hospital or become so impaired that they end up in a Lanterman–Petris Short [LPS] Mental Health Conservatorship.” How would CARE Court work?
CARE Court would be a referral–based program. It would allow first responders, law enforcement, behavioral health providers and family members to refer people struggling with addiction and mental illness.

Under the CARE Court program, a judge would appoint the person under referral a public defender, and order a clinical evaluation to determine whether the person meets the criteria for the program. If the criteria are met, the judge would order a “CARE plan” that would outline treatment and medication for up to 12 months.

The plan would be developed by county behavioral health specialists, the participant, and a newly established position called a “supporter,” who would help the participant “understand, consider and communicate decisions,” giving them the tools to make self– directed choices to the greatest extent possible.

A CARE Court judge would review the plan, hold status hearings, and could extend treatment for up to an additional 12 months.

The CARE Court program would include a housing plan for participants who need it. It would, however, be up to the judge to order a county to provide housing, as not all participants are expected to be homeless.

If a participant does not successfully complete their CARE Plan, the judge would have the authority to refer the individual to a conservatorship. If the referral had been from jail or prison and the person failed to complete the program, the judge could order the participant back to incarceration.

Will forced treatment under CARE be effective?
Some health advocates argue that treatment cannot be compelled for someone who is not ready to accept help. People may be taken off the street and placed into treatment, but may not show improvement. Critics of the CARE Court proposal point to a 2014 study from the National Institutes of Health, which concluded that empirical evidence does not support the use of coercive treatment, and that more research is needed.

The Newsom administration states that California’s behavioral health treatment programs have evolved beyond the Study’s parameters, and can effectively and humanely treat mental illness and addiction. Under CARE, treatment will not be like the California’s history of overcrowded state hospitals providing extreme forms of treatment. Instead, intensive psychosocial support, housing and medication will be provided to keep those being treated connected to their families and communities.

How will CARE be funded?
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 67 of 347 The Newsom administration argues that state funds that are now spent cycling people through hospitals, jails and courtrooms — processes that do no address underlying mental health and addiction problems — can be redirected to CARE Court. However, California’s 58 county governments would be responsible for providing mental health treatment services for CARE Court participants, and historically those services have been underfunded.

County public health officials are expressing willingness to collaborate to assist participants, but caution that the behavioral health infrastructure is just starting to come out of decades of inadequate funding and support, and housing programs remain elusive. CARE Court, they say, could increase caseloads for county public guardians and conservators who are funded entirely with county general fund dollars.

In response, Governor Newsom has asked the Legislature to approve CARE Court as part of the state budget — $65 million is included in Governor Newsom’s May Budget Revise for administration of CARE Court, including paying for the cost of public defenders, bailiffs and administrative expenses. The May Revise also adds $700 million atop the $2 billion in Governor Newsom’s January 2022 budget plan for homelessness–related services.

California could also pay for CARE Court’s treatment and housing costs from the $12 billion Governor Newsom approved for homeless housing and supportive services in last year’s state budget, which includes $3 billion to create 22,000 behavioral health– housing beds for people struggling with mental health disorders.

The Newsom administration could also propose using funds generated by Proposition 63 (the “Mental Health Services Act”) which levies an additional 1% income tax on personal incomes above $1 million. Proposition 63 is expected to produce $3.8 billion in 2022, according to state officials.

FISCAL IMPACT: Authorizing Mayor Dutrey to sign a CARE Court support letter to Legislators has no fiscal impact on the City of Montclair General Fund.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council authorize Mayor Dutrey to sign a letter of support for Governor Newsom’s proposed CARE Court program.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 68 of 347

CITY OF MONTCLAIR
5111 Benito Street, P.O. Box 2308, Montclair, CA 91763 (909) 626-8571 FAX (909) 621-1584 Mayor Javier John Dutrey • Mayor Pro Tem Bill Ruh • Council Members: Tenice Johnson, Corysa Martinez, Benjamin Lopez • City Manager Edward C. Starr

June 7, 2022
The Honorable Gavin Newsom, Governor
State of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Toni G. Akins
President Pro Tem
California State Senate
1021 O Stree, Suite 8518
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Anthony Rendeon
Speaker, California State Assembly
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 8330
Sacramenot, CA 95814
SUBJECT: CARE COURT PROPOSAL
Dear Governor Newsom and Honorable Legislators:

Over the past decade, cities throughout California have struggled with homelessness and the range of issues and personal struggles this expanding problem creates for each respective community and the individuals caught up in this revolving cycle of despair, addiction, and loss of hope.

In the Montclair community, we offer a range of programs and services designed to reverse what has become a life struggle for far too many of our citizens. Unfortunately, too many members of the homeless population suffer from mental health issues that challenge their ability to make proper decisions related to personal health and welfare.

The proposal to establish CARE Courts derives from a mental health approach based on Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment that is designed to assist people living with under- or un-treated schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders who lack medical decision
DRAFT -making capacity, many of whom are unhoused.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 69 of 347

CARE COURT PROPOSAL
June 7, 2022

Mental health disorders represent a major, contributing factor to chronic homelessness.

The CARE Court proposal offers a bold step forward, providing the means for CARE Court judges to compel mentally ill homeless persons into treatment centers, via a special judicial proceeding, but with a one-year limit that could be extended only by further proceedings.

As proposed, the CARE Court would tailor an individualized plan for each person found to be in need of intervention, offering a variety of services including psychological treatment and placement in housing programs managed by a team of medical and nonmedical personnel.

For CARE Court to work, each of California's 58 counties would have to participate in the CARE Court program.

The Montclair City Council supports the CARE Court proposal, recognizing that it will address a portion of California's homelessness problem and help fix the state's broken and costly mental health care system ─ a system that cycles homeless people struggling with mental health issues and addictions through jails, hospitals and psychiatric centers, only to send them back out on the streets without rehabilitating them, largely because the treatment is voluntary.

As the CARE Court proposal works its way through the Legislative process, Montclair asks that Legislators and the Governor's Office consider revising the program, with appropriate funding, to facilitate a collaborative approach between municipal and county officials. Regrettably, homeless populations are on the doorstep of nearly every municipality throughout the state. Only through the direct involvement of municipalities in the process can CARE Court truly function to its intended purpose.

With CARE Court, municipal leaders believe we will have a meaningful tool to connect homeless persons struggling with untreated or undiagnosed mental health issues the care they need and deserve.

Thank you, Governor Newsom, for bringing forward this creative and meaningful solution to address this important and growing issue in our state. The Montclair City Council looks forward to working with your administration on this important matter.

Sincerely,

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Javier "John" Dutrey
Mayor
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 DRAFT Page 70 of 347 GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S NEW PLAN TO GET CALIFORNIANS IN CRISIS

OFF THE STREETS AND INTO HOUSING, TREATMENT, AND CARE
● Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment (CARE) Court is a new framework to get people with mental health and substance use disorders the support and care they need. ● CARE Court is aimed at helping the thousands of Californians who are suffering from untreated mental health and substance use disorders leading to homelessness, incarceration or worse. ● California is taking a new approach to act early and get people the support they need and address underlying needs - and we’re going to do it without taking away people’s rights. ● CARE Court includes accountability for everyone – on the individual and on local governments – with court orders for services.

HOW CARE COURT WORKS
CARE Court connects a person struggling with untreated mental illness – and often also substance use challenges – with a court-ordered Care Plan for up to 24 months. Each plan is managed by a care team in the community and can include clinically prescribed, individualized interventions with several supportive services, medication, and a housing plan. The client-centered approach also includes a public defender and supporter to help make self-directed care decisions in addition to their full clinical team MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 71 of 347 CARE Court is designed on the evidence that many people can stabilize, begin healing, and exit homelessness in less restrictive, community-based care settings. It's a long-term strategy to positively impact the individual in care and the community around them. The plan focuses on people with schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders, who may also have substance use challenges, and who lack medical decision-making capacity and advances an upstream diversion from more restrictive conservatorships or incarceration.

The court-ordered response can be initiated by family, county and community-based social services, behavioral health providers, or first responders. Individuals exiting a short-term involuntary hospital hold or an arrest may be especially good candidates for CARE Court. The Care Plan can be ordered for up to 12 months, with periodic review hearings and subsequent renewal for up to another 12 months. Participants who do not successfully complete Care Plans may, under current law, be hospitalized or referred to conservatorship - with a new presumption that no suitable alternatives to conservatorship are available.

All counties across the state will participate in CARE Court under the proposal. If local governments do not meet their specified duties under court-ordered Care Plans, the court will have the ability to order sanctions and, in extreme cases, appoint an agent to ensure services are provided.

CARE Court builds on Governor Newsom’s $14 billion multi-year investment to provide 55,000 new housing units and treatment slots as well as a more than $10 billion annual investment in community behavioral health services. The Governor’s comprehensive approach combines a focus on bridge housing to quickly rehouse unsheltered individuals with behavioral health issues, all while more new units come online, while also transforming Medi-Cal to provide more behavioral health services to people struggling the most.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 72 of 347 April 20, 2022
Funding Backgrounder:

California’s Behavioral Health Approach and Funding
CARE (Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment) Court is a new process to assist people living with under or untreated schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders who lack medical decision-making capacity, many of whom are unhoused. CARE Court empowers Californians in crisis to access the care, treatment, and housing plan they need in their community. It includes accountability for both individuals and local governments with court orders for needed services.

Counties can tap into multiple funding sources to provide the court ordered care and treatment. *Counties received Medi-Cal behavioral health funding for all years reflected. Estimates are included for 2014-15 and 2022-23 to provide an overall view of growth in this funding over the period reflected. *Data between 2014-15 and 2020-21 represent actuals, except 2014-15 Medi-Cal Behavioral Health costs, which are an estimate. Data for 2021-22 and 2022-23 are estimates.
*Medi-Cal non-specialty mental health managed care state costs of $406 million in 2014-15 and $529.1 million in 2022-23 are not included in this graph. Also, not included in the graph are Medi-Cal carved-out psychotropic medications. For reference, psychotropic medications were estimated to be $1.1 billion in 2017-18. Additionally, No Place Like Home Program actual expenditures of $590 million in 2018-19 and $622 million in 2019-20, and estimated expenditures of $202 million in 2021-22 and $400 million in 2022-23 are not included in this graph. Not all Non-Medi-Cal Behavioral Health (Federal Block Grants) are available to counties.

The below represents many of the recent investments designed to support the public community behavioral health system, however the list is not exhaustive (amounts reflected in the graph above are denoted with an asterisk*):

Housing and Homelessness
CARE Court builds on significant new investments, including Governor Newsom’s $14 billion multi-year investment to provide 55,000 new housing units and treatment slots. The Governor’s approach focuses on quickly rehousing unsheltered individuals with behavioral health issues, all while new units come online, while also transforming Medi-Cal to provide more behavioral health services to people struggling the most. Part of the $14 billion investment reflects the following:

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 73 of 347

• Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program: $2.2 billion to support competitive grants to qualified entities to construct, acquire, and rehabilitate real estate assets or to invest in mobile crisis infrastructure to expand the community continuum of behavioral health treatment resources.
• Community Care Expansion Program: $805 million for acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation to preserve and expand adult and senior care facilities that serve SSI/SSP and Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants. This program supports seniors and adults who are at risk of or experiencing homelessness, including those who have behavioral health conditions. It expands the state’s housing and care continuum, facilitating better treatment outcomes and preventing the cycle of homelessness or unnecessary institutionalization. • Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program: $1.5 billion to address the immediate housing and treatment needs of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness with serious behavioral health conditions by providing time-limited operational supports in various bridge housing settings, including existing assisted living settings.

Children and Youth
• Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative: $4.7 billion (including $480.5 million in the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program, described above, targeted to individuals 25 years of age and younger) to help transform the state’s behavioral health system into an innovative ecosystem in which all children and youth 25 years of age and younger, regardless of payer, are screened, supported, and served for emerging and existing behavioral health needs.

Behavioral Health Workforce
• Care Economy Workforce: $1.7 billion for Care Economy Workforce investments, including funding to recruit and train 25,000 new community health workers as well as additional psychiatric providers.
• *Peer Support: $31.3 million federal funds to add peer support specialist services as a covered Medi-Cal benefit in the public behavioral health delivery system.

Substance Use Disorder
• Opioid Settlements Funds: $86 million to support opioid abatement programs, including, but not limited to, distribution of naloxone to homeless service providers, operation of a web-based statewide addiction treatment locator platform, support of vocational rehabilitation employment services, provider training on opioid treatment, and education and outreach campaigns.

Behavioral Health Crisis Continuum
• *Behavioral Health Crisis Continuum: $20 million one-time federal funds in 2021-22 to expand capacity to the 13 accredited crisis call centers in California. In 2022, the California Health and Human Services Agency is starting a planning process to develop a clear strategy for how all the components of the behavioral health crisis continuum interact, including connections between prevention efforts like hotlines and peer support services, 9-8-8 mental health crisis call centers, and mobile crisis response at the local level. • *Medi-Cal Mobile Crisis Benefit: $1.4 billion to add qualifying community-based mobile crisis intervention services as a Medi-Cal covered benefit available to eligible Medi-Cal beneficiaries exclusively through the Medi-Cal behavioral health delivery system. Qualifying communitybased mobile crisis intervention services will be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and provided by a multidisciplinary mobile crisis team to Medi-Cal beneficiaries in the community.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 74 of 347 Funding Backgrounder:

California’s Homelessness Approach and Funding
1 CARE (Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment) Court is a new civil court process to deliver community-based behavioral health services and supports to Californians living with under- or untreated schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders who meet specific criteria, many of whom may be experiencing homelessness. CARE Court empowers these Californians in crisis to access communitybased care, treatment, and housing. It includes accountability for both individuals and local governments.

State funding to address homelessness has increased significantly in recent years and the proposed 2022-23 budget includes an additional $9.35 billion over multiple years.

Major Local, State, and Federal Funding to Support Housing Placements Local governments can tap into various existing local, state, and federal funding streams that may help provide housing to CARE Court participants, including but not limited to the programs listed below.

CA Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH)
• Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention will be administering its 4th round (FY 22/23) of block-grants to large cities, counties, and continuums of care to strengthen homeless services and systems. Grantees are required to work across systems to assure coordination of homelessness and other services. • Encampment Resolution Funding supports a range of activities to provide housing and services solutions for people currently staying in encampments, including supporting people to access permanent housing.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 75 of 347 Funding Backgrounder:

California’s Homelessness Approach and Funding
2 CA Department of Social Services (CDSS)
• Project Roomkey and Rehousing provides operating costs for non congregate shelter and funding for rehousing upon exit.
• Community Care Expansion provides funding for the acquisition and rehabilitation of adult and senior care facilities for those who are homeless or atrisk of becoming homeless and have higher level of care needs, and/or for capitalized operating reserves to help preserve existing facilities. • CalWORKs Housing Support offers financial assistance and housing-related wraparound supportive services to families involved in the CalWORKs program who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
• CalWORKs Housing Assistance provides families on or apparently eligible for CalWORKs with payments for temporary shelter for up to 16 cumulative calendar days, as well as payments to secure or maintain housing, including a security deposit and last month’s rent, or up to two months of rent arrearages. • Housing and Disability Advocacy Program assists individuals to apply for disability benefit programs while also providing housing assistance and other necessary services to help stabilize clients who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness. • Home Safe offers a range of strategies to prevent and end homelessness and support ongoing housing stability for Adult Protective Services clients. • Bringing Families Home offers financial assistance and housing-related wraparound supportive services to families involved in the child welfare system who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
• Transitional Housing Placement-Plus-Foster Care provides housing for youth in extended foster care ages 18 to 21.
• Transitional Housing Program-Plus offers housing and life skills supports to former foster youth ages 18-25.

CA Department of Health Care Services (DHCS)
• Mental Health Service Act (MHSA) funds a broad continuum of prevention, early intervention, and service needs and the necessary infrastructure, technology, and training elements that effectively support the public mental health system including housing.
• Behaviorial Health Continuum Infrastructure Program provides capital funding to construct, acquire, and rehabilitate real estate assets or to invest in mobile crisis infrastructure to expand the community continuum of behavioral health treatment resources.
• Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program (proposed) would provide funding to address the immediate housing and treatment needs of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness with serious behavioral health conditions by providing time-limited operational supports in various bridge housing settings, including existing assisted living settings. Pending CARE Court legislation would prioritize these funds for CARE Court participants.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 76 of 347 Funding Backgrounder:

California’s Homelessness Approach and Funding
3 CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) • No Place Like Home provides capital funding and operating subsidies for permanent supportive housing for persons who are in need of mental health services and are experiencing homelessness, chronic homelessness, or at risk of chronic homelessness.
• California Housing Accelerator Program provides capital funding to shovel-ready affordable and supportive housing development in lieu of tax credit equity in order to enable projects to proceed to development.
• Homekey provides capital funding and operating subsidies to support the acquisition and conversion of properties into affordable and supportive housing or interim housing.
• Transitional Housing Program provides grants to counties for the purpose of housing stability to help young adults 18 to 25 years of age secure and maintain housing, with priority given to young adults formerly in the foster care system and probation.
• Interim Housing (proposed) would house unsheltered individuals on state-owned land through grants to local governments for interim housing and site preparation.

Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
• Transitional Housing Program supports transitional housing, short-term housing assistance, and supportive services, including follow-up services that move victims of crime into permanent housing.

US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
• Continuum of Care (CoC) program is designed to promote communitywide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness through nationwide focus on permanent supportive housing and other activities.
• Emergency Solutions Grant program assists people to quickly regain stability in permanent housing after experiencing a housing crisis and/or homelessness. • Federal Housing Choice Vouchers, Family Unification Program Vouchers, and Emergency Housing Vouchers provide federally funded rental subsidies, often referred to as Section 8 Vouchers.
• HOME Investment Partnerships Program provides grants to state and local governments to create affordable housing for low-income households. • Community Development Block Grant supports community development activities to build stronger and more resilient communities.

CA Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) • Veterans Support to Self-Reliance provides higher level of on-site supportive services for veterans aging in place who require a higher level of care within permanent supportive housing.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 77 of 347 Funding Backgrounder:

California’s Homelessness Approach and Funding
4 • VA Supportive Housing Program is a collaborative program which pairs HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance with VA case management and supportive services for homeless Veterans.
• Supportive Services for Veteran Families provides a range of supportive services designed to promote housing stability to eligible very low-income Veterans and their families.

For more information on these homelessness programs, see Putting the Funding Pieces Together: Guide to Strategic Use of New and Recent State and Federal Funds to Prevent and End Homelessness (September 2021) at
https://bcsh.ca.gov/calich/documents/covid19_strategic_guide_new_funds.pdf MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 78 of 347 CARE Court
A New Framework for Community Assistance, Recovery
& Empowerment

THE CARE COURT IS A NEW

APPROACH AND A PARADIGM SHIFT
It connects a person in crisis with a
court-ordered Care Plan for up to 12
months, with the possibility to extend for
an additional 12 months. The framework
provides individuals with a clinically
appropriate, community-based set of
services and supports that are culturally
and linguistically competent. This includes
short-term stabilization medications,
wellness and recovery supports, and
connection to social services, including
housing. Housing is an important
component—finding stability and staying
connected to treatment, even with the
proper supports, is next to impossible while
living outdoors, in a tent or a vehicle.

CARE Court is an upstream diversion to
prevent more restrictive conservatorships
or incarceration; this is based on
evidence which demonstrates that many
people can stabilize, begin healing, and
exit homelessness in less restrictive,
community-based care settings. With
advances in treatment models, new
longer acting antipsychotic treatments,
and the right clinical team and housing,
individuals who have historically
suffered tremendously on the streets or
during avoidable incarceration can be
successfully stabilized and supported in
the community.

CARE Court is not for everyone experiencing
homelessness or mental illness; rather
it focuses on people with schizophrenia
spectrum or other psychotic disorders
who meet specific criteria – before they
get arrested and committed to a State
Hospital or become so impaired that
they end up in a Lanterman-Petris-Short
(LPS) Mental Health Conservatorship.

Although homelessness has many faces
in California, among the most tragic is
the face of the sickest who suffer from
treatable mental health conditions—this
proposal aims connect these individuals to
effective treatment and support, mapping
a path to long-term recovery. CARE Court
will help thousands of Californians on their
journey to sustained wellness.

CARE Court engagement begins with a
petition to the Court from a wider range
of individuals, including care providers,
family members, first responders, or
counties, among others. CARE Court may
be an appropriate next step after a shortterm involuntary hospital hold (either 72 hours/5150 or 14 days/5250) or for those
who can be safely diverted from certain
criminal proceedings.

CARE Court is a proposed framework to deliver mental health and substance use disorder services to the most severely impaired Californians who too often languish – suffering in homelessness or incarceration – without the treatment they desperately need.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 79 of 347 (rev 5/22)
Supporting a path to recovery and selfsufficiency is core to CARE Court, with a Public Defender and a newly established
CARE Supporter for each participant in
addition to their full clinical team. The role
of the Supporter is to help the participant
understand, consider, and communicate
decisions, giving the participant the tools to
make self-directed choices to the greatest
extent possible. The Care plan ensures that
supports and services are coordinated
and focused on the individual needs of the
person it is designed to serve. Often times,
care for this vulnerable population fails
to bring together the clinical treatment
and housing. The creation of a Psychiatric
Advance Directive will further provide
direction on how to address potential
future episodes of impairing illness that
are consistent with the expressed interest
of the participant and protect against
negatives outcomes.

ACCOUNTABILITY IN CARE COURT

GOES BOTH WAYS
If a participant cannot successfully
complete a Care plan, the individual
may be referred by the Court for a
conservatorship, consistent with
current law. For individuals whose prior
conservatorship proceedings were
diverted, those proceedings will resume
under the presumption that no suitable
alternatives to conservatorship are
available.

The CARE Court will also hold local
governments accountable for providing
care to the people who need it, using
the variety of robust funding streams
available to counties today. These funding
sources include: Mental Health Services
Act, mental health realignment, federal
funds, and the proposed $1.5 billion for
behavioral health bridge housing, as well
as various housing and clinical residential
placements available to cities and
counties under the Governor’s $12 billion
homelessness plan. If local governments
do not meet their specified responsibilities
under the court-ordered Care plans,
the Court will have the ability to order
sanctions and, in extreme cases, appoint
an agent to ensure services are provided.

A FRAMEWORK THAT REQUIRES

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

AND INPUT
This is a framework that requires deep
engagement with the community to
ensure that it is built with Californians and
not for them. In the coming weeks, we
intend to engage a broad set
of stakeholders to further build this
framework out and ensure that it can
deliver meaningful results for some of our
most vulnerable neighbors.

California Health & Human Services Agency | chhs.ca.gov We call on organizations
and individuals alike
to engage with us by
providing written feedback
that can be sent to us at
[email protected].

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 80 of 347

REFERRAL
Individual with untreated schizophrenia
spectrum or other psychotic disorder who
meet specific criteria may be referred to
the court by a family member, behavioral
health provider, first responder, or other
approved party to provide care and
prevent institutionalization.

CLINICAL EVALUATION
The civil court orders a clinical evaluation
and appoints public defender and CARE
Supporter. Court reviews the clinical
evaluation and, if the individual meets the
criteria, the court orders the development
of a Care Plan.

CARE PLAN
Care plan is developed by county
behavioral health, participant and CARE
Supporter including behavioral health
treatment, stabilization medication,
and adopts the Care plan with both the
individual and county behavioral health
as party to the court order for up to
12 months.

SUPPORT
County behavioral health care team,
with participant, and CARE Supporter,
begin treatment and regularly review
and update Care plan, as needed, as well
as a Mental Health Advance Directive
for any future crises. Court provides
accountability with status hearings, for
up to a second 12 months, as needed.

SUCCESS
Successful completion and graduation by
the Court. Participant remains eligible for
ongoing treatment, supportive services,
and housing in the community to support
long term recovery. Psychiatric Advance
Directive in place for any future crises.

Pathway through the CARE Court
California Health & Human Services Agency | chhs.ca.gov MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 81 of 347 CARE Court FAQ
A New Framework for Community Assistance,
Recovery, and Empowerment

1. What is CARE Court?
CARE Court is a proposed framework to
deliver mental health and substance use
disorder services to the most severely
impaired Californians who too often
languish – suffering in homelessness or
incarceration – without the treatment they
desperately need.

It connects a person in crisis with a
court-ordered Care Plan for up to 12
months, with the possibility to extend for
an additional 12 months. The framework
provides individuals with a clinically
appropriate, community-based set of
services and supports that are culturally
and linguistically competent. This includes
court-ordered stabilization medications,
wellness and recovery supports, and
connection to social services and a
housing plan.

2. How is self-determination
supported in the CARE Court
model?
Supporting a self-determined path to
recovery and self-sufficiency is core to
CARE Court, with a Public Defender and
a newly established Supporter for each
participant in addition to their full clinical
team.

The role of the Supporter is to help the
participant understand, consider, and
communicate decisions, giving the
participant the tools to make self-directed
choices to the greatest extent possible.

The Care Plan ensures that supports and
services are coordinated and focused
on the individual needs of the person it is
designed to serve.

The creation of a Mental Health Advance
Directive further provides direction on how
to address potential future episodes of
impairing illness that are consistent with
the expressed interest of the participant
and protect against negatives outcomes
such as involuntary hospitalization.

3. What are the criteria for
participation in CARE Court?
The criteria are two part: individuals
with a) a schizophrenia spectrum or
other psychotic disorder diagnosis AND
b) whose judgment is so impaired by
symptoms of their mental illness (e.g.,
hallucinations, delusions, disorganization
and/or cognitive impairment) that they
lack the capacity to make informed or
rational decisions about their medically
necessary treatment.

CARE Court is NOT for everyone
experiencing homelessness or mental
illness; rather it focuses on people
with schizophrenia spectrum or other
psychotic disorders who lack medical
decision-making capacity to serve
these Californians – before they enter
the criminal justice system or become
so impaired that they end up in a
Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Mental
Health Conservatorship.
(rev 3/22)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 82 of 347 California Health & Human Services Agency | chhs.ca.gov

4. What is the purpose of CARE Court?
CARE Court aims to deliver behavioral
health services to the most severely ill and
vulnerable individuals, while preserving selfdetermination and community living.

CARE Court is an upstream diversion to
prevent more restrictive conservatorships or
incarceration; this is based on evidence which
demonstrates that many people can stabilize,
begin healing, and exit homelessness in less
restrictive, community-based care settings.

With advances in treatment models, new
longer acting antipsychotic treatments, and
the right clinical team and housing plan,
individuals who have historically suffered
tremendously on the streets or during
avoidable incarceration can be successfully
stabilized and supported in the community.

CARE Court may be an appropriate next step
after a short-term involuntary hospital hold
(either 72 hours/5150 or 14 days/5250), an
arrest, or for those who can be safely diverted
from a criminal proceeding. Remote or virtual
proceedings may be especially effective for
CARE Court participants.

5. Is CARE Court a conservatorship?
No, it seeks to prevent the need for
conservatorship by intervening prior to
the need for such restrictive services and
providing shorter-term court ordered,
community-based care with Supportive
Decision Making.

Current Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act
Mental Health conservatorship is rarely
timely, difficult to have granted, establishes a
substitute decision maker for the person, and
typically relies on locked placements as a first
line intervention.

6. What does a participant in CARE
Court receive?
The framework provides individuals with a
clinically appropriate, community-based set
of services and supports that are culturally
and linguistically competent. This includes
short-term stabilization medications, wellness
and recovery supports, and connection to
social services and a housing plan. A housing
plan is an important component—finding
stability and staying connected to treatment,
even with the proper supports, is next to
impossible while living outdoors, in a tent or a
vehicle.

Each participant will also be provided a new,
designated Supporter to assist with Supported
Decision Making for the CARE Court Care Plan,
the creation of a Mental Health Directive, and
a “graduation” plan for recovery and wellness
post-CARE Court. The role of the Supporter is
to help the participant understand, consider,
and communicate decisions, giving the
participant the tools to make self-directed
choices to the greatest extent possible.

Participants will also have a designated court
appointed attorney, for court proceedings.

7. How does CARE Court work?
Referral: The first step is a petition to the
Court, by a family member, behavioral
health provider, first responder, or other
approved party to provide care and prevent
institutionalization.

Clinical Evaluation: The civil court orders
a clinical evaluation after a reasonable
likelihood of meeting the criteria is found.

Court appoints a public defender and
Supporter. The court reviews the clinical
evaluation and, if the individual meets the
criteria, the court orders the development of a
Care Plan.

Care Plan: The Care Plan is developed by
county behavioral health, participant and
Supporter including behavioral health
treatment, stabilization medication, and a
housing plan. The court reviews and adopts
the Care Plan with both the individual and
county behavioral health as party to the court
order for up to12 months.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 83 of 347 California Health & Human Services Agency | chhs.ca.gov Support: The county behavioral health care
team, with the participant and Supporter,
begin treatment and regularly review and
update the Care Plan, as needed, as well
as a Mental Health Advance Directive
for any future crises. The court provides
accountability with status hearings, for up
to a second 12 months, as needed.

Success: Upon successful completion and
graduation by the Court, the participant
remains eligible for ongoing treatment,
supportive services, and housing in the
community to support long term recovery.

The Mental Health Advance Directive
remains in place for any future crises.

8. What is meant by court-ordered
stabilization medications?
Stabilization medications may be included
in the court ordered Care Plan.

Court ordered stabilization medications
are distinct from an involuntary medication
order in that they cannot be forcibly
administered. Seeking an involuntary
medication order for a participant would
be outside the proceedings and subject
to existing law. Failure to participate in
any component of the Care Plan may
result in additional actions, consistent with
existing law, including possible referral for
conservatorship with a new presumption
that no suitable alternatives exist.

Stabilization medications would be
prescribed by the treating licensed
behavioral healthcare provider/prescriber
and medication management supports
will be offered by the care team. As a
participant in the development and ongoing maintenance of the Care Plan, the participant will work with their behavioral
healthcare provider and their Supporter to
address medication concerns and make
changes to the treatment plan.

Stabilizing medications will primarily consist
of antipsychotic medications, which are
evidence-based treatments to reduce the
symptoms of hallucinations, delusions, and
disorganization—these are the symptoms
that cause impaired insight and judgment
in individuals living with Schizophrenia
spectrum and other psychotic disorders.

Medications may be provided as longacting injections which reduce the day-today –adherence challenges many people experience with daily medications.

9. What if an individual does not
participate in the Court-ordered
Care Plan?
An individual who does not participate
in the court-ordered Care Plan may be
subject to additional court hearing(s). If a
participant cannot successfully complete a
Care Plan, the individual may be referred by
the Court for a conservatorship, consistent
with current law. For individuals whose prior
conservatorship proceedings were diverted,
those proceedings will resume under a new
presumption that no suitable alternatives
to conservatorship are available. For
individuals whose criminal cases were
diverted, those proceedings will resume.

10. Will CARE Court be available
statewide?
Yes—all counties will participate in Care
Court. There is not an option to opt-out.

11. What if a local government does
not provide the court-ordered Care
Plan?
If local governments do not meet their
specified responsibilities under the courtordered Care Plans, the Court will have the ability to order sanctions and, in extreme
cases, appoint an agent to ensure services
are provided.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 84 of 347 California Health & Human Services Agency | chhs.ca.gov

12. How is CARE Court different from
current approaches in California
- namely Mental Health (or LPS)
Conservatorship and the more recent
Laura’s Law (Assisted Outpatient
Treatment)?
CARE Court applies only to a small and
distinct group of adults with under or
untreated Schizophrenia spectrum and
other psychotic disorders who lack the
capacity to make informed or rational
decisions about their medically necessary
treatment.

CARE Court differs fundamentally from
Mental Health/LPS Conservatorship. It does
not include custodial settings or longterm involuntary medications. CARE Court provides a new Supporter role, to empower
the individual in directing their care as much
as possible. Lastly, the court ordered Care
Plan is no longer than 12 or, if extended,
24 months.

CARE Court is different from both Mental
Health/LPS Conservatorship and Laura’s Law
approaches in that it may be initiated on
a petition to the Court by family members,
service providers, and other authorized
parties, in addition to County Behavioral
Health. Local government is also part of the
court order, along with the participant, to
ensure accountability to the provision of
treatment and care.

CARE Court is also separate from Probate
Conservatorship where a court may appoint
a conservator for people determined to be
incapacitated to manage their financial or
personal care decisions.

13. How is CARE Court funded?
Existing funding sources for the Care Plan
services and supports include nearly $10
billion annually for behavioral healthcare
(including Mental Health Services Act, mental
health realignment, federal funds) and the
proposed $1.5 billion for behavioral health
bridge housing, as well as various housing
and clinical residential placements available
to cities and counties under the Governor’s
$12 billion homelessness investments which
began in 2021. County behavioral health is
responsible for Medi-Cal Specialty Mental
Health Services and Substance Use Disorder
(SUD) treatment and community mental
health services.

Costs for the Court, the Public Defender, the
new Supporter program, and state oversight
will require new funding. The state will
provide technical assistance to the Counties
and will be responsible for data collection,
evaluation, and reporting.

14. What housing is available to an
individual in CARE Court?
Housing is an important component of
CARE Court—finding stability and staying
connected to treatment, even with the proper
supports, is next to impossible while living
outdoors, in a tent or a vehicle. Care Plans
will include a housing plan. Individuals who
are served by CARE Court will have diverse
housing needs on a continuum ranging
from clinically enhanced interim or bridge
housing, licensed adult and senior care
settings, supportive housing, to housing with
family and friends.

In the 2021 Budget Act, the state made a
historic $12 billion investment to prevent
and end homelessness which included
unprecedented new funding to create new
community based residential settings
and long-term stable housing for people
with severe behavioral health conditions.

Additionally, the Governor’s proposed 2022-
2023 budget includes $1.5 billion to support
Behavioral Health Bridge Housing, which
will fund clinically enhanced bridge housing
settings that are well suited to serving CARE
Court participants.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 85 of 347 Frequently Asked Questions
I. Care Plan

1. The CARE plan definition says it is an individualized plan, created by respondent, supporter, their counsel, and county BH. Why then are we allowing the courts to order the plan modified “to better meet the needs of the parties?” What parties? How do the courts know what is better for the respondent? Assisted Outpatient Therapy (AOT)explicitly prohibits a court from ordering any services that are not in the written plan submitted by the licensed mental health treatment provider.

Would this go against the respondent’s advance directive? The CARE plan is an individualized, clinically appropriate range of behavioral health related services and supports provided by a county behavioral health agency, including, but not limited to, clinical care, stabilization medications, and a housing plan, pursuant to Welfare and Insitutions Code section 5982.

The Court may determine that the CARE plan does not include all required elements to address the behavioral health needs of the respondent. Sec 5976 clarifies that modifications to the CARE Plan to better meet the needs of the parties must be within the scope of county behavioral health services.

If the CARE participant has an existing psychiatric advance directive in place, it will be considered. It is far more likely that the participant will work with the supporter, the behavioral health team and others, if desired, to develop a psychiatric advance directive prior to CARE Court graduation.

2. In the CARE plan definition, should there be a more robust menu of services, like in Welfare and Insitutions Code section 5348 for AOT?
The CARE plan is an individualized, clinically appropriate range of behavioral health related services and supports provided by a county behavioral health agency, including, but not limited to, clinical care, stabilization medications, and a housing plan, pursuant to Section 5982. Though not required, counties are encouraged to employ medically necessary, evidence-based practices and promising practices supported with community-defined evidence, which may include assertive community treatment, peer support services, and psychoeducation.

3. Under the CARE plan (see Welfare and Insitutions Code section 5982 (b) (2)) it talks about medication being prescribed by a licensed behavioral health care (rev 4/22)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 86 of 347 provider. Not all licensed providers can prescribe medication. Do we need a clarification that this does not expand scope?
It is not our intention to expand scope of practice and that can be clarified.

II. Eligibility Criteria

1. One of the criteria for CARE is that the respondent “currently lacks medical decision-making capacity.” However, this proposal allows for an affirmation or affidavit by a BH professional who had examined the respondent within three months and states it applies to a respondent who meets or is likely to meet the diagnostic criteria. How does a three-month old examination qualify as “current?” Also, does not “likely to meet” contradict “current?”

The affidavit submitted in the petition must be within 90 days, but as Welfare and Insitutions Code section 5977 (d) stipulates there is an evaluation review hearing where the court reviews the clinical evaluation conducted by county behavioral health as well as any other evidence from all interested individuals, including, but not limited to, evidence from the petitioner, the county behavioral health agency, the respondent, and the supporter. If the court finds that the evaluation and other evidence demonstrate clear and convincing evidence that the respondent meets the CARE criteria, the court is required to order the county behavioral health agency, the respondent, the respondent’s counsel and supporter to jointly develop a CARE plan.

2. Why can only one previous 14-day involuntary hold for intensive treatment within the last 90 days qualify you for CARE?
Welfare and Insitutions Code section 5972 outlines the criteria for when the court may order a respondent to participate in CARE proceedings if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence.

1. The person is 18 years of age or older.

2. The person has a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorder, as defined in the most current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

3. The person is not clinically stabilized in on-going treatment with the county behavioral health agency.

4. The person currently lacks medical decision-making capacity.

Sections 5973 and 5974 outline who can submit a petition and what kind of information and evidence it must include. All petitions must include facts that MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 87 of 347 support the petitioner’s belief that the respondent meets the CARE criteria, including identification of the county behavioral health agency with responsibility for providing care to the respondent, if known. In addition, the petitioner must provide either an affidavit as described in section 5972 OR evidence that the respondent was detained for intensive treatment pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 5250) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 within the previous 90 days.

As summarized in the question above, a full evaluation review hearing, including a clinical evaluation, as well as hearing other evidence, must be conducted prior to the court issuing an order for a CARE plan to be developed, unless stipulated to by the parties.

The language, as currently drafted, should be amended for clarity.

3. Why is a court allowed to refer a person to CARE who is the subject of AOT or conservatorship proceedings? Shouldn’t that be the decision of a treating mental health professional—to determine which program is the most clinically appropriate for the person?
We would envision county behavioral health or the individual and their Counsel advising the judge in AOT or LPS conservatorship proceedings on the appropriateness of referral to CARE Court.

4. Is “Schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders” too narrow? Do you see “other specified psychotic disorder “and “unspecified psychotic disorder” as opening this up? More generally, what is the population we are talking about here?
A diagnosis within the disorder class of schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders is one of the four criteria for CARE Court outlined in Welfare and Insitutions Code section 5972. CARE Court is specifically designed to target psychotic disorders that interfere with a person’s ability to understand reality or make rational decisions due to symptoms of hallucinations, delusions and disorganized thinking, which are the characteristic symptoms of Schizophrenia and Schizoaffective disorders. Like other brain diseases such as neurocognitive diseases (dementias), this category of disease can interfere with an individual’s medical decision-making capacity, and that is the focus of CARE Court. By including “other psychotic disorders” in the qualifying diagnoses, the program is inclusive of other individuals experiencing psychotic symptoms who may not MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 88 of 347 have received a formal diagnosis of schizophrenia but who lack medical decision-making capacity due to psychotic symptoms.

CARE Court focuses on diseases that impact insight and decision making to avoid conflating these illnesses with other illnesses that may impact functioning but do not interfere with an individual’s ability to make medical decisions for themselves. Those served by CARE Court are most likely to benefit from antipsychotic medications to reduce the symptoms of hallucinations, delusions, and disorganization that cause impaired insight and judgment in individuals living with Schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders.

5. Is this intended for persons who currently lack decision-making capacity, or for persons who are experiencing mental illness but have not yet reached incapacity/are coming off a hold and have stabilized? If it is the former, how can the person meaningfully participate in a settlement agreement/help devise a care plan/give legal consent to a settlement as contemplated by the language? If it is the latter, what is the basis for mandating a person’s participation, unless it is provided as a diversion option for persons charged with a misdemeanor? Medical decision-making capacity is one of the four criteria outlined in Welfare and Insitutions Code section 5972. Medical decision-making capacity is a functional assessment regarding a particular decision that evaluates four key components: an ability to express a treatment choice, an ability to express an understanding of causal relationships and outcome probabilities, an ability to appreciate the nature of the illness, treatment options and likely individualized direct outcomes, and an ability to rationally discuss the risks and benefits of treatment options and the reasoning behind a choice.

CARE Court is intended for individuals who lack medical decision-making capacity because their illness is untreated or undertreated, and therefore may require a court ordered CARE plan to secure that treatment, but who can still be supported in making choices about aspects of their care such as preferred medications, psychosocial interventions, and housing environment and who can still regain decision-making capacity through that care.

Medical decision-making capacity is distinct from the LPS criteria for a psychiatric hold in which the individual must be a danger to self, danger to others, or be gravely disabled.

6. If the petitioner is the family member, what evidence does the petitioner need to provide or present to demonstrate prima facie evidence that the respondent lacks medical decision capacity? Alternatively, is it the goal to provide that if you have MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 89 of 347 been subject of a 5250, you are deemed to have lacked medical decision-making authority?
The criteria for CARE Court participation is outlined in section 5972, including facts (f) and evidence (g). For the petition, the petitioner can provide as evidence (g) either the affirmation or affidavit of a qualified behavioral health professional or that respondent has been subject to a hold for intensive treatment pursuant to 5250. Through the evaluation review hearings, the individual still would be evaluated to determine if they lack medical decision-making capacity, unless the parties stipulate otherwise.

7. Is there a way to allow persons who believe they need mental health services to opt in on a more voluntary basis? For example, persons who are coming out of 5150/5250/5270 holds or conservatorships and who want wraparound services? The legislation does not provide for a self-petition process—but this is something that should be considered. With regard to it being on a voluntary basis, the CARE Court settlement agreement process creates a pathway for those who are subject to a petition to enter treatment and services that the county behavioral health agency provides, without a court order. In addition, individuals and counties notified of a petition for CARE Court can directly engage in a treatment plan, and then at the Initial Hearing may be found not to meet the criteria for CARE Court due to current provision of and engagement in treatment.

III. Court Process

1. On the court process, the initial CARE hearing is required no later than 14 days from the date of the petition being filed. In AOT, the requirement is within 5 days.

Why are we almost tripling the timeframe for this proposal when we are dealing with the most severely mentally ill—given also that, the CARE process allows for various 14-day extensions before the 1-yr clock even starts? The timing is a result of one of the key differences between AOT and CARE Court – individuals can file directly with the court. To elaborate, in AOT only a county can file and it often takes a county weeks, and sometimes months, to investigate, offer services, and examine the individual before a petition for AOT is filed, so the short time frame between the AOT petition and the first hearing is appropriate. In CARE court, the petition can be filed by a range of designated people, so the petition needs some time for review by the court and for engagement of the parties before proceeding to the Initial Hearing. In CARE Court, the steps of engagement and evaluation happen after petition, through notice and engagement of county behavioral health, the respondent, counsel, MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 90 of 347 and supporter, which occurs within 5 days of petition; the Initial hearing, within 14 days of petition; and the subsequent Case Management conference hearing.

2. If the respondent stabilizes at any point throughout the process of the petition, does the petition end? Likewise, if at any time during the 1-yr CARE treatment plan the respondent stabilizes, can they petition to have the court-ordered treatment end?
The CARE plan will continue for up to one year to support long term stability of the participant and to provide sufficient time for the CARE plan goals to be realized and a graduation plan to be completed. The respondent may propose modifications to the plan and an earlier graduation.

3. For IST misdemeanants who otherwise are not eligible for mental health diversion, would it make more sense to mirror the new care court referral to what currently exists in the law for AOT or conservatorship referral? These provisions should be consistent.

4. Would there need to be a Riese hearing on capacity or is that wrapped up in the “Evaluation hearing?”
There is no Riese hearing as part of CARE Court because no medications are forcibly administered. Additionally, CARE Court does not allow for a psychiatric hold where Riese hearings typically take place.

5. The timeframe for the process—stretching over many weeks—suggests there is no imminent destabilization or need for care, as compared to AOT/5150, which happens much more quickly. If the goal is to bring in destabilized persons, should the timeline be tightened up ?
As discussed above, the timing of the CARE court process is more lengthy than the AOT court process because we are allowing a direct petition to the court to begin court supervision of services earlier. That said, alternative timeframes can be considered.

6. Should a CARE plan be specifically mentioned within a settlement agreement under section 5977 (c)?

Yes. The settlement agreement should at a minimum include the required Care plan elements.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 91 of 347

7. If an agreement is made under section 5977 (c) (3) are we basically skipping down to (f)? Does that need to be explicit?
We anticipate clarifying that the matter can be terminated after the 60 day hearing if both parties are participating in the settlement agreement.

8. Are there going to be hearsay issues given the People v. Sanchez (2016) ruling? We would imagine that People v. Sanchez would limit an expert witness’s use of hearsay in their testimony– as it has in LPS and AOT.

9. Is there a risk of abuse if a person can be brought in with just a petition and prima facie evidence of eligibility, especially because non-experts are permitted to file the petition? AOT requires a concerned person to go through the county and the county decides whether to bring the petition, does this provide better protections?
The petition requires both facts which support the petitioner’s belief that the person who is the subject of the petition meets each criteria and supporting evidence, through either an affidavit from a qualified mental health professional that the person meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria or evidence that the person who is the subject of the petition had a section 5250 hold within the last 90 days.

The petition shall be signed under the penalty of perjury. The court may dismiss a case with prejudice if finds that the filing was not in good faith.

10. There is no clinical evaluation until after the target of the petition is in the system and has been required to try to reach a settlement agreement. Should there be an evaluation earlier? How can there be a settlement agreement without an evaluation?
If the subject of the petition does not believe they meet the CARE Court criteria they may decline their option of entering into the settlement agreement and move to the evaluation.

11. Welfare and Insitutions Code section 5976 states that the target of the petition is entitled to counsel, but does not specify that counsel must be provided if they cannot afford it, as with LPS proceedings. Is the intent to provide counsel? Yes. Section 5977 requires the court to appoint counsel in all cases, not based on whether the individual can afford counsel.

12. How does the settlement agreement work? Is it essentially a voluntary CARE court treatment plan? Could this be made clearer?
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 92 of 347 The settlement agreement is a treatment plan entered into by both the respondent and county behavioral health with court supervision, but not court orders.

13. Should the court order the settlement negotiations and the development of a treatment plan to run simultaneously? There seems to be a lot of time before the health department is figuring out what the target of the petition needs, or even before there’s an evaluation.

County behavioral health should begin engaging the subject of the petition as early as possible to offer treatment, including upon receipt of notice of a petition.

If an individual is clinically stabilized in on-going treatment with the county behavioral health agency, the parties may no longer meet the criteria for CARE Court and the case may be dismissed at the Initial hearing; or they may more promptly enter into a settlement agreement at the Case Management Conference hearing.

14. The timeline for an adopted CARE plan is a status conference at 60 days after implementation, plus regular conferences set at least every 180 days. In a yearlong plan, this means the default is only two status conferences; should there be greater court oversight?
The goal is to limit court involvement if the individual is doing well in the community and the county is providing services– which is why deference has been given to the court. That said, language should be added that clearly lays out how a hearing can be requested in between status conferences.

15. The bill requires notice to be provided to the respondent’s counsel. How will the family member know who is the respondent’s counsel?
The court will be appointing counsel in every case–likely the public defender in the vast majority of counties. Information on service requirements, including addresses for the entities to be served, will need to be included in the court’s self-help center.

16. Should we require the Judicial Council to develop forms – specifically for a petitioner who is a family member – to make it easier for them to know how to do this?
Yes–the intent is to have the Judicial Council develop accessible forms.

IV. Psychiatric Advance Directive

1. How are Psychiatric Advance Directives currently working in practice? Consenting to care ahead of time that you may refuse in the moment is very MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 93 of 347 different from the inverse, which is more common for advance directives. Any info from the MHSOAC on their pilot?
U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services clarified over 15 years ago that Psychiatric Advance Directives (PAD)s should be part of psychiatric care but only 27 states have enacted laws and policies recognizing PADS. Advance directives are commonly used for physical health conditions and efforts have been underway for over a decade to increase their use for psychiatric conditions. The National Resource Center on Psychiatric Advance Directives (NRC) provides the following definition, “PADS are relatively new legal instruments that may be used to document a competent person’s specific instructions or preferences regarding future mental health treatment. Psychiatric advance directives are used to plan for the possibility that someone may lose the capacity to give or withhold informed consent to treatment during acute episodes of psychiatric illness”.

PADs can help expand the use of Supportive Decision Making tools. PADs are not intended to be used to require on-going medication or involuntary inpatient care. A PAD allows a person in a mental health crisis to retain their decisionmaking capacity by choosing supporters to help advocate for their choices.

While California may not yet have specific legal statute regarding PADs there are efforts underway to develop what will work best for California. The Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission has a learning collaborative with several counties to study and develop standardized templates, training, technology and potentially enabling legislation to support accessibility and sustainability of PADs. The administration looks forward to further engaging in these efforts.

V. Respondent Placement and Housing

1. This proposal is silent, as is AOT, on this point, but where is the respondent throughout this whole process? Are they being held? Are they at an inpatient facility? Are they released? Provided with housing?
CARE Court does not include any locked or custodial commitments. Instead, it is an outpatient model that seeks to support housing stability. For participants who are unhoused, counties may utilize local, state, federal and other housing and homelessness funding to serve CARE participants. Additionally, the proposed $1.5 billion for Behavioral Health Bridge Housing funding would be prioritized to serve CARE Court participants per Sec 5983 (b).

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 94 of 347

2. Article Five requires the care plan to include a Housing Plan, with language specifying it includes the needs of the respondent and the resources considered in support of an appropriate placement. It goes on to say counties may offer appropriate housing placements in the region as “early as is feasible in the engagement process.” Does the respondent continue to remain unhoused as they move through the Care COURT process depending on the resources available and the county’s ability to identify an appropriate housing option? Could the respondent complete the care court process without their housing needs ever being met if there was a “housing plan” in place but not an actual placement made?
In the 2021 Budget Act, the state made a $12 billion investment to prevent and end homelessness which included funding to create new community based residential settings and long-term stable housing for people with severe behavioral health conditions. While CARE Court does not create a right to housing, the legislation recognizes the importance of housing in finding stability and staying connected to treatment. To this end, the Governor’s proposed 2022- 2023 budget includes $1.5 billion to support Behavioral Health Bridge Housing, which would fund clinically enhanced bridge housing settings that would be prioritized to serve CARE Court participants, per Sec 5983 (b).

3. Regarding the housing plan, what is a “region?” Counties are being permitted to offer appropriate housing placements “in the region.” Does that mean that someone from Sacramento County may be placed as far east as Lake Tahoe?

Individuals who are served by CARE Court will have diverse housing needs on a continuum ranging from clinically enhanced interim or bridge housing, licensed adult and senior care settings, supportive housing, to housing with family and friends. Housing placement should meet the individual needs of the CARE Court participant, including their geographic preferences to the extent possible. In order to support on-going connection to treatment, identifying housing that is near to treatment and other community resources will support the success of the participant. Particularly in rural areas of the state, the most appropriate and near placements may be in the region, but not the county.

4. If courts are not required to order and counties are not being required to provide housing, doesn’t that negate this whole CARE proposal? Isn’t the purpose to ensure a respondent has a care plan, a supporter, and appropriate housing? While CARE Court does not provide a right to housing, the 2021 Budget Act made a $12 billion investment to prevent and end homelessness which included MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 95 of 347 funding to create new community based residential settings and long-term stable housing for people with severe behavioral health conditions. In addition, the Governor’s proposed 2022- 2023 budget includes $1.5 billion to support Behavioral Health Bridge Housing, which would fund clinically enhanced bridge housing settings that would be prioritized to serve CARE Court participants, per Sec 5983 (b).

5. Does this structure mean the individual has to comply with stabilization medication and specialty mental health treatment to access housing? If so, how does this align with housing first principles as currently defined and practiced? CARE Court holds the county and the individual accountable to a CARE plan and supports connection to housing as described above. Counties may leverage local, state, federal, and philanthropic resources to support housing placements for CARE Court participants. Nothing in the statute makes housing contingent on CARE Court participation.

6. Does it change the prioritization of limited housing resources available? Would someone be more likely to access housing if they go through CARE Court than other county/city/continuum of care processes?
The Governor’s proposed 2022- 2023 budget includes $1.5 billion to support Behavioral Health Bridge Housing, which would fund clinically enhanced bridge housing settings that would be prioritized to serve CARE Court participants per Sec 5983 (b). This is the only fund source that would statutorily require prioritization of CARE Court participants, though other funds sources for housing are available to serve this population and may also be prioritized at the local level as applicable.

7. If someone does to access housing early on in the CARE court process but then struggle with their treatment plan and fall of their medication, do they lose their housing?
Nothing in the statute makes housing contingent on CARE Court participation.

VI. Post -Hearing Process

1. What happens when a respondent has had two consecutive CARE episodes and they still have not improved? Likewise, if at any time during the first or second year the treating mental health provider does not believe the respondent will improve, what happens?
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 96 of 347 CARE is a new approach and is designed to provide meaningful connection to treatment and services for up to 24 months. If, at any time during the proceedings, the court determines by a preponderance of evidence that the respondent is not participating in CARE proceedings, after the respondent receives notice, or is not adhering to their CARE plan, the court may terminate the respondent’s participation in the CARE program. The court may utilize existing legal authority pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, to ensure the respondent’s safety. The subsequent proceedings may use the CARE proceedings as a rebuttable presumption that no suitable community alternatives are available to treat the individual.

2. What happens if after one year (or even two years), a respondent improves and is doing well, but they know that without CARE they will not be able to maintain stability, even with targeted outpatient treatment?
Upon successful completion and graduation by the Court, the participant remains eligible for ongoing treatment, supportive services, and housing in the community to support long term recovery. A PAD can remain in place for any future crises.

3. At the 11-month review – what does “successfully completed participation” mean?
This is an evidentiary status hearing. The CARE participant, supporter, counsel, and county behavioral health agency can present evidence, and the court will hear recommendations from the county behavioral health agency. The participant may request graduation or reappointment to CARE court process. If the respondent requests to be graduated from, or times out of, the CARE court process, the court will officially graduate the respondent and terminate its jurisdiction with a graduation plan which successfully completes participation.

4. Where is the authority to reappoint for an additional year if someone is unsuccessful?
A clear standard as to when the program can be extended needs to be added to the language.

5. Should CARE court be limited to the one year, not extended, unless the person chooses to do so voluntarily after successful completion? If they do not succeed at the one year or fail earlier, they would be returned to criminal court for continued proceedings. Rationale is because under regular diversion a misdemeanant’s term in a program is a maximum of one year and similarly if a person serves a term in custody the max is anywhere from 6 months to a year.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 97 of 347 Since this would be attached to a criminal case, the maximum terms should be the same.

CARE Court should allow for an additional 12 months. This issue may be addressed by terminating the criminal case once the individual is accepted into the program– as is currently done for AOT.

6. What happens if a person is complying with treatment but is not showing progress or considered “successful?”
We consider participation in treatment success. To the extent that the individual has a subsequent mental health crisis, a PAD may be relied upon, or the court may utilize existing legal authority pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, to ensure the respondent’s safety.

7. What is the plan for someone who has not complied with a CARE plan but has not destabilized to the point of needing 5150 care, and who did not participate as part of a diversionary program? Is there a basis for imposing consequences? CARE Court does not create new standards or change existing legal authority pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1. The county should continue to engage any patients who are terminated from CARE Court and are not subject to existing legal authority.

8. What happens if a CARE court participant moves jurisdictions, or becomes homeless? Is there a possibility of allowing a court to order housing, if the lack thereof is what has kept the person from stabilizing in the past? WIC 5982 outlines that counties may offer appropriate housing placements in the region as early as feasible in the engagement process but, as currently drafted, does not allow the court to order housing or to require the county to provide housing.

If a person moves jurisdictions, existing rules for behavioral health services continuity should apply.

VII. Support Person

1. Will the supporters be trained in engaging with people with MH/SUD conditions? Likewise, if a respondent decides on a supporter not provided by the Dept of Aging, shouldn’t that supporter receive some kind of training if they will be guiding the respondent through court proceedings, meetings, etc.? Is the Dept of Aging the correct entity to train supporters?
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 98 of 347 Supporters will be trained in strategies to engage individuals with severe mental illness. A key department responsibility will be to effectively train supporters on supported decision making with individuals who have behavioral health conditions and on the use of psychiatric advance directives. As Welfare and Institutions code 5980 describes this training will be developed with input from peers, family members, disability groups, providers, and other relevant stakeholders.

Self-direction is a critical element of CARE. Welfare and Institutions code 5980(c) explains that if a respondent chooses their own supporter, that person may serve as a supporter without compensation. Volunteer supporters will be provided with required, accessible training that includes, at a minimum, a description of their role, expectations, and conflicts of interest. Respondent may also choose not to have a supporter.

With a focus on individual empowerment and access to services in the home and community, California Department of Aging (CDA) has long focused on personcentered advocacy and support programs for older and disabled adults, including the Long-Term Care Ombudsmen program for residents of nursing homes and assisted living facilities, the Friendship Line for behavioral health support, and, more recently, the Office of the Patient Representative that represents the wishes of incapacitated individuals in long-term care facilities. In July, subject to final budget approval of the Governor’s January budget proposal, CDA will be hiring a Conservator/Public Guardian liaison that will work with local Public Guardian/Public Conservator offices to help strengthen probate conservatorships for adults with diminished capacity to make financial and personal care decisions.

The supporter program compliments CDA’s focus on advocacy and empowerment of older and disabled adults.

2. If the supporter is required to assist the respondent with understanding the entire CARE process, shouldn’t the supporter be required to attend court proceedings rather than just being allowed to attend?
The supporter should attend and that clarification in the language would be helpful

3. Why the Department of Aging? Would the office of patient’s rights in DHCS make more sense? Will CDA decide the contract specifications if the role is contracted out? Is a competitive process envisioned?
As stated above, CDA has expertise in managing person-centered advocacy and support programs with expert community-based organizations that effectively MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 99 of 347 serve vulnerable older and disabled adults, including preserving the rights of unrepresented and vulnerable people. They are the appropriate entity to develop and administer a State Supported Decision Making program, in partnership with expert community-based organizations. The Office of Patients’ Rights within DHCS has the responsibility to ensure that mental health laws, regulations, and policies for the rights of mental health service recipients are observed in licensed mental health facilities.

As Welfare and Institutions code 5980 outlines CDA may enter into a technical assistance and training agreement to provide trainings either directly to supporters or to the contracted entities who will be responsible for hiring and matching supporters to respondents. CDA will seek stakeholder input on contract specifications and contract award criteria. The Supporter program contracts shall include labor standards.

4. If supporters are being bound to “existing obligations and prohibitions,” who is ensuring that a supporter not trained/provided by Dept of Aging knows all this? As the program is developed, that will be incorporated into the training envisioned for volunteer Supporters.

5. For the supporter, if someone does volunteer, should there be some written commitment to serve in this role like in 5350(e) (2)?
As the program is developed, that will be incorporated into the training envisioned for volunteer Supporters.

6. Who sets the qualifications and compensation? Who is the employer? What about possible conflict of interest?
Welfare and Institutions Code section 5980 outlines that CDA will develop the Supporter program and will do so with support and input from peers, family members, disability groups, providers, and other relevant stakeholders. CDA intends to contract with community-based organizations at the state, regional or local level who will serve as the employer of the supporters. CDA will be responsible for addressing any potential conflicts of interest for CDA funded supporters or contracted entities.

7. The language allows contracted entities to “match” the supporter and has the court appointing a supporter within 5 days of filing. Does CDA or the contractor provide name(s) to the court or to the respondent first? Does the respondent have a choice?
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 100 of 347 Self-direction and choice are critical elements of CARE Court. Reasonable and feasible strategies will be employed to provide Supporter choice to the respondent, recognizing limitations due to the immediate need to have a supporter available in the 5-day period and in every county in California.

Respondents can also decline a supporter.

VIII. Evaluation and Accountability

1. Like we are seeing with LPS, we need specific and robust reporting requirements, should those be included here for technical assistance piece.

A robust data collection, evaluation, and accountability framework will be added to the legislation. This will include demographic data to mitigate against and remedy racial, ethnic, and other inequities in behavioral health and housing.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 101 of 347

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JUNE 6, 2022
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 3
FILE I.D.: FRD200
DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
PREPARER: R. HOERNING
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDING THE 2019–2024 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ADD THE FIRE STATION NO. 2 LANDSCAPING PROJECT
CONSIDER AUTHORIZING A $30,000 APPROPRIATION FROM 2021 LEASE REVENUE

BOND FUNDS FOR COSTS RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRE STATION NO. 2 LANDSCAPING PROJECT

CONSIDER APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR BID PROPOSALS FOR THE FIRE STATION NO. 2 LANDSCAPING

PROJECT
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council is requested to consider amending the 2019–2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to add the Fire Station No. 2 Landscaping Project. Amendments to the CIP, non–budgeted appropriations, approval of the plans and specifications, authorization to advertise for bid proposals, and authorizing the award of construction contracts are subject to City Council approval.

BACKGROUND: The Fire Station No. 2 Landscaping was altered when the Monte Vista Grade Separation Improvements were constructed. The Monte Vista Grade Separation Improvements were completed around February 2020.

During the Monte Vista Grade Separation construction, the City was working with Monte Vista Water District to implement a water system service upgrade to the Public Works Yard. The Public Works Yard is located behind Fire Station No. 2. These improvements included the installation of a four–inch water meter in a large vault and a backflow prevention device in front of the fire station. These facilities altered the available landscape area and impacted the site design. Restoration of the fire station landscaping was to be constructed at a future time by the City.

The City, with the assistance of the Chino Basin Water Conservation District, has prepared drought–tolerant landscape and irrigation plans for Fire Station No. 2. The landscape will consist of a succulent plant pallet and strategically placed river rock boulder clusters installed within a decomposed granite surface and irrigated through a newly installed subterranean automatic drip system. The site will be cleared of weeds and other vegetation through a sequence of treatments to minimize subsequent weed growth and to prepare the site for the proposed hardscape, planting, and irrigation improvements.

The project work period is 50 working days. The tentative schedule for the bid opening is July 11, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Fire Station No. 2 Landscaping Project would be funded using $30,000 in 2021 Lease Revenue Bond funds. The estimated construction cost is $18,800. The cost to advertise this project for bid proposals should not exceed $1,500.

The remaining balance of funds will serve as the project contingency.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 102 of 347 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Amend the 2019–2024 Capital Improvement Program to add the Fire Station No. 2 Landscaping Project;

2. Authorize a $30,000 appropriation from 2021 Lease Revenue Bond funds for costs related to the Fire Station No. 2 Landscaping Project; and

3. Approve the project plans and specifications and authorize staff to advertise for bid proposals for the construction of the Fire Station No. 2 Landscaping Project.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 103 of 347 Project Name:

Project Details:

Project No. (Assigned by Finance):

Phase Prior Years 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023 2023/2024 Total Fund/Program Environmental
Design 3,000.00 3,000.00 2021 LRB
R/W Acquisition
Construction 27,000.00 27,000.00 2021 LRB
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00
Approvals:

Department: By: Date:

Finance By: Date:

City Council Date:

Total Project
Cost: 30,000.00
Revision Number:

Rosemary Hoerning
Infrastructure Fund
Capital Project Funding Information
Prepare site for proposed hardscape, planting and irrigation improvements Fire Station No. 2 Landscaping Project
Fiscal Years
Preparation Date: May 31, 2022 Department: Public Works Contact/Ext.:

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 104 of 347

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JUNE 6, 2022
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 4
FILE I.D.: PDT430
DEPT.: POLICE
PREPARER: A. GRAZIANO
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF FOUR PEPPER PROJECTILE SYSTEMS,

SPARE TANKS, AND PROJECTILES, DEFINED AS MILITARY EQUIPMENT UNDER ASSEMBLY BILL 481
CONSIDER AUTHORIZING A $5,700 APPROPRIATION FROM THE FEDERAL ASSET

FORFEITURE FUND TO PURCHASE FOUR PEPPER PROJECTILE SYSTEMS, SPARE TANKS,

AND PROJECTILES
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The Police Department’s Military Equipment Policy Section 707 and Montclair Ordinance No. 22–1000 were approved by the City Council on March 21, 2022. The Police Department currently possesses four Pepperball pepper projectile systems in need of replacement. The City Council is requested to authorize a $5,700 appropriation from the Federal Asset Forfeiture Fund to purchase four replacement pepper projectile systems, spare tanks, and projectiles.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the Police Department possesses four pepper projectile systems manufactured by PepperBall. Its trained police officers may use the systems as a less–lethal force option in various scenarios. The purpose of pepper projectile systems is to limit the escalation of conflict in situations where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable including, but not limited to, self–destructive, dangerous and or combative individuals; riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents; circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained; potentially vicious animals; and training exercises or approved demonstrations. The plastic projectiles are filled with a derivative of oleoresin capsicum (OC) powder. The compressed gas launchers deliver the projectiles with enough force to burst on impact and release the OC powder.

The current pepper projectile systems used by the Police Department are over 15 years old. Of the four launchers, only two are operable and the model has been discontinued, making parts obsolete for maintenance and repair. The current launchers also utilize a large hopper–fed system that makes it difficult to track the exact number of projectiles launched, and can only accommodate round pepper projectiles, which are less accurate than projectiles now available through technological advances.

Police Department Military Equipment Policy 707, Adopted Ordinance No. 22–1000, and Assembly Bill 481
The Police Department’s Military Equipment Policy Section 707 was approved pursuant to Ordinance No. 22–1000 adopted by the City Council on March 21, 2022, and includes a description of all military equipment currently used by the Police Department. This includes the Police Department’s four pepper projectile systems. AB 481, enacted under the Government Code commencing with Section 7070, includes the definition of military equipment. The pepper projectile systems are itemized under Government Code 7070(c), Category 12, which reads, in part:

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 105 of 347 “(12) Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service issued handheld pepper spray”
PepperBall is currently offering a launcher trade–up, where the Department would receive a credit for its four existing launchers. PepperBall would provide the latest launcher, the “PepperBall Patrol Carbine,” as well as a case of training and live projectiles per launcher.

The PepperBall Patrol Carbine launcher is a CO2/compressed air–launched, magazine– fed system that allows for accurate tracking of the number of projectiles discharged.

This would greatly improve the ability to track the exact number of projectiles discharged as required by State law and policy. Additionally, the PepperBall Patrol Carbine launchers are capable of firing round projectiles and the VXR projectile, which is rifled for greater accuracy. This accuracy helps further reduce the risk of great bodily injury to the public and officers. The expected service life of the launchers is 15 years, and the annual maintenance is projected to be from $0 to $300. The Department annually budgets for the expense of replacement training and live munitions, which is not anticipated to increase as a result of this purchase.

Currently, PepperBall is the only producer of these unique less–lethal launchers, which would be purchased through one of its local distributors. Since PepperBall is the Department’s current vendor for pepper projectile systems, the existing serviceable PepperBall equipment, such as compressed gas fill stations, could be used in conjunction with the new pepper projectile systems.

FISCAL IMPACT: If authorized by the City Council, the purchase of the pepper projectile systems, spare tanks, and projectiles would result in an appropriation from Asset Forfeiture Federal Fund (1147) in the amount of $5,700.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:

1. Authorize the purchase of four pepper projectile systems, spare tanks, and projectiles, defined as military equipment under AB 481.

2. Authorize a $5,700 appropriation from the Federal Asset Forfeiture Fund to purchase four pepper projectile systems, spare tanks, and projectiles.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 106 of 347

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JUNE 6, 2022
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 5
FILE I.D.: PDT362/PDT430
DEPT.: POLICE
PREPARER: J. MICHEL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A LENCO BEARCAT G3 TACTICAL ARMORED VEHICLE, DEFINED AS MILITARY EQUIPMENT UNDER ASSEMBLY BILL 481,

AND REQUIRED RADIO COMPONENTS, INSTALLATION, AND APPLIED GRAPHICS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $336,600 FROM THE PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT FUND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING A $2,110.24 APPROPRIATION FROM THE FEDERAL ASSET

FORFEITURE FUND TO PURCHASE AN ARMORED OIL PAN GUARD FOR THE LENCO BEARCAT G3 TACTICAL ARMORED VEHICLE
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council is requested to consider authorizing the purchase of a Lenco BearCat G3 tactical armored vehicle to replace its 1980 Cadillac Peacekeeper currently used by Police Department personnel for tactical operations.

BACKGROUND: The Police Department’s current tactical armored vehicle, a 1980 Cadillac Gage Peacekeeper, was obtained in 2002 through the California State Agency for Surplus Property, and is in need of replacement. On May 16, 2022, the City Council held a public meeting and approved the Police Department’s request to seek out the purchase of a replacement tactical armored vehicle from a reputable manufacturer, defined by Assembly Bill 481 as military equipment. In the same meeting, the City Council approved Agreement No. 22–43 with San Bernardino County for providing funding for the sole purchase of a tactical armored vehicle, required radio components, and applied graphics, and authorized the receipt of $336,600 from San Bernardino County for the purchase.

On May 24, 2022, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors held a public meeting and approved Agreement No. 22–43. On a future date, and upon request by the Police Department, San Bernardino County will transfer a one–time lump sum payment to the City of Montclair in the amount of $336,600 for the purchase of a tactical armored vehicle, required radio components, installation, and applied graphics.

Police Department Military Equipment Policy 707 and Assembly Bill 481 The funds provided by San Bernardino County are designated for the purpose of purchasing a tactical armored vehicle qualifying as military equipment as defined by Assembly Bill 481 amending the Government Code commencing with Section 7070.

Tactical armored vehicles are considered military equipment under Government Code 7070(c), which reads, in part:
“(2) Mine–resistant ambush–protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers…”
and
“(3) High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one–half–ton trucks, five–ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached…”
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 107 of 347 The Police Department’s Military Equipment Policy Section 707, approved by the City Council on March 21, 2022, includes a description of all military equipment currently used by the Police Department. This includes the Peacekeeper, which is due for replacement, defined as a Category 2 – Armored Personnel Carrier.

Police Department personnel researched manufacturers of tactical armored vehicles, including their respective features, options, and capabilities. Lenco Armored Vehicles was determined to be the most viable vendor to facilitate the purchase of a replacement vehicle. The Lenco BearCat is the only armored rescue vehicle with a 131–inch wheelbase, allowing it to have an inside turning radius of 17 feet 8 inches. Being able to turn the vehicle around in a City street without having to make a three–point turn is critical in tactical response. Lenco Armored Vehicles are widely used throughout San Bernardino County by allied agencies, including but not limited to the Ontario, Fontana, and Chino Police Departments; and San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside County Sheriffs’ Departments. By purchasing a tactical armored vehicle from the same manufacturer as our allied agencies, personnel involved in a multi–jurisdictional response would have familiarity in the equipment’s operability, capabilities, and limitations. Additionally, Lenco Armored Vehicles is the sole source manufacturer for the Lenco BearCat.

The Lenco BearCat G3 is an armored vehicle built on a Ford F–550 frame and is manufactured for law enforcement purposes. The BearCat armored vehicle provides ballistic protection to officers and citizens from gunfire. The armored vehicle stops rifle rated rounds including .50 caliber, available commercially, which exceeds the protection level of handheld shields and personal body armor possessed by the Police Department.

It would be used in response to critical incidents to enhance officer and community safety, improve scene containment and stabilization, assist in resolving critical incidents, and for display at community events.

The Lenco Bearcat has a lifespan of approximately 25 years. Costs for radio components and installation through Motorola were obtained, including an estimate for the application of graphics through the Police Department’s regular vendor, which are listed as follows:

Item Cost Tax Total
Lenco BearCat G3 TAV $ 302,815.00 $ 25,948.35 $ 328,763.35 Motorola Radios
Estimated Installation
5,643.70
500.00
491.73 6,635.43
Estimated Graphics 1,200.00 1,200.00
$ 336,598.78
After seeking out and obtaining funding for this purchase, Lenco Armored Vehicles made a recommendation to add an armored oil pan guard to the build of the vehicle. The guard would add a layer of protection to the oil pan during circumstances when it has to negotiate through rougher terrain that could expose it to damage.

The use of armored vehicles shall only be authorized by a Watch Commander or member of Command Staff, and would be based on the specific circumstances of a given critical incident. Armored vehicles shall be used only by officers trained in their deployment and in a manner consistent with Department policy and training. The Lenco BearCat is built on a Ford Super Duty platform, and includes a five–year/60,000–mile safety restraint and powertrain, and three–year/36,000–mile bumper–to–bumper Ford warranty. Warranty–covered repairs, maintenance service, and parts replacements on MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 108 of 347 the vehicle chassis can be performed at any number of OEM dealers, truck centers, and retail parts stores. Should this be the manufacturer we opt to use for the expenditure, annual maintenance costs are anticipated to range from $500 to $1,250.

FISCAL IMPACT: If authorized by the City Council, the purchase of the tactical armored vehicle, required radio components, installation and graphics would be funded from the Public Safety Grant Fund pursuant to Agreement No. 22–43 with San Bernardino County.

The purchase of the armored oil pan guard would result in an appropriation from Asset Forfeiture Federal Fund (1147) in the amount of $2,110.24.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:

1. Authorize the purchase of a Lenco BearCat G3 tactical armored vehicle, defined as military equipment under Assembly Bill 481, and required radio components, installation, and applied graphics in the total amount of $336,600 from the Public Safety Grant Fund.

2. Authorize a $2,110.24 appropriation from the Federal Asset Forfeiture Fund to purchase an armored oil pan guard for the Lenco BearCat G3 tactical armored vehicle.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 109 of 347

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JUNE 6, 2022
SECTION: CONSENT - AGREEMENTS
ITEM NO.: 1
FILE I.D.: TRN110
DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
PREPARER: M. HEREDIA
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 22–20 AMENDING AGREEMENT NO. 05–03 WITH SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SBCTA CONTRACT NO. 22–1002771) ASSIGNING MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE

CITY OF MONTCLAIR FOR THE PORTION OF THE PACIFIC ELECTRIC TRAIL BETWEEN

MONTE VISTA AVENUE AND CLAREMONT BOULEVARD, SUBJECT TO ANY REVISIONS

DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City maintains a portion of the Pacific Electric Trail pursuant to agreements with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and the City of Upland. Certain aspects of the maintenance arrangement for the trail need to be updated since it has been over 15 years since the contracts were put in place.

Agreements with other agencies require City Council approval.

BACKGROUND: On January 3, 2005, the City Council approved Agreement No. 05–03 with the San Bernardino County Associated Governments (SANBAG) for the City to maintain the Pacific Electric Trail (PE Trail) between Monte Vista Avenue and Claremont Boulevard (License Property). Due to an annexation procedure, the trail was later discovered to be located within the City of Upland. However, as part of Agreement No. 04–147 with the City of Upland, which was approved on October 17, 2004, the City of Montclair had agreed to partially fund the construction of the PE Trail and to maintain the trail west of Monte Vista Avenue. The City of Upland maintains the trail between Monte Vista Avenue and Central Avenue.

Proposed Agreement No. 22–20 with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), the successor to SANBAG, amends original Agreement No. 05–03, included as “Amendment No. 1 – Attachment A,” and includes the future restroom on the western terminus of the PE Trail (see Exhibit A–2 Restroom Location). “Amendment No. 1 – Attachment C” contains new insurance requirements including an umbrella policy. Commercial General Liability is increasing from $1 million to $7 million per occurrence, and commercial auto liability is increasing from $1 million to $5 million per accident.

The other change to the license agreement is shown on Page 2 of Agreement No. 22–20 under Section IV, Exhibit D, Paragraph 2 – Maintenance of License Property. The City is no longer responsible to enforce unauthorized vehicle parking or occupancy by transients/homeless persons or individuals along the PE Trail. Since the PE Trail is in Upland’s jurisdiction, the City shall notify and coordinate with local law enforcement to keep the entire License Property free and clear of unauthorized vehicles or individuals.

All other provisions of the original license agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

FISCAL IMPACT: Annual maintenance costs are estimated at less than $10,000 per year.

However, the higher insurance coverage will increase the cost to maintain an insurance policy as required by Agreement No. 22–20 relating to SBCTA Contract No. 22–1002771.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 110 of 347 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve Agreement No. 22–20 with San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA Contract No. 22– 1002771) assigning maintenance responsibilities to the City of Montclair for the portion of the Pacific Electric Trail between Monte Vista Avenue and Claremont Boulevard, subject to any revisions deemed necessary by the City Attorney.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 111 of 347 License Amendment No. 1 SBCTA Contract No: 22-1002771
City of Montclair – Pacific Electric Trail 1 File No: RBPK001863 LICENSE AMENDMENT No. 1
For SBCTA Contract No. 22-1002771
This AMENDMENT is made as of this 1st day of February 2022, between SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, the successor to San Bernardino Associated Governments pursuant to Public Utility Code §§130800 et seq. (“SBCTA”), and the CITY OF MONTCLAIR, (“LICENSEE”).

RECITALS:

SBCTA and LICENSEE are now parties to a license agreement dated February 16, 2004, known to SBCTA as Contract No. 22-1002771 (File: RBPK001863), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment A and hereby incorporated by reference, together with any and all modifications, supplements, and amendments thereto, being hereinafter referred to as the “Original License”, the basic terms of which are provided in Part I thereunder.

The parties desire to modify the Original License as hereinafter provided, effective as of February 1, 2022. Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Original License shall remain in full force and effect.

AMENDMENT TERMS:

It is mutually agreed that the Original License is hereby changed to read, as follows:

I. All reference to San Bernardino Associated Governments or SANBAG in the Original License are replaced with San Bernardino County Transportation Authority or SBCTA, respectively.

II. PART I, Item 1, is DELETED in its entirety, and is REPLACED as follows:
1 Description of License Property:

The Baldwin Park Branch right of way, from Claremont Blvd. on the west, to Monte Vista Ave. to the east, located wholly within the City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as shown on attached Exhibit A, dated 12/13/04, and Exhibit A-2.

Approximate area:

Milepost 515.82± (Claremont Blvd.) to milepost 516.14 (Monte Vista Ave.) Excluding areas subject to Lease, License, Easement, or other Agreement. (§1.1)
Agreement No. 22-20
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 112 of 347 License Amendment No. 1 SBCTA Contract No: 22-1002771
City of Montclair – Pacific Electric Trail 2 File No: RBPK001863 III. PART I, Item 9, is DELETED in its entirety, and is REPLACED as follows:

9. Facility:

Bicycle path and pedestrian walkway, a restroom, trash receptacles, drainage facilities, irrigation system, all landscaping materials, whether planted as part of this project or pre-existing and allowed to remain in place by Licensee, and other appurtenant improvements. (§1.1)
IV. Exhibit D, Paragraph 2, is DELETED in its entirety, and is REPLACED as follows:
 0DLQWHQDQFHRI/LFHQVH3URSHUW\ Licensee shall keep the entire License Property free and clear of weeds, trash, vegetation, and graffiti and shall notify and coordinate with local law enforcement to keep the entire License Property free and clear of unauthorized vehicle parking and occupancy by transients/homeless persons or individuals. Licensee acknowledges that the License Property is located in the City of Upland and, notwithstanding that the License Property is located in the City of Upland, Licensee shall be fully and solely responsible for ALL maintenance and maintenance that is required or necessary in connection with Licensee's use of the License Property.

V. Exhibit A-2, attached to this amendment as Attachment B is appended to Exhibit A of the Original License.

VI. Exhibit B, is DELETED in its entirety, and is REPLACED with Exhibit B-2 attached to this amendment as Attachment C. All reference to Exhibit B in the Original License shall be read as Exhibit B-2.
[Signatures on following page.]
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 113 of 347 License Amendment No. 1 SBCTA Contract No: 22-1002771
City of Montclair – Pacific Electric Trail 3 File No: RBPK001863 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this AMENDMENT was duly executed by the LICENSEE and SBCTA on the dates below, and is effective as the date executed by SBCTA.

LICENSEE: SBCTA:

CITY OF MONTCLAIR SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a
county transportation authority pursuant to
Public Utility Code §§130800 et seq.

By: By:

Name: Name: Raymond W. Wolfe
Title Title: Executive Director
Date: Date:

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 114 of 347 6%&7$/,&(16(
$0(1'0(1712
$77$&+0(17$
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 115 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 116 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 117 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 118 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 119 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 120 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 121 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 122 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 123 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 124 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 125 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 126 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 127 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 128 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 129 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 130 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 131 of 347 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 132 of 347

PROPOSED PUBLIC RESTROOM CLAREMONT BLVD

HUNTINGTON DR

HUNTINGTON DR
EX. UPLAND R/W
EX. SBCTA R/W
EX. SBCTA R/W

CITY OF UPLAND

CITY OF MONTCLAIR

SBCTA CORRIDOR

SBCTA CORRIDOR

PACIFIC ELECTRIC TRAIL
EX. UPLAND R/W
EX. SBCTA R/W
EX. SBCTA R/W
SCALE:

KEY PLAN
1"=20'
(;+,%,7$
5(675220/2&$7,21
6%&7$/,&(16(

),/(
5%3.

Amendment No. 1 - Attachment B
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 133 of 347 AMENDMENT NO. 1 - ATTACHMENT C
EXHIBIT B-2
Exhibit B-2 1 SBCTA Contract No. 22-1002771
Insurance Requirements File No. RBPK001863

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

1. AGREEMENT shall mean the permit, license or lease to which this Exhibit B-2 is attached.

WORK shall mean any activity or use permitted under the AGREEMENT. The holder of the AGREEMENT is hereinafter referred to as PERMITTEE. PERMITTEE shall at all times during the term of the AGREEMENT or for such other periods as required herein, procure and maintain broad form insurance, or self-insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from, or in connection with, the use of SBCTA property hereunder by the PERMITTEE, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors, with coverage at least as broad as the following minimum requirements specified below. Selected subparagraphs to this Paragraph 1 shall apply:

1.1. Worker’s Compensation/Employer’s Liability. The policies must include the following:
• Coverage A. Statutory Benefits
• Coverage B. Employer’s Liability
• Bodily Injury by accident - $1,000,000 per accident
• Bodily Injury by disease - $1,000,000 policy limit/$1,000,000 each employee Such policies shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the parties named as Indemnitees below. Such insurance shall be in strict accordance with the applicable workers’ compensation laws in effect during performance of the Work by PERMITTEE or any subconsultant of any tier. All subconsultants of any tier performing any portion of the WORK for PERMITTEE shall also obtain and maintain the same insurance coverage as specified in this subparagraph, with a waiver of subrogation in favor of PERMITTEE and all parties named as Indemnitees by the AGREEMENT. Where coverage is provided through the California State Compensation Insurance Fund, the requirement for a minimum A.M. Best rating does not apply.

1.2. Commercial General Liability. The policy must include the following:
• PERMITTEE shall maintain commercial general liability (CGL) insurance (Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01), and if necessary excess/umbrella commercial liability insurance, with a combined limit of liability of not less than $10,000,000 each occurrence.
• The policy shall not exclude Rail Road Liability and must contain ISO CG24 17, unless RRPL coverage is provided. The policy also at a minimum shall include, include coverage for any and all of the following: bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, broad form contractual liability (including coverage to the maximum extent possible for the indemnifications in the AGREEMENT), premises-operations (including explosion, collapse and underground coverage), duty to defend in addition to (without reducing) the limits of the policy(ies), and products and completed operations.
o $2,000,000 per occurrence limit for property damage or bodily injury MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 134 of 347 Exhibit B-2 2 SBCTA Contract No. 22-1002771
Insurance Requirements File No. RBPK001863
o $1,000,000 per occurrence limit for personal injury and advertising injury o $2,000,000 per occurrence limits for products/completed operations coverage (ISO Form 20 37 10 01) if SBCTA’s Risk Manager determines it is in SBCTA’s best interests to require such coverage,
o If a general aggregate applies, it shall apply separately to this project/location.

The project name must be indicated under “Description of Operations/Locations” (ISO Form CG 25 03 or CG 25 04).
• Coverage is to be on an “occurrence” form. “Claims made” and “modified occurrence” forms are not acceptable.
• A copy of the declaration page or endorsement page listing all policy endorsements for the CGL policy must be included.

All subconsultants of any tier performing any portion of the WORK for PERMITTEE shall also obtain and maintain the CGL insurance coverage with limits not less than:
• Each occurrence limit: $1,000,000
• General aggregate limit: $2,000,000
• Personal injury and advertising limit $1,000,000
• Products-completed operations aggregate limit $2,000,000 All subconsultants’ and sub-subconsultants’ deductibles or self-insured retentions must be acceptable to SBCTA’s Risk Manager.

1.2.1. Railroad Exclusion Waiver. The CGL policy shall not exclude coverage of contractual lability relating to railroads or shall be endorsed by ISO Form CG 24 17, or equivalent acceptable to SBCTA, to remove such exclusions to coverage.

1.3. Umbrella/Excess CGL. The policy must include the following:
• If the PERMITTEE elects to include an umbrella or excess policy to cover any of the total limits required beyond the primary commercial general liability policy limits and/or the primary commercial automobile liability policy limits, then the policy must include the following:
o The umbrella or excess policy shall follow form over the PERMITTEE’s primary general liability coverage and shall provide a separate aggregate limit for products and completed operations coverage.
o The umbrella or excess policy shall not contain any restrictions or exclusions beyond what is contained in the primary policy.
o The umbrella or excess policy shall contain a clause stating that it takes effect (drops down) in the event the primary limits are impaired or exhausted. o The umbrella or excess policy must also extend coverage over the automobile policy if it is to be used in combination with the primary automobile policy to meet the total insurance requirement limits.

There shall be no statement limiting the coverage provided to the parties listed as additionally insureds or as indemnitees in the AGREEMENT.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 135 of 347 Exhibit B-2 3 SBCTA Contract No. 22-1002771
Insurance Requirements File No. RBPK001863

1.4. Commercial Auto. The policy must include the following:
• A total limit of liability of not less than $5,000,000 each accident. This total limit of liability may be met by combining the limits of the primary auto policy with an umbrella or excess policy in accordance with Section 1.3 (Umbrella/Excess CGL), above.
• Such insurance shall cover liability arising out of any vehicle, including owned, hired, leased, borrowed and non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the WORK.
• Combined Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability insurance The commercial automobile liability insurance shall be written on the most recent edition of ISO Form CA 00 01 or equivalent acceptable to SBCTA.

1.5. Pollution Liability The policy must include the following:
• $2,000,000 per claim or occurrence limits/$4,000,000 in the aggregate • If the WORK involves mold identification / remediation, the policy shall not contain a mold exclusion and the definition of “Pollution” shall include microbial matter including mold.
• If the WORK involves lead-based paint or asbestos identification/remediation, the policy shall not contain lead-based paint or asbestos exclusions.

1.6. Railroad Protective Liability Insurance: Insurance Services Office Form Railroad Protective Liability, AAR-AASHTO (ISO/RIMA), in the name of SCRRA with respect to the operations they or any of their subcontractors perform on the Property. Minimum Limits: $2 million per occurrence, combined single limit, for coverage and for losses arising out of injury to or death of all persons and for physical loss or damage to or destruction of Property, including the loss of use thereof. A $6 million annual aggregate shall apply. If providing coverage on the London claims- made form, the following provisions shall apply:
• The limits of liability shall be not less than $3 million per occurrence, combined single limit. A $9 million aggregate may apply.
• Declarations item 6, extended claims made date, shall allow an extended claims made period no shorter than the length of the original policy period plus one year. • If equivalent or better, wording is not contained in the policy form, the following endorsement must be included:
o It is agreed that "physical damage to Property" means direct and accidental loss of or damage to rolling stock and their contents, mechanical construction equipment or motive power equipment, railroad tracks, roadbed, catenaries, signals, bridges or buildings.

In cases of low hazard activity and insignificant risk to rail facilities, and if the exposure to the track is physically separated by a building, floor or a continuous fence (no MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 136 of 347 Exhibit B-2 4 SBCTA Contract No. 22-1002771
Insurance Requirements File No. RBPK001863
thoroughfares) and the employees of the Contractor are explicitly notified, trained, and supervised such that they are not permitted to have any contact with the track or its related improvements, the Railroad Protective Liability Insurance requirement may be waived by SBCTA, or its designated representative, in SBCTA’s sole and absolute discretion, where SBCTA’s agreements and obligations with rail operators allow it.

2. General Provisions

2.1. Qualifications of Insurance Carriers. If policies are written by insurance carriers authorized and admitted to do business in the state of California, then the insurance carriers must have a current A.M. Best rating of A-VIII or better and if policies are written by insurance carriers that are non- admitted but authorized to conduct business in the state of California, then they must meet the current A.M. Best rating of A-:X or better, unless otherwise approved in writing by SBCTA’s Risk Manager.

2.2. Additional Insured Coverage. All policies, except those for Workers’ Compensation insurance, shall be endorsed by ISO Form CG 20 35, or if not available, then ISO Form CG 20 36, or a form that provides substantially similar coverage to name San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and its officers, directors, members, employees, agents and volunteers, as additional insureds (“Additional Insureds”). With respect to general liability arising out of or connected with work or operations performed by or on behalf of the PERMITTEE permitted under this AGREEMENT, coverage for such Additional Insureds shall not extend to liability to the extent prohibited by section 11580.04 of the Insurance Code. The additional insured endorsements shall not limit the scope of coverage for SBCTA to vicarious liability but shall allow coverage for SBCTA to the full extent provided by the policy.

2.3. Proof of Coverage. Evidence of insurance in a form acceptable to SBCTA’s Risk Manager, including declarations pages of each policy, certificates of insurance and the required additional insured endorsements, shall be provided to SBCTA’s Procurement Analyst prior to issuance of the NTP or prior to commencing any WORK, as SBCTA specifies. Certificate(s) of insurance, as evidence of the required insurance shall: be executed by a duly authorized representative of each insurer; show compliance with the insurance requirements set forth in the AGREEMENT together with Exhibit B; set forth deductible amounts applicable to each policy; list all exclusions which are added by endorsement to each policy; and also include the Contract Number and the SBCTA Project Manager’s name on the face of the certificate. If requested in writing by SBCTA, PERMITTEE shall submit complete copies of all required insurance policies within ten (10) business days of a written request by SBCTA.

2.4. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retention. Regardless of the allowance of exclusions or deductibles by SBCTA, PERMITTEE shall be responsible for any deductible or selfinsured retention (SIR) amount and shall warrant that the coverage provided to SBCTA is consistent with the requirements of this Exhibit. PERMITTEE will pay, and shall require its sub-contractor to pay, all deductibles, co-pay obligations, premiums and any other sums due under the insurance required in this Exhibit. In consideration of the fact that PERMITTEE is a municipal corporation SBCTA allows deductibles and/or MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 137 of 347 Exhibit B-2 5 SBCTA Contract No. 22-1002771
Insurance Requirements File No. RBPK001863
SIR in amounts which PERMITTEE typically carries. SBCTA will have the right, but not the obligation, to pay any deductible or SIR due under any insurance policy. If SBCTA pays any sums due under any insurance required above, SBCTA may withhold said sums from any amounts due to PERMITTEE. The PERMITTEE’ s policies will neither obligate nor prohibit SBCTA or any other Additional Insured, from paying any portion of any PERMITTEE’s deductible or SIR.

2.5. PERMITTEE’s and Subconsultants’ Insurance will be Primary. All policies required to be maintained by the PERMITTEE or any subconsultant with the exception of Professional Liability and Worker’s Compensation shall be endorsed, with a form at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 01 04 13), to be primary coverage, and any coverage carried by any of the Additional Insureds shall be excess and non-contributory. Further, none of PERMITTEE’s or subconsultants’ pollution, automobile, general liability or other liability policies (primary or excess) will contain any cross-liability exclusion barring coverage for claims by an additional insured against a named insured.

2.6. Waiver of Subrogation Rights. To the fullest extent permitted by law, PERMITTEE hereby waives all rights of recovery under subrogation against the Additional Insureds named herein, and any other consultant, subconsultant or sub-subconsultant performing work or rendering services on behalf of SBCTA, in connection with the planning, development and construction of the Project. To the fullest extent permitted by law, PERMITTEE shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants of every tier. PERMITTEE shall require all of the policies and coverages required in Exhibit B to waive all rights of subrogation against the Additional Insureds (ISO Form CG 24 04 05 09). Such insurance and coverages provided shall not prohibit PERMITTEE from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss or claim.

2.7. Cancellation. If any insurance company elects to cancel or non-renew coverage for any reason, PERMITTEE will provide SBCTA thirty (30) days prior written notice of such cancellation or nonrenewal. If the policy is cancelled for nonpayment of premium, PERMITTEE will provide SBCTA ten (10) days prior written notice. In any event, PERMITTEE will provide SBCTA with a copy of any notice of termination or notice of any other change to any insurance coverage required herein which PERMITTEE receives within one business day after PERMITTEE receives it by submitting it to SBCTA at [email protected] to the attention of SBCTA’s Procurement Analyst, and by depositing a copy of the notice in the U.S. Mail in accordance with the notice provisions of the AGREEMENT.

2.8. Enforcement. SBCTA may take any steps as are necessary to assure PERMITTEE’s compliance with its insurance obligations as identified within the AGREEMENT and / or Exhibit B. Failure to continuously maintain insurance coverage as provided herein is a material breach of contract. In the event the PERMITTEE fails to obtain or maintain any insurance coverage required, SBCTA may, but is not required to, maintain this coverage and charge the expense to the PERMITTEE or withhold such expense from amounts owed PERMITTEE, or terminate the AGREEMENT. The insurance MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 138 of 347 Exhibit B-2 6 SBCTA Contract No. 22-1002771
Insurance Requirements File No. RBPK001863
required or provided shall in no way limit or relieve PERMITTEE of its duties and responsibility under the Contract, including but not limited to obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees named below. Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve PERMITTEE for liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it preclude SBCTA from taking other actions as available to it under any other provision of the Contract or law. Nothing contained herein shall relieve PERMITTEE, or any subconsultant of any tier, of their obligations to exercise due care in the performance of their duties in connection with the WORK, and to complete the WORK in strict compliance with the AGREEMENT.

2.9. No Waiver. Failure of SBCTA to enforce in a timely manner any of the provisions of Exhibit B shall not act as a waiver to enforcement of any of these provisions at a later date.

2.10. Contractors and Subcontractors Insurance. Insurance required of the PERMITTEE shall be also provided by contractors and subcontractors, or by PERMITTEE on behalf of all contractors and subcontractors, to cover WORK, performed by said contractors and subcontractors, permitted under the AGREEMENT. PERMITTEE may reduce types and the amounts of insurance limits provided by subconsultants to be proportionate to the amount of the sub-contractors contract and the level of liability exposure for the specific type of work performed by the subconsultant. PERMITTEE shall be held responsible for all modifications, deviations, or omissions in these insurance requirements as they apply to subconsultant.

2.11. Higher limits. If PERMITTEE maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, SBCTA shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by PERMITTEE. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to SBCTA.

2.12. Special Risks or Circumstances. SBCTA reserves the right to modify any or all of the above insurance requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 139 of 347

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JUNE 6, 2022
SECTION: CONSENT - AGREEMENTS
ITEM NO.: 2
FILE I.D.: PDT362
DEPT.: POLICE
PREPARER: M. BUTLER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 22–47 WITH THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AUTHORIZING THE RECEIPT OF $16,186 FROM THE FY 2021 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT/AMERICAN

RESCUE PLAN ACT

CONSIDER AUTHORIZING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE CHIEF ROBERT

AVELS TO SIGN SAID AGREEMENT
CONSIDER AUTHORIZING A $16,186 APPROPRIATION FROM THE PUBLIC SAFETY

GRANT FUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT TO UPGRADE THE EMERGENCY

OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC)

CONSIDER AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE CONTINGENCY FUND IN THE AMOUNTS OF $16,186 AS A DOLLAR–FOR–DOLLAR MATCH TO RECEIVE THE GRANT FUNDS, AND $6,056.82 TO COVER THE REMAINING BALANCE OF THE EOC UPGRADE COSTS
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council is requested to consider approval of Agreement No. 22–47 with the San Bernardino County Office of Emergency Services (County OES) authorizing the receipt of $16,186 from the FY 2021 Emergency Management Performance Grant/American Rescue Plan Act (EMPG–ARPA). The City Council is also requested to authorize a $16,186 appropriation from the Public Safety Grant Fund to purchase equipment to upgrade the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and authorize a dollar–for–dollar match to receive funding and an additional appropriation from the Contingency Fund to complete the purchase.

A copy of proposed Agreement No. 22–47 is attached for the City Council’s review and consideration.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the FY 2021 EMPG–ARPA is to support comprehensive emergency management programs at the local level and to encourage the improvement of prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery capabilities for all hazards.

It is funded by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services through funding distributed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency, and it is administered by the San Bernardino County OES Grants Unit. San Bernardino County and the 24 Operational Area Coordinating Council (OACC) city and town signatories who have EOCs within the Operational Area are eligible to receive EMPG–ARPA funding. Each are allocated a $13,000 base with the remainder of the grant distributed on a per capita basis to each eligible jurisdiction. The City of Montclair has been given an allocation of $16,186; however, the grant requires a dollar– for–dollar match of non–federal funds to receive EMPG–ARPA funding.

During a threat or disaster, an EOC is the centralized location for emergency response and recovery support operations. The Police Department has received approval to use FY 2021 EMPG–ARPA funds to procure equipment for its EOC to enhance its essential functions of command, planning, operations, logistics, and finance. The police facility, MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 140 of 347 which was constructed in 2008, included a dedicated EOC with modern information technology, including projectors, monitors, a state–of–the–art matrix (audio/video mixer), IP phone system, and connections for presentation computers. In the 14 years since construction, much of this technology has not been updated and is no longer up to current standards. The monitors are original, the projector is no longer of sufficient luminosity to be clearly seen, the matrix has failed on several occasions, and due to obsolescence, has been repaired with used parts. The computer connections are wired in the VGA standard, which is no longer a common video output standard and is not capable of full HD resolution.

Upgrades are sorely needed to replace this aging equipment and bring the EOC into compatibility with current technologies. EMPG–ARPA grant funds would be used toward the purchase of a 10,000 Lumens laser projector with a zoom lens. The City would meet the dollar–for–dollar cost–match requirement for project–related costs, including an iPad, wireless presentation system, 4–series control system, a multi–image processor, miscellaneous mounts and cables, and labor and travel costs. These updated features would ease connectivity with the City’s other IT systems, which is especially important during an EOC activation and emergency response. The proposed equipment would support information management by mobilizing critical resources, establishing command, and enhancing the EOC’s incident recovery capabilities by strengthening its ability to carry out emergency management to protect life and property during critical incidents.

Bid quotations for the purchase of a laser projector and other audiovisual equipment to upgrade the EOC were received from the following vendors:

Vendor Bid Amount
Matrix Audio Visual Designs, Inc. $38,426.08
Western Audio Visual $31,794.62
Sunset Audio Visual $30,832.52
Staff received three proposals to upgrade the audiovisual equipment in the EOC and carefully reviewed each submission to ensure they met the guidelines of the grant application, including the requirements of City staff. Of the three proposals, Matrix Audio Visual Designs Inc. (Matrix) provided the best overall, comprehensive solutions by delivering a superior laser projector that is brighter, with more vivid colors, and has better video quality than the other proposals. Matrix also provides a short–throw lens that closely matches the current screen size mounted in the EOC. Although most selections for vendors often fall to those offering the lowest bids, in this case, the cost cannot be the only deciding factor in selecting the right solution. One central factor that staff has to consider when choosing a proposal is how scalable and integrated the audiovisual upgrade will impact other conference rooms and meeting facilities within the City because the system needs to be able to connect and communicate with one another.

It is vitally important that the EOC facility broadcast and receive audiovisual signals from other sources, including other meeting rooms, to further business continuity in an emergency where the first responders might not be able to get to the EOC facility physically. After reviewing the three proposals, staff concluded that Matrix, although not the lowest bid, is best suited to meet the challenge of upgrading the audiovisual system in the EOC, providing the best overall video projection per the grant application while allowing for interoperability with other audiovisual facilities within the City.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 141 of 347 Matrix has been in business for over 30 years, is located in Burbank, California, and has worked with the City of Montclair in the past—proving to be a trusted, reliable resource for the City's audiovisual needs. Matrix responds quickly when there is a support request and takes a tailored approach to audiovisual design, focusing on what the client needs instead of providing a one–size–fits–all solution that is apparent in the other vendors’ proposals. Matrix technicians are well–versed in audiovisual technology, and their quality of work is evident by glowing reviews from other local government clients in their portfolio.

FISCAL IMPACT: If approved by the City Council, the purchase of a laser projector would result in an appropriation from the Public Safety Grant Fund (1163) in the amount of $16,186. The City would receive full reimbursement from the FY 2021 EMPG–ARPA. The funding match of $16,186 and the remaining balance of $6,056.82 for all other project– related costs would result in an appropriation from the Contingency Fund.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:

1. Approve Agreement No. 22–47 with the San Bernardino County Office of Emergency Services authorizing the receipt of $16,186 from the FY 2021 EMPG– ARPA;

2. Authorize Executive Director of Public Safety/Police Chief Robert Avels to sign said Agreement;

3. Authorize a $16,186 appropriation from the Public Safety Grant Fund for the purchase of equipment to upgrade the EOC; and

4. Authorize appropriations from the Contingency Fund in the amounts of $16,186 as a dollar–for–dollar match to receive the grant funds, and $6,056.82 to cover the remaining balance of the EOC upgrade costs.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 142 of 347

ATTACHMENT A
San Bernardino County Fire Protection District
FY2021 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT/AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (EMPG/ARPA)
CFDA # 97.042

SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
Subaward #: 2021-0014
Name of City/Town/Jurisdiction: City of Montclair
Address: 5111 Benito Street
City: Montclair State: CA Zip Code: 91763
Contact Name: Marci Butler Telephone Number: 909-448-3609 E-mail Address: [email protected]
The above referenced Subrecipient understands and agrees to the following Federal Grant Guidelines, in acceptance of the FY 2021 EMPG/ARPA funds, CFDA 97.042 funded by the US Department of Homeland Security's (OHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and sub-granted through the State of California's Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES):

GRANT ASSURANCES

UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS Government cost principles, uniform administrative requirements, and audit requirements for federal grant programs are set forth in Title 2, Part 200 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Updates are issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMS) and can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/. Subrecipients of FY21 EMPG/ARPA funding must follow the administrative requirements and Cost Principles codified in 2 CFR 200.

State and federal grant award requirements are set forth below. The Applicant hereby agrees to comply with the following:

1. Will obtain proof of authority from the city council, governing board, or authorized body in support of this project. This written authorization must specify that the Applicant and the city council, governing board, or authorized body agree:
(a) To provide all matching funds required for the grant project and that any cash match will be appropriated as required;
(b) Any liability arising out of the performance of this agreement shall be the responsibility of the Applicant and the city council, governing board, or authorized body;
(c) Grant funds shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by the city council, governing board, or authorized body;
(d) Applicant is authorized by the city council, governing board, or authorized body to apply for federal assistance, and the institutional, managerial and financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay the non-federal share of project cost, if any) to ensure proper planning, management and completion of the project described in this application; and
(e) Official executing this agreement is authorized by the Applicant.

Agreement No. 22-47
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 06/06/2022 Page 143 of 347 FY202rEMPG/ARP~PROGRAM-SUBREC-IPIENT AUREEMEl'IT