The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet_01282019A G E N D A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday,January 28,2019 ~7:00 PM City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach,California THOMAS MOORE MAYOR Second District SCHELLY SUSTARSIC MAYOR PRO TEM Fourth District ELLERY A.DEATON COUNCIL MEMBER First District MIKE VARIPAPA COUNCIL MEMBER Third District SANDRA MASSA-LAVITT COUNCIL MEMBER Fifth District This Agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered.No action or discussion shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda,except as otherwise provided by law.Supporting documents,including agenda staff reports,and any public writings distributed by the City to at least a majority of the Council Members regarding any item on this agenda are available for review at City Hall in the City Clerk's Office located at 211 Eighth Street,Seal Beach,California,Monday through Friday,between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.or contact the City Clerk, at (562)431-2527. City Council meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3 and on the City's website www.sealbeachca.gov).Check the SBTV3 schedule for rebroadcast of —meetings are available on-demand on the website (starting 2012).meeting In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,if you require disability -related modification or accommodation to attend or participate in this meeting,including auxiliary aids or services,please call the City Clerk' s office at (562)431 -2527 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCIL ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA &WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCES By motion of the City Council this is the time to notify the public of any changes to the agenda and /or rearrange the order of the agenda. PRESENTATIONS /RECOGNITIONS •Introduction of New Employees Gloria Harper and Denice Bailey •Naval Weapons Station –Economic Development/Impact ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time members of the public may address the Council regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council.Pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council cannot discuss or take action on any items not on the agenda unless authorized by law.Matters not on the agenda may,at the Council's discretion,be referred to the City Manager and placed on a future agenda. Those members of the public wishing to speak are asked to come forward to the microphone and state their name for the record.All speakers will be limited to a period of five (5)minutes.Speakers must address their comments only to the Mayor and entire City Council,and not to any individual,member of the staff or audience. Any documents for review should be presented to the City Clerk for distribution. Oral Communications CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Craig A.Steele,City Attorney CITY MANAGER REPORT Jill R.Ingram,City Manager COUNCIL COMMENTS General Council Member comments and reporting pursuant to AB 1234. COUNCIL ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by a single motion with the exception of items removed by Council Members. A.Approval of the January 14,2019 City Council Minutes -That the City Council approve the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on January 14,2019. B.Demands on City Treasury (Fiscal Year 2019)-January 28,2019 -Ratification C.Monthly Investment Report -December 31,2018 -Receive and file. D.City of Seal Beach Strategic Plan -That the City Council receive and file the City of Seal Beach Six-Month Strategic Objectives update. E.Approval of Employment Agreement for City Clerk -That the City Council adopt Resolution 6889 approving the Executive Employment Agreement between the City of Seal Beach and Gloria Harper to be the City of Seal Beach City Clerk and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract. F.Hourly Wages For Part-time,Seasonal,and Temporary Employees -That the City Council adopt Resolution 6890 establishing hourly wages for part-time,seasonal,and temporary employees,and repealing on the effective date specified,all resolutions in conflict therewith. G.Professional Services Agreement with AKM Consulting Engineers for Design Engineering Services of the 6th Street Alley Water and Sewer Replacement Project -That the City Council adopt Resolution 6891 awarding and authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement to AKM Consulting Engineers to provide engineering services for the design of the 6th Street alley water line and sewer line replacement Project including construction support services for a not-to- exceed agreement amount of $175,496. H.Installation of 31 Smart Irrigation Controls Using Rebate Funding -That the City Council adopt Resolution 6892 approving agreement with Horizon for the installation of 31 smart irrigation controls throughout the City. I.Approval of Tree Maintenance Agreement with BrightView Tree Care -That the City Council approve Resolution 6893 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with BrightView Tree Care for citywide tree maintenance. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING UNFINISHED /CONTINUED BUSINESS J.Parking Related Municipal Code Changes and Parking Policy Revisions -That the City Council:1.Introduce,read by title only,and waive further reading of Ordinance 1672 approving changes to the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code relating to parking and public parking lots,and 2.That the City Council approve revisions to City Council Policy 100-9, Parking Permits. NEW BUSINESS K.Urgency Ordinance to Regulate Wireless Communications Facilities in The Public Rights-Of-Way;Introduction And First Reading of Regular Ordinance to Regulate Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Rights-Of-Way;Resolution Establishing Rules and Guidelines for Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights- Of-Way -That the City Council:1.Adopt Urgency Ordinance 1676-U,An Ordinance of the Seal Beach City Council Amending Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Amend Section 6.10.010 and Section 6.10.065,Repeal Section 6.10.070,and Add New Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 Regulating Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way and Declaring the Urgency Thereof;and 2.Introduce for first reading,by title only and waive further reading,of Ordinance 1677, an Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach City Council Amending Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Amend Section 6.10.010 and Section 6.10.65,to Repeal Section 6.10.070,and to Add New Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 Regulating Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way;and 3.Schedule the second reading of Ordinance 1677 for February 11,2019;and 4.Adopt Resolution 6894,a Resolution of the Seal Beach City Council Establishing Rules and Guidelines for Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way,to be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance 1677; and 5.Direct the Public Works Director to adopt any additional policies, rules and guidelines to further implement the Ordinances,to be effective prior to April 15,2019. L.Adoption of Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study (JLUS)and Formation of Working Group for JLUS Implementation and Continued Collaboration -That the City Council adopt Resolution 6895 adopting the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study (JLUS)and establishing the formation of a working group to work toward implementation of JLUS strategies and continue collaboration efforts on future matters that may affect the installation and the City. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn the City Council to Monday,February 11,2019 at 5:30 p.m.to meet in closed session,if deemed necessary. Agenda Item: A AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:January 28, 2019 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager FROM:Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT:Approval of the January 14, 2019 City Council Minutes ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council approve the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on January 14, 2019. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: This section does not apply. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: No legal analysis is required for this item. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this item. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on January 14, 2019. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Dana Engstrom Jill R. Ingram Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk Jill R. Ingram, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Minutes Seal Beach, California January 14, 2019 The City Council met in regular session at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Mayor Pro Tem Sustarsic led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Moore Council Members: Deaton, Massa-Lavitt, Sustarsic, Varipapa Absent: None City Staff: Craig Steele, City Attorney Jill R. Ingram, City Manager Patrick Gallegos, Assistant City Manager Chief Joe Miller, Seal Beach Police Department Chief Joe Bailey, Marine Safety/Lifeguard Department Victoria L. Beatley, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Steve Myrter, Director of Public Works Crystal Landavazo, Interim Director of Community Development Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA & WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The City Clerk read into the record a revision to Item E, Section 11.4.05.115.L.4 removing the words “property ownership” and adding “that the primary dwelling unit or the sccessory dwelling unit is property owner’s primary residence”. Two other communications were received regarding various agenda items that were distributed to City Council and made available to the public. PRESENTATIONS / RECOGNITIONS There were no presentations or recognitions. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Moore opened oral communications. Speakers: Don Shoemaker, Jeffrey Blanq, John Waller, Joyce Ross-Parque, and Bruce Bennett. Mayor Moore then closed oral communications. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT There was no City Attorney Report. CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager Ingram asked Finance Director Beatley to give an update on Items G and H in respect to the implementation of the Transaction and Use Tax. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council Member Massa-Lavitt spoke regarding her attendance at several meetings around the county and provided an update on water supply. Council Member Varipapa asked for an update on the West-end pump station. Director of Public Works Steve Myrter indicated the pumps are operating as intended and tested once a week. Council Member Deaton wished everyone a happy new year. Additionally she asked for clarification from City Attorney Steele and City Manager Ingram to correct the record on two comments made during public comment regarding alleged pay raises and alleged pending arbitration on lawsuits. Mayor Pro Tem Sustarsic reported she attended the Breakfast with Santa event thanking the Lions Club and staff for their hard work on putting the event together. She indicated she attended the Coastal Commission meeting where they discussed the land swap at the Los Cerritos Wetlands and Navy Warf project as well as the American Public Works Association luncheon. Council Member Moore thanked the City Council and Council Member Varipapa for nominating him for Mayor. He indicated he is excited for the opportunities in the coming year. Additionally, he indicated he would like to continue to push for more efficiency using technology when feasible and focus on best business practices. COUNCIL ITEMS There were no Council Items. CONSENT CALENDAR Deaton moved, second by Sustarsic, to approve the recommended actions on the consent calendar. A. Approval of the December 10, 2018 City Council Minutes - That the City Council approve the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on December 10, 2018. B. Demands on City Treasury (Fiscal year 2019) – January 14, 2019 - Ratification C. Monthly Investment Report – November 30, 2018 - Receive and file. D. 2019 Calendar of Meeting Dates - That the City Council receive and file the 2019 calendar of meeting dates, which include the cancellation of the first meeting in July (8th) and the second meetings in August (26th), November (25th) and December (23rd). E. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1673 - That the City Council waive further reading and adopt Ordinance 1673 titled "An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Zone Text Amendment 18-2 Amending Title 11 Regarding Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units in Residential Zones in the City to Comply with New State Legislation." F. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1675 - That the City Council waive further reading and adopt Ordinance 1668 titled "An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach adding a new chapter 5.80 to the Seal Beach Municipal Code to create a sidewalk vending program, amending related provisions of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, making a determination of exemption under CEQA." G. Adopt Agreements and Resolutions Necessary to Implement of the City’s New Sales and Use Tax Ordinance - That the City Council adopt the following: 1. Resolution 6885, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Specified Agreements with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for Implementation of the Local Transactions and Use Tax and 2. Resolution 6886 a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Authorizing the Examination of Transactions (Sales) and Use Tax Records by Designated Officials H. Agreement for Transactions Tax Audit & Information Services with Hinderliter, De Llamas and Associates - That the City Council adopt Resolution 6887: 1. Approving the Agreement for Transaction Tax Audit & Information Services with Hinderliter, De Llamas and Associates (HdL); and 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. I. Acceptance of 2018-2021 Department of Justice: California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016 - That the City Council adopt Resolution 6888: 1. Approving an agreement between the City of Seal Beach and the State of California Department of Justice to provide grant funding for Seal Beach Police Department education and enforcement activities; 2. Authorizing the Chief of Police to execute on behalf of the City of Seal Beach all contracts and proposals including any extensions or amendments thereof and any subsequent contract with the State in relation thereto. 3. Authorizes Budget Amendment Number 19-07-01 AYES: Deaton, Massa-Lavitt, Moore, Sustarsic, Varipapa NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING There were no public hearing items. UNFINISHED / CONTINUED BUSINESS There were no unfinished/continued business items. NEW BUSINESS There were no new business items. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Moore adjourned the City Council meeting at 7:36 p.m. to Monday, January 28, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session, if deemed necessary. Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk Approved: Thomas Moore, Mayor Attested: Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk City of Seal Beach Fiscal Year 2019 Warrant Listing for Council Meeting January 28, 2019 Approve by Minute Order Demands on Treasury: Warrants -A /P: 9289 -9458 1,959,198.22 Year -to -Date: $ 21,182,353.90 California Public Employees Retirement 106,292.34 2,065,490.56 Payroll: Year -to -Date: $ 8,190,102.54 Payroll Direct Deposit 784,840.73 Payroll State & Federal Taxes 247,037.49 Payroll PERS 189,305.23 City of Seal Beach Flex Spending 2,021.12 Total Payroll: 1,223,204.57 Note: Year -to -date amounts are actual cash disbursements and do not reflect actual expenditures due to year -end accruals. Respectfully submitted by: Victoria L. Beatley Date Director of Finance /City Treasurer City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Printed: 01/22/2019 1029 User:mtran Checks by Date - Detail By Check Date Detail Check Amount Check No: 9289 Check Date: 01/08/2019 Vendor: cea City Employees Associates PR Batch 1 1 2019 SBMMA Dues - CEA 01/02/2019 46.15 Check Total: 46.15 Check No: 9290 Check Date: 01/08/2019 Vendor: CIT48 SBSPA PR Batch 1 1 2019 SBSPA Dues (CEA) 01/02/2019 184.64 Check Total: 184.64 Check No: 9291 Check Date: 01/08/2019 Vendor: ICMA Vantagepoint Transfer Agents 302409 PR Batch 1 1 2019 457 City Contribution 01/022019 2,952.05 PR Batch 1 1 2019 457 Plan Employee Cont 01/022019 18,300.26 PR Batch 1 1 2019 457 City Contribution 01/02/2019 1,373.85 Check Total: 22.626.16 Check No: 9292 Check Date: 01/08/2019 Vendor: OCE01 O.C.E.A. PR Batch 1 1 2019 OCEA Dues 01/02/2019 255.32 Check Total: 255.32 Check No: 9293 Check Date: 01/08/2019 Vendor: OCSDI Orange County Sheriffs Depart PR Batch 112019 Case No 18WCSC01899 01/02/2019 34.06 Check Total: 34.06 Check No: 9294 Check Date: 01/08/2019 Vendor: PMA Seal Beach Police Management Association PR Batch 1 1 2019 PMA Dues 01/02/2019 400.00 Check Total: 400.00 Check No: 9295 Check Date: 01/08/2019 Vendor: POAOI Seal Beach Police Officers Assoc PR Batch 1 1 2019 POA Dues 01/02/2019 1,200.00 Check Total: 1,200.00 Check No: 9296 Check Date: 01/082019 Vendor: SBMSMA SBMSMA PR Batch 1 1 2019 SBMSMA Dues 01/02/2019 34.62 Check Total: 34.62 Check No: 9297 Check Date: 01/08/2019 Vendor: USB US Bank Pars 6746022400 PR Batch 1 1 2019 PARS Employer Portion 01/02/2019 386.27 PR Batch 1 1 2019 PARS Fmployee Portion 01/02/2019 1,842.30 Check Total: 2,228.57 Date Totals: 27,009.52 Check No: 9298 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: A -I -A A -1 -A Security 74446 Services Jan- Mar 2019 01/01/2019 165.00 Check Total: 165.00 Check No: 9299 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: AKMOI AKM Consulting Engineers 0009792 Leisure World 18" Sewer Const- Nov 2018 12/12/2018 3,067.50 Check Total: 3,067.50 Check No: 9300 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: ANT01 Anthem Blue Cross 000589782D Services Jan 2019 12/17/2018 192.69 000589782/) Services Jan 2019 12/17/2018 115.62 000589782/) Services Jan 2019 12/17/2018 693.66 000589782/) Services Jan 2019 12/172018 192.68 000589782/) Services Jan 2019 12/17/2018 1,196.81 000589782/) Services Jan 2019 12/172618 57.81 000589782/) Services Jan 2019 12/17/2018 9634 000589782D Services Jan 2019 12/17/2018 578.05 000589782/) Services Jan 2019 12/17/2018 770.74 000589782D Services .Ian 2019 12/17/2018 385.37 Page 1 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 Usecmtran Checks by Dale Detail By Check Date Detail Check Amount Check Total: 4,279.77 Check No: 9301 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: ARA05 Aramark Uniform Services 533877180 Scraper Mat 12/20/2018 29.56 533877179 Scraper Mat 12/20/2018 37.68 533877179 Scraper Mat 12/20/2018 37.68 533877180 Scraper Mat 12/20/2018 29.57 Check Total: 134.49 Check No: 9302 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: Arr04 Arrowhead Forensics 111941 Property and evidence supplies as per qu 12/18/2018 544.70 Check Total: 544.70 Check No: 9303 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: BAV08 Bay Hardware 341380 HD Toggle Switch 12/11/2018 7.75 341376 Adapter /SockeU Screwdriver Set/Nuts 12/11/2018 59.59 341369 Toggle Anchor 12/11/2018 4.74 341373 Light Panel/ Concrete Patch 12/11/2018 45.82 341365 Extension Cord 12/11/2018 42.56 341279 Red Spray Paint 12/06/2018 10.24 341370 Credit/Return -Ong Inv 338704/1 12/11/2018 12.91 341421 Padlock/ Key Cutting 12/13/2018 36.76 341383 Knee Pads/ Hot Water Farm Hose 12/12/2018 90.51 Check Total: 285.06 Check No: 9304 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: BRI12 Brithinee Electric 5108574 Toshiba drive control / service labor at 11/30/2018 775.00 Check Total: 775.00 Check No: 9305 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: BRO33 Brownells, Inc. 16780367.0 Armory stocking order as per quote 16780 12/18/2018 275.82 Check Total: 275.82 Check No: 9306 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: C301 C3 Technology Services INV94638 Services I1 -15 -18 to 1 -14 -2019 12/17/2018 2,297.38 Check Total: 2,297.38 Check No: 9307 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: CAL13 California Live Scan Dec] 8-012 Services Dec 2018 12/31/2018 15.00 Check Total: 15.00 Check No: 9308 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: CAL99 California Chamber of Commerce 1 1274817 2019 CA Labor Law fosters 12/21/2018 162.46 Check Total: 162.46 Check No: 9309 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: CAM01 Campbell Printing, Inc. C18 -133 1000) Property Receipt forms 12/18/2018 505.35 Check Total: 50535 Check No: 9310 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: CAP02 CAPTAIN'S LOCKER 8201118 Funnel Set/ Bucket 12/11/2018 6251 Check Total: 6251 Check No: 9311 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: CAR42 Card Integrators Corporation 0100892 -IN 100) PROX ID -20A (100) VINPVC30 (2) EL 12/10/2018 219.73 Check Total: 219.73 Check No: 9312 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: CER18 Certified Roofing Specialists W18530 C& D Deposit 705 Island View /Rec 512660 01/02/2019 500.00 Check Total: 500.00 Page 2 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 Usermban Checks by Date - Detail By Check Date Detail Check Amount Check No: 9313 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: CIN04 Cintas Corporation # 640 640274733 Uniform Services 11 -26 -2018 11/26/2018 4.40 640285561 Uniform Services 12 -17 -2018 12/17/2018 4.40 640285561 Uniform Services 12 -17 -2018 12/17/2018 12.18 640285561 Uniform Services 12 -17 -2018 12/17/2018 4.66 640278364 Uniform Services 12 -3 -2018 12/03/2018 11.02 640278364 Uniform Services 12 -3 -2018 12/03/2018 4.40 640278364 Uniform Services 12 -3 -2018 12/03/2018 12.18 640285561 Uniform Services 12 -17 -2018 12/17/2018 1192 640274733 Uniform Services 11 -26 -2018 11/26/2018 14.55 640281942 Uniform Services 12- 10.2018 12/10/2018 4.66 640281942 Uniform Services 12 -10 -2018 12/10/2018 12.18 640281942 Uniform Services 12- 10.2018 12/10/2018 4.40 640281942 Uniform Services 12 -10 -2018 12/10/2018 11.02 640274733 Uniform Services 11 -26 -2018 11/26/2018 53.96 640274733 Uniform Services 11-26-2018 1 1/26/2018 12.21 640274733 Uniform Services 11 -26 -2018 11/26/2018 7.31 640274733 Uniform Services 11 -26 -2018 11/26/2018 12.18 640285561 Uniform Services 12 -17 -2018 12/17/2018 1221 640285561 Uniform Services 12 -17 -2018 12/17/2018 53.32 640274733 Uniform Services 11 -26- 2018 /Credit 11/26/2018 6.18 640278364 Uniform Services 12 -3 -2018 12/03/2018 53.96 640281942 Uniform Services 12 -10 -2018 12/10/2018 1221 640281942 Uniform Services 12 -10 -2018 12/10/2018 53.32 640278364 Uniform Services 12 -3 -2018 12/03/2018 4.66 640278364 Uniform Services 12 -3 -2018 12/03/2018 12.21 Check Total: 392.44 Check No: 9314 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: CIT01 City Of Cypress 11894 FY 2018 -19 West -Comm JPA -3rd Intall 12/19/2018 208,124.11 Check Total: 208.124.11 Check No: 9315 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: COL36 CMY Dee 2018 Services Dec 2018 12/31/2018 1,431.20 Check Total: 1,431.20 Check No: 9316 Check Date: 01110/2019 Vendor: COU32 County of Orange SH51755 AF IS Services Dec 2018 12/17/2018 1,004.00 Check Total: 1.004.00 Check No: 9317 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: CUSOI Custom Glass 22853 CDBG Bathroom Access Grant- Sanrmon -361? 12/12/2018 865.00 22862 CDBG Bathroom Access Grant- Williams56C 12/15/2018 865.00 22843 CDBG Bathroom Access Grant - Ramirez -51 12/07/2018 865.00 Check Total: 2,595.00 Check No: 9318 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: DAN02 Brenda Danielson 54 Services Dec 2018 01/01/2019 2,19858 54 Services Dec 2018 01/01/2019 3,600.00 Check Total: 5,798.58 Check No: 9319 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: DAPOI Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak, LL 15298 Services Nov 2018 11/30/2018 1,456.80 Check Total: 1.456.80 Check No: 9320 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: DAVID David Barr W18326 Reimb. Restocking of Jail Commissary 01/03/2019 384.86 W 18325 Rcimb Equipment - ABC Grant Enforcement 12/19/2018 2,495.88 Check Total: 2,880.74 Page 3 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 User:mtran Checks by Date - Detail By Check Date Detail Page 4 Check Amount Check No: 9321 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: DEL03 Delta Dental of California BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 398.89 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 452.75 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 39.42 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 142.96 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 29.15 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 3,276.05 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 153.13 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 230.63 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 37.32 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 79.46 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/0112019 72.64 BR00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 2,466.95 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 72.03 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 56.75 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 91.69 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 41.34 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 341.92 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 29.15 BE00319034 Services .Ian 2019 01/01/2019 165.28 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 57.73 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 51.37 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 527.40 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 119.51 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 33.38 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 429.09 BE00319034 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 76.98 Check Total: 9,472.97 Check No: 9322 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: DEL04 Delta Dental Insurance Company BE00318743 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 45.72 13E00318743 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 43.44 BE00318743 Services Jail 2019 01/01/2019 13.09 BE00318743 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 3.27 BE00318743 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 26.35 BE00318743 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 47.49 BE00318743 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 4.34 BE00318743 Services Jail 2019 01/01/2019 10.86 BE00318743 Services .Ian 2019 01/01/2019 77.54 BE00318743 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 7.84 BE00319743 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 40.87 BF00318743 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 31276 BE00318743 Services Jail 2019 01/01/2019 217.20 BE00319743 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 26.19 Check Total: 881.96 Check No: 9323 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: DEL12 De Lage Landen Public Finance 61588703 Services l2- 16 -I8to I -15 -2019 12/03/2018 63.87 61867297 Services 12 -16 -18 to I -15 -2019 12/22/2018 119.33 61588678 Services 12 -16 -18 to 1 -15 -2019 12/03/2018 2,270.19 Check Total: 2.453.39 Check No: 9324 Check Date: 01110/2019 Vendor: DEV05 Devices For Life, LLC 2025 Adult AF,D pads - replacement 12/03/2018 242.44 2025 Medical Oversite for AED program 12/03/2018 3,340.25 Check Total: 3,582.69 Check No: 9325 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: DIR09 DIRECTV 3566631340 Services 12-27-18 to 1-26 -2019 12/28/2018 144.98 3568529940 Services 1 -I -19 to 1 -31 -19 01/02/2019 167.97 Check Total: 312.95 Page 4 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 Usermtran Checks by Date - Detail By Check Date Detail Check Amount Check No: 9326 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: EES01 EES Systems 10720 Security Services/ Testing 01/02/2019 173.66 Check Total: 173.66 Check No: 9327 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: FAR8 Farmers & Merchants Bank 67- 12501 -C Rent Jan 2019 01/01/2019 951.93 Check Total: 951.93 Check No: 9328 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: FED01 Fed EX 6 -391 -7434 Shipping Services 12/07/2018 30.11 6- 399 -2891 Shipping Charges 12/14/2018 62.11 Check Total: 92.22 Check No: 9329 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: FLA03 Flatiron Electric Group Inc. 5388 -003 Traffic Mgmt Center- Apr -Jun 2018 10/26/2018 12,126.00 Check Total: 12,126.00 Check No: 9330 Cheek Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: GOL23 Golden Touch Cleaning Inc. 65858 December 2018 Maint- Lifeguard /Pier 12/31/2018 4,770.00 65857 December 2018 Maint- City I lull/ Yard/PD 12/31/2018 7,363.00 65859 December 2018 Tag Jobs 12/31/2018 270.00 Check Total: 12,403.00 Check No: 9331 Cheek Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: GRA08 Grainger 9024109077 Pipe wrenches, brown paper towels, manho 12/06/2018 341.56 Check Tota 1: 341.56 Check No: 9332 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: GSWC Golden State Water Company 2311300000 Services 10 -23 to 12 -21 -2018 12/26/2018 472.41 Check Total: 472.41 Check No: 9333 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: GTT GTT Communications, Inc. INV 1701613 Services Feb 2019 01/01/2019 111.89 Check Total: 111.89 Check No: 9334 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: HOLMA Holman Family Counseling Inc. INV1022725 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 98.79 Check Total: 98.79 Check No: 9335 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: HOM01 Home Depot Credit Services 6133894 Succulent/ Cactus 12/18/2018 93.89 110647 -8855 50 Gal Wave Cut Gst 12/18/2018 256.29 Check Total: 350.18 Check No: 9336 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: HUNT I John L. Hunter & Associates, Inc. SealBeachN NPDBS Services Oct 2018 12/2012018 1,242.50 SealBeachN NPDES Services Oct 2018 12/20/2018 6,400.00 Check Tota 1: 7.642.50 Check No: 9337 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: ICM03 ICMA W18540 RHSA -Robin Roberts Plan# 03694/803694 01/07/2019 53.39 W18540 RI ISA -Robin Roberts Plan# 03694/803694 01/07/2019 427.15 W18540 RI1SA -Robin Roberts Plan# 03694/803694 01/07/2019 53.39 Check Total: 533.93 Check No: 9338 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: INGRAM Jill Ingram W20075 Wellness Program 01/03/2019 595.00 W20075 Wellness Program 01/03/2019 127.50 W20075 Wellness Program 01/03/2019 127.50 Check Total: 850.00 Page 5 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Usermtran Checks by Date - Detail By Check Date Check No: 9339 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Check No: Vendor: INTO Intoximeters, Inc. MIW01 Miwall Corporation 615396 1000) Mouthpiece: ASIV or ECAR COnslr 12/19/2018 Check No: 9340 Check Date: 01/10/2019 MOF01 Moffatt & Nichol Eng. Vendor: LON25 Long Beach BMW Check No: 182235 tire 12/18/2018 Check No: 9341 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Check No: Vendor: MAT13 Matrix Design Group, Inc. MUN02 Municipal Water District of Or 24146 Prepartion of Joint Land Use Study 10/10/2018 24390 Prepartion of Joint Land Use Study 11/07/2018 Check No: 9342 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: MCI01 MCI Comm Services 7N484178/1 Services Jan 2019 12/1912018 Check No: 9343 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: MCM03 Memaster -Carr 81245674 Three (3) each, hand dryers for pier res 12/10/2018 Check No: 9344 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: MEE03 John S. Meek Co., Inc. 3 Pier Deck Utility Upgrade Prof A Pier De 12/06/2018 3 Pier Deck Utility Upgrade Prof V Pier De 12/06/2018 3 Pier Deck Utility Upgrade Prof \ Pier De 12/06/2018 3 Pier Deck Utility Upgrade Prof A Pier De 12/06/2018 3 Pier Deck Utility Upgrade Proj \ Pier De 12/06/2018 3 Pier Deck Utility Upgrade Proj \ Pier De 12/06/2018 Check No: 9345 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: MET13 Metropolitan Telecom ran ications 0100518281 Services 1 -8 to 2 -7 -2019 0100518281 Services 1 -8 to 2 -7 -2019 0100518281 Services 1 -8 to 2 -7 -2019 0100518281 Services 1 -8 to 2 -7 -2019 0100518281 Services 1 -8 to 2 -7 -2019 0100518281 Services 1 -8 to 2 -7 -2019 0100518281 Services 1 -8 to 2 -7 -2019 Check No: 9346 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: MFf01 Mitchell l 3995367 Prodemand Only Government Sub Check No: 9347 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: MIW01 Miwall Corporation 7349 MGT 300 BLK HPFB 115gr 50 ammo Check No: 9348 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: MOF01 Moffatt & Nichol Eng. 738426 Pier Deck Utility Upgrade 10281ol 1 -24 -18 Check No: 9349 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: MOR02 Morrison Tire Inc. 263907 Tire Check No: 9350 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: MUN02 Municipal Water District of Or 16151 Water Loss Control Technician Assistance 9717 Water Deliveries Nov 2018 01/08/2019 01/08/2019 01/08/2019 01/08/2019 01/08/2019 01/08/2019 01/08/2019 11/29/2018 11/20/2018 12/12/2018 12/17/2018 12/20/2018 12/13/2018 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 Detail Check Amount 285.10 285.10 222.76 222.76 45.276.00 5,312.00 50.588.00 36.86 36.86 896.59 896.59 61,434.72 3,071.73 61,434.72 3,071.73 286,695.34 14.334.78 389,086.54 229.29 617.27 827.79 225.95 152.29 297.27 746.03 3.095.89 1,728.00 1.728.00 1,059.40 1,059.40 4,874.00 4,874.00 48.25 48.25 39,872.00 14.038.43 53.910.43 Page 6 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 User:mtran Checks by Date - Detail By Check Date Detail Check Amount Check No: 9351 Check Date: 01/1012019 Vendor: NAT36 National Training Concepts W18309 Reg Firearms /Tactical - Gonshak 11/01/2018 274.00 Check Total: 274.00 Check No: 9352 Check Date: 01/1012019 Vendor: NU01 NU Kate 12.13.18 CDBG Bathroom Access Grant- Walker 5D 12/13/2018 1,610.00 11.27.18 CDBG Bathroom Access Grant- l- larrison 17G 11/27/2018 1,610.00 11.26. 18 CDBG Bathroom Access Grant - McLennan I 11/26/2018 1,610.00 10.10.18 CDBG Bathroom Access Grant - Sammon 36E 10/10/2018 1,610.00 12.03.18 CDBG Bathroom Access Grant - Ramirez 51 12/03/2018 1,610.00 12.10.18 CDBG Bathroom Access Grant - Williams 56C 12/10/2018 1,610.00 12.11.18 CDBG Bathroom Access Grant- Wells 50G 12/11/2018 1,610.00 Check Total: 11,270.00 Check No: 9353 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agen W 18466 Backflow Prevention Recert-D Escobedo 01/03/2019 288.00 Check Total: 288.00 Check No: 9354 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: OFF05 Office Depot, Inc. 2425868920 letflash 12/17/2018 114.00 2470692850 Wall Signs 12/18/2018 25.84 2425870990 Axiom USB Drive 12/06/2018 18.94 2470671970 Toner 12/14/2018 128.57 Check Total: 287.35 Check No: 9355 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: OFFI I Office Solutions Business Prod 1- 01493764 Desk Pad 12/14/2018 98.59 1- 01493643 Toners 12/14/2018 452.53 1- 01494630 Paper/ Batteries/ Binder Clips 12/17/2018 160.18 PCR- 180862 Credit- Replacement Pad 12/14/2018 6.99 1- 01495430 Soda 12/18/2018 48.18 1- 01495812 Water 12/19/2018 19.18 1- 01495304 Tape/ Towels/ Keurig 12/18/2018 83.51 1- 01495304 Tape/ Towels/ Keurig 12/18/2018 178.43 1- 01494633 Coffee 12/17/2018 21.36 Check Total: 1,054.97 Check No: 9356 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: ONP05 On Point Exterminating Inc 147 Services 12 -14- 2018 / Edison Park 12/14/2018 150.00 Check Total: 150.00 Check No: 9357 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: PAC66 Pacific Rini Mechanical SRV096953 Repair Unit at City Hall 11/30/2018 1,451.23 SRV096954 Repair Unit at Old City Hall 11/30/2018 786.76 Check Total: 2.237.99 Check No: 9358 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: PH002 Phoenix Group 1120181000 Services Nov 2018 12/14/2018 1,054.40 Check Total: 1,054.40 Check No: 9359 Check Dale: 01/10/2019 Vendor: PITT Cheryl Pitt 25 Detention Center Nurse 12 -2 to 12 -15 -18 12/20/2018 180.00 24 Detention Center Nurse II- 18to12 -1 -18 12/20/2018 90.00 Cheek Total: 270.00 Check No: 9360 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: PLA15 PlaceWorks, Inc. 67341 Local Haz Mitigation PlanGrant- Nov 2018 11/30/2018 1.140.00 Check Total: 1.140.00 Page 7 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable User:mtran Checks by Date - Detail 13y Check Date Check No: 9361 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: PR117 The Printery, Inc. 124248 Building Correction Notice Books 12/13/2018 Check No: 9362 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: PUN The Pun Group LLP 111909 Audit Services Year End 2018 Check No: 9363 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: REA03 Ready Refresh by Nestle 18L0027940 Services I 1 -15 to 12 -14 -I8 Check No: 9364 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: RICO2 Richards Watson & Gershon 219690 Services Oct 2018 219958 Monthly Retainer Dec 2018 219682 Services Oct 2018 219683 Services Oct 2018 219684 Services Oct 2018 219685 Services Oct 2018 219686 Services Oct 2018 219687 Services Oct 2018 219688 Services Oct 2018 219689 Services Oct 2018 Check No: 9365 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: RKA RKA Consulting Group 28273 City enginnering services - Nov 2018 Check No: 9366 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: S &J01 S & J Supply Co S100125830 One (1) each, 12" clow flap valve w/ bro Check No: 9367 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: SCE01 Southern Calif. Edison 2024047656 Services 12 -1 -18 to 1 -1 -2019 2261529358 Services 12 -3 -18 to 1 -3 -2019 2294542014 Services 12 -3 -18 to 1 -3 -2019 2265022343 Services 12 -3 -18 to 1 -3 -2019 2371357815 Services I I -29 to 12 -31 -2018 2354785172 Services I I -30 -18 to 1 -2 -2019 2218943843 Services I1 -30 -18 to 1 -2 -2019 2024050163 Services 11- 29 -18to 12 -31 -2018 Check No: 9368 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: SEA11 Seal Beach Animal Care Center 12.20.2018 Services Jan- Mar 2019 2019 Emergency Treatment 2019 Check No: 9369 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: SIE09 Siemens Industry, Inc. 5610147253 Traffic Signal Maint. Nov 2018 5620018836 Traffic Response Calls Out -Nov 2018 Check No: 9370 Check Date: 01110/2019 Vendor: SIR07 Sirchie Acquisition Company, L 0377745 -IN (3) K4B46C : Kapak Polyester Pouch 4x6 ( Check No: 9371 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: SOCO8 So. California Gas Co. 1483098500 Services 10 -IS to 12 -19 -2018 12/21/2018 12/17/2018 11/26/2018 12/20/2018 11/26/2018 11/26/2018 11/26/2018 11/26/2018 11/26/2018 11/26/2018 11/26/2018 11/26/2018 12/12/2018 12/20/2018 01/03/2018 01/04/2019 01/04/2019 01/04/2019 01/04/2019 01/03/2019 01/03/2019 01/02/2019 12/20/2018 12/20/2018 12/11/2018 12/11/2018 12/18/2018 12/31/2018 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 Detail Check Amount 507.36 507.36 9,860.00 9,860.00 154.54 154.54 186.00 20,500.00 69.98 384.21 2,108.00 837.00 1,116.00 14,581.20 554.73 3.472.94 43,810.06 4.410.00 4,410.00 926.65 926.65 32.43 34.93 226.95 266.92 28.33 51.41 8285 73.66 802.48 2,250.00 1,000.00 3,250.00 1,382.25 763.50 2.145.75 214.80 214.80 362.45 Page 8 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 User:mtran Checks by Date - Detail By Check Date Detail Check Amount Check Total: 362.45 Check No: 9372 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: SOCI I So Cal Land Maintenance Inc. 7925 Services Nov 2018 12/01/2018 4,402.31 7925 Services Nov 2018 12/01/2018 1,000.00 Check Total: 51402.31 Check No: 9373 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: SOU19 South Coast Supply 88451813 -0 materials for pedestal for council membe 12/19/2018 96.24 Check Total: 96.24 Check No: 9374 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: SOU71 Southcoast Shortload 121718830 Ruch 3000 12/17/2018 301.70 Check Total: 301.70 Check No: 9375 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: SPR05 SPRINT 497605869- Services I1 -17 to 12 -16 -2018 12/20/2018 55.15 497605869- Services I 1 -17 to 12 -16 -2018 12/20/2018 50.68 497605869- Services ll -17 to 12 -16 -2018 12/20/2018 50.37 Check Total: 156.20 Check No: 9376 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: STA01 Standard Insurance Co. Rb 6430520002 Services Jan 2018 12/17/2018 15.62 Check Total: 15.62 Check No: 9377 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: STA53 Standard Insurance Company 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 67.50 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 2.13 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 44.67 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 276.95 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 100.25 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 12.81 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 362.17 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 19.58 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 19.58 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 5.84 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 6.05 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 Ot/0112019 5.34 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 29.79 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 63.41 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 10.60 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 7.79 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 8.74 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 6.00 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 4.98 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 3.55 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 15.98 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 327.53 6430520001 Services.lan2019 01/01/2019 3.85 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 296.33 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 42.21 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 500.12 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 2.13 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 9.56 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 56.01 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 49.71 6430520003 Services .Ian 2019 01/01/2019 50.63 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 261.45 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 135.00 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 1.894.88 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 311.26 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 348.51 Page 9 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 User:mtran Checks by Date - Detail By Check Date Detail Check Amount 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 159.21 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 112.92 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 136.82 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 Ot /0112019 29.53 6430520003 Services .Ian 2019 01/01/2019 84.36 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 117.33 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 32.04 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 43.61 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 48.66 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 68.05 6430520003 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 6306 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01101/2019 21.19 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 51.22 6430520001 Services .Ian 2019 01/01/2019 17.93 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 11.95 6430520001 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 22.40 Check Total: 6,383.17 Check No: 9378 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: STA65 Statewide Traffic Safety and S 02016509 SB Comprehensive Park Mgmt. \ SB Compreh 12/13/2018 543.06 Check Total: 543.06 Check No: 9379 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: SUR03 Surfside Colony Ltd 9238 Clean/ Maintain Beach- Nov 2018 12/03/2018 3,227.82 Check Total: 3,227.82 Check No: 9380 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: THO17 Thomson Reuters- -West 6125636102 15) 2019 California Penal Code books 12/15/2018 1,059.45 Check Total: 1,059.45 Check No: 9381 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: TIM04 Time Warner Cable LLC 0021812122 Services 1 -6 to 2 -5 -2019 12/26/2018 94.68 0245858122 Services 1 -5- to 2 -4 -2019 12/26/2018 1,297.98 0260410010 Services 1 -10 to 2 -9 -2019 01/01/2019 98.64 0213294010 Services 1-10 to 2 -9 -2019 01/01/2019 629.99 Check Total: 2,121.29 Check No: 9382 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: TUR10 Turtle & Hughes, Inc. 3221635 -00 Smooth LED Trim 11/26/2018 228.26 3229784 -00 38 LED 13 Watt 11/26/2018 81.14 3220005 -00 4 Tierincan 11/26/2018 71.83 Check Total: 381.23 Check No: 9383 Check Date: 01/10/20[9 Vendor: UN121 United Rentals Northwest, Inc. 164456867- Vibrator Motor 211P Electric 12/19/2018 80.56 Check Total: 80.56 Check No: 9384 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: USA04 USA Bluebook 763533 Two (2) each, Kidde Fire Extinguisher 10 12/17/2018 176.60 763648 Four (4) each, 10" x 14" Notice sign: Fm 12/17/2018 91.52 763533 Five (5) each, 10" x 14" DANGER (lammabl 12/17/2018 65.46 Check Total: 333.58 Check No: 9385 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: VER18 Verizon Wireless 9820939841 Services 11 -24 to 12 -23 -2018 12/23/2018 1,185.38 9820939841 Services I ll -24 to 12 -23 -2018 12/23/2018 76.02 9820939841 Services 11 -24 to 12 -23 -2018 12/23/2018 38.01 9820939841 Services 11 -24 to 12 -23 -2018 12/23/2018 46.71 Check Total: 1346.12 Check No: 9386 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: VSP Vision Service Plan - (CA) 62270001/1 Services .Ian 2019 12/20/2018 5.71 Page 10 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 Useemtran Cheeks by Date - Detail By Check Date Detail Check Amount 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 6.92 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 12.20 62270001/1 Services .Ian 2019 12/20/2018 9.15 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 32.96 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 27.44 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 457.02 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 65.52 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 91.57 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 38.08 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 31.53 62270001/1 Services .Jan 2019 12/20/2018 47.29 62270003/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 48.72 62270002/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 379.26 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 83.66 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 5.71 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 7.15 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 81.18 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 7.16 62270001/1 Services .Ian 2019 12/20/2018 56.38 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 7.31 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 11.28 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 18.34 62270001/1 Services.lan 2019 12/20/2018 8.37 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 16.53 6227000t/I Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 15.62 62270001/1 Services Jan 2019 12/20/2018 15.39 Check Total: 1,587.45 Check No: 9387 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: VVM V & V Manufacturing 47592 Badge Repairs 12/17/2018 60.29 Check Total: 60.29 Check No: 9388 Check Date: 014012019 Vendor: WAR09 W. A. Rasic Construction Compa 340867 Emergency Water Main Line Repair 09/17/2018 9,726.10 Check Total: 9.726.10 Check No: 9389 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: WES15 West -lite Supply Co Inc 62118C Six (6) each, Philips I I W tennis center 12/18/2018 23.35 62118C Ten (10) each, mini flood lights for ten 12/18/2018 94.14 62038C Two (2) boxes, Sylvania 'f8 4' flourescen 12/11/2018 157.32 Check Total: 274.81 Check No: 9390 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: WES52 Western Transit system 22971 Services Nov 2018 -Route 46 Shopping Shut 12/11/2018 1.656.00 2.2970 Services Nov 2018 -Route 45 Dial A Ride 12/11/2018 3,415.50 2.2969 Services Nov 2018-Route 44 Senior Center 12/11/2018 7,866.00 Check Total: 12,937.50 Check No: 9391 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: WES74 Westberg - White, Inc. 14023 -08 New Swimming Pool \ New Swimming Pool 12/19/2018 7,965.00 Check Total: 7,965.00 Check No: 9392 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: wes77 West Marine Products Inc. / We 006365 CnrreSIOn Lobel Bung SeU Cleaner 12/18/2018 37.73 Check Total: 37.73 Check No: 9393 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: WGL01 W.C. Zimmerman Engineer. 18 -11 -590 On call traffic engineering Ser. Nov2018 12/08/2018 5,450.00 18 -11 -591 Services Nov 2018 12/08/2018 6.410.00 Check Total: 11.860.00 Page I 1 City of Seat Beach Accounts Payable Usermtran Checks by Date - Detail By Check Date Check No: 9394 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: WH113 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 1470764 Services Nov 2018 11/30/2018 Check Total: Check No: 9395 Check Date: 01/10/2019 Vendor: WIL49 Willard Marine Inc 19521 -007 33' Rescue boat- Lifeguard 12/18/2018 19521 -007 Up Pitting and Supplies 12/18/2018 Check No: 9396 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: AME84 Americas Printer.com 1152408 Business Cards/ Moore- Sustarsie 12/28/2018 Check No: 9397 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: AND23 Anderson Penna Partners, Inc. 6837 Inspection & Management 10 -26 -18 11/02/2018 6946 Inspection dr. Management 11 -30 -18 12/14/2018 6828 Inspection do Management 9 -28 -18 10/29/2018 Check No: 9398 Check Date: 0111712019 Vendor: ARA05 Aramark Uniform Services 533790696 Scraper Mat 11/15/2018 533790696 Scraper Mat 11/15/2018 Check No: 9399 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: ASCE03 ASCE /membership W18467 2019 Membership Renewal - D Spitz 01/08/2019 Check No: 9400 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: AT04 AT&T 3106575157 Services Jan 2019 01/01/2019 Check No: 9401 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: ATH01 A- Throne 0000559625 Services 1 -4 to 1 -31 -2019 04/01/2019 0000559624 Services 1 -4 to 1 -31 -2019 01/04/2019 Check No: 9402 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: AWA01 Awards & Trophies 330 Gavel Plaque 12/10/2018 Check No: 9403 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: BAT06 Battery Systems Inc 4736162 Batteries 12/26/2018 Check No: 9404 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: BAY08 Bay Hardware 341533 Gloves/ Twist Rope/ Tape 12/20/2018 341560 Painters Tape 12/21/2018 341557 Combo Brass Lock 12/21/2018 341466 Lampholder/ Lamp Socket 12/17/2018 341539 Power Plow Nozzle/ Painters Tape 12/20/2018 341489 Plywood/ Lumber 12/18/2018 341514 Duct Tape t2/19/2018 341540 Metal Polish/ Shine 12/20/2018 340914 Plastic Anchor/ Masonry Bit 11/14/2018 341524 Ice Spray Detailer 12/19/2018 341601 Screws / Nuts / Anchors / Washers 12/24/2018 341496 Weatherproof Tamper GPCI /Outlet 12/18/2018 Check Total: Date Totals: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Printed: 01/22/2019 1029 Detail Check Amount 9,957.50 9,957.50 43,541.21 45,085.79 88,627.00 1,044,609.02 49.96 49.96 13,909.50 23,625.50 13,835.50 51,370.50 29.56 29.57 59.13 300.00 300.00 358.58 358.58 371.48 336.17 707.65 88.36 88.36 198.62 198.62 46.33 9.87 17.44 11.30 43.75 130.97 11.73 18.30 41.89 32.29 6.23 49.02 Page 12 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable User:mtran Checks by Date - Detail By Cheek Date Check Total: Check No: 9405 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: BEN11 TASC - Client Invoice IN1435294 ACA Reporting Jan 20191 Renewal 2019 01/01/2019 Check Total: Check No: 9406 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: BR102 Briggeman Disposal W18555 Refuse Contract Billing Dec 2019 Check No: 9407 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: BR034 Broadcast Music Inc 9851732 Services 2019 Check No: 9408 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: CIN04 Cintas Corporation # 640 640289167 Uniform Services 12 -24 -I8 640289167 Uniform Services 12 -24 -18 640289167 Uniform Services 12 -24 -18 640289167 Uniform Services 12 -24 -18 640289167 Uniforn Services 12 -24 -18 640289167 Uniform Services 12 -24 -18 Check No: 9409 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: CLA22 Clark Pest Control of Stockton 2495284 Services 10 -8 -18 to 12 -31 -I8 Check No: 9410 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: COL34 Colorado Bankers Life 455668 Services 12 -4 to 12 -18 -2018 Check No: 9411 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: COM46 Commercial Aquatic Services 1180877 Chemicals Delivered 12 -21 -I8 Check No: 9412 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: CUS01 Custom Glass 22868 CDBG Bathroom Access Grant - Walker 5D 22867 CDBG Bathroom Access Grant -Wells 50G Check No: 9413 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: CWEA02 CWEA 0002801741 2019 Membership Dues - T Tobin Check No: 9414 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: CYPRESS Cypress Chamber of Commerce 182 2019 State of the City Lunch /3 Attendees Check No: 9415 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: FER12 Ferguson Enterprises Inc 6817564 Water Filter Cart Check No: 9416 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: FOR09 Robin Forte- Lincke W18554 TV Origination Services Payment # 14 Check No: 941[7 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: FRO02 Frontier Communications 2130334822 Services 1 -4 to 2 -3 -2019 2091880920 Services 1 -4 to 2 -3 -2019 7148911483 Services 1 -7 to 2 -6 -2019 2091885608 Services 1 -4 to 2 -3 -2019 01/14/2019 01/01/2019 12/24/2018 12/24/2018 12/24/2018 12/24/2018 12/24/2018 12/24/2018 01/08/2019 01/01/2019 12/24/2018 12/18/2018 12/18/2018 12/04/2018 01/10/2019 12/18/2018 01/14/2019 01/01/2019 01/04/2019 01/07/2019 01/04/2019 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 Detail Check Amount 419.12 1,785.52 1,785.52 55,145.61 55,145.61 358.00 358.00 4.66 11.02 53.32 12.21 4.40 12.18 97.79 635.00 635.00 20.00 20.00 197.51 197.51 865.00 865.00 1 J30.00 188.00 188.00 120.00 120.00 217.60 217.60 1,453.50 1,453.50 443.54 812.30 47.12 873.89 Page 13 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 Usematran Checks by Date - Detail By Cheek Date Detail 11/30/2018 38779 Geotech Review 1410 Crestview (Nov 2018 t 1130120t9 Check Amount 5625984514 Services - 10to2 -9 -2019 01/10/2019 Geotech Review 216 2nd Street/Nov 2018 111.55 2091880920 Services 1 -4 to 2 -3 -2019 01/04/2019 Vendor: 53.98 2091880920 Services 1 -4 to 2 -3 -2019 01/04/2019 01/0412019 229.82 2091880920 Services 1-4 to 2 -3 -2019 01/04/2019 LOS49 Los Alamitos Unified School Di 45.82 5625962778 Services - 2to2 -1 -2019 01/02/2019 Check No: 1.31 5625988624 Services 1 -10 to 2 -9 -2019 01/10/2019 208.62 2091880920 Services 1 -4 to 2 -3 -2019 01/04/2019 9428 Check Date: 01/17/2019 320.78 Vendor: MMASC MMASC Check Total: 3.148.73 Check No: 9418 Check Date: 01/17/2019 9429 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: Vendor: GRA30 Graphic Controls Acquisition C 5401716061 401b bags of pure & natural salt for ons 12/05/2018 NK0581 Six (6) each, Marking pens for chart rec 12/18/2018 348.92 NK0581 Six (6) each, Marking pens for chart rec 12/18/2018 348.92 Check Total: 697.84 Check No: 9419 Check Date: 01117/2019 Vendor: GTT GTT Communications, Inc. INV] 709255 Services 12 -1 -18 to 1 -31 -2019 01/01/2019 1,014.56 INV1708480 Services 12 -1 -18 to 1 -31 -2019 01/01/2019 929.62 Check Total: 1,944.18 Check No: 9420 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: JCL01 JCL Traffic Services 98290 Services for Christmas Parade 12/10/2018 5,208.28 Check Total: 5.208.28 Check No: 9421 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: JENKINS3 Jeffrey Dale Jenkins 1198 Replace chlorine pump head on 41 pump an 11/30/2018 687.00 Check Total: 687.00 Check No: 9422 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: JKE01 J K Electronics 31781 NTE - Bell 12/05/2018 53.24 Check Total: 53.24 Check No: 9423 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: JOBOI Jobs Available Inc. 1901021 Display Ad 12 -24 -18 Deputy Dir PW 12/24/2018 351.00 Check Total: 351.00 Check No: 9424 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: KLING01 Kling Consulting Group Inc. 38776 Geotech Review- Ocean /Marina Nov 2018 11/30/2018 38779 Geotech Review 1410 Crestview (Nov 2018 t 1130120t9 38777 Geotech Review 220 6th StreeUNov2018 11/30/2018 38778 Geotech Review 216 2nd Street/Nov 2018 11/30/2018 Check No: 9425 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: KUS02 Cary I. Kusunoki 1525 1- tearing Jan 2019 01/0412019 Check No: 9426 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: LOS49 Los Alamitos Unified School Di W20557 McGaugh Auditorium Rental June 4 2019 01/10/2019 Check No: 9427 Check Date: 01117/2019 Vendor: M &M05 M & M Surfing 167061 -04 Instructor Pay 12 -24 to 12 -30 -2018 01/08/2019 Check No: 9428 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: MMASC MMASC 12.03.2018 Membership Renewal - D Fait 12/03/2018 Check No: 9429 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: MOR34 Morton Salt, Inc. 5401716061 401b bags of pure & natural salt for ons 12/05/2018 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 418.75 800.00 800.00 800.00 2.818.75 110.00 1 10.00 650.50 650.50 196.00 196.00 85.00 85.00 4,840.92 4.840.92 Page 14 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 User:mtran Checks by Date - Detail By Check Date Detail Check Amount Check No: 9430 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: NAPOI Napa Auto Parts 423309 Cleaner 11/15/2018 27.17 4126 -42684 Rad Overflow Rep Kit 12/20/2018 24.46 419991 Antfreeze/ GaskcUfhermostat 10/15/2018 36.31 Check Total: 87.94 Check No: 9431 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: OCWD Orange County Water Dist. 95- 01 -1 -D Services ? -1 to 12- 31- 18/95209012 01/03/2019 12292.66 95- 02 -1 -F Services ? -1 to 12- 31- 18/TLWSBBC 01/03/2019 361,570.44 87- 02 -03 -M Services 7 -1 to 12- 31- 18/M144301410 01/03/2019 201,432.00 Check Total: 580,295.10 Check No: 9432 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: OFFI I Office Solutions Business Prod 1- 01497852 Polish/ Cleaner/ Detergent 12/21/2018 143.91 Check Total: 143.91 Check Not 9433 Check Date: 01117120/9 Vendor: PAR19 Parkeon Inc. 1 V 107467 SB Comprehensive Park Mgmt.- Dec 2018 12/20/2018 290.93 Check Total: 290.93 Check No: 9434 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: PLUOI Plug & Pay Technologies, Inc. 191529031 Services Dec 2018 01/02/2019 15.00 Check Total: 15.00 Check No: 9435 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: R0007 Roofing Standards W18509 C & D Deposit 1360 Weeburn Rec #519233 01/09/2019 500.00 Check Total: 500.00 Check No: 9436 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: ROS27 Rossmoor Car Wash Nov 2018 Services Nov 2018 01/09/2019 713.00 Check Total: 713.00 Check No: 9437 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: S &J01 S & J Supply Co 5100125365 Tools for water utility trucks 12/07/2018 840.45 Check Total: 840.45 Check No: 9438 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: SCE01 Southern Calif. Edison 2214337602 Services 12 -12 -18 to 1 -11 -2019 01112/2019 26.27 2332131176 Services 12 -12 -18 to 1 -11 -2019 01/12/2019 3,241.22 2361696818 Services 12 -11 -18 to I -10 -19 01/11/2019 284.98 2353878846 Services 12 -11 -18 to I -10 -19 01/11/2019 146.38 2024028599 Services 12 -10 -18 to 1-9 -19 01/10/2019 1.400.97 2282924729 Services 12 -1 -18 to 1 -I -19 01/08120t9 39.32 2212368641 Services 12 -1 -18 to I -I -19 01/08/2019 14,010.10 2289382129 Services 12 -4 -18 to 1 -4 -19 01/08/2019 51.41 2311180533 Services 12 -12 -18 to 1 -11 -2019 01/12/2019 1,986.38 Check Total: 21,187.03 Check No: 9439 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: SCE06 Southern California Edison 7590180773 15 1st St Bldg Renovate Prej \ Meter 10/23/2018 4,243.53 Check Total: 4,243.53 Check No: 9440 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: SELIO Selman Chevrolet 191040 Tahoe specified and bidded by Police 01/11/2019 38,176.65 Check Total: 38.176.65 Check No: 9441 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: SOCI I So Cal Land Maintenance Inc. 7999 Services Dec 2018 12/31/2018 20,134.38 7999 Services Dec 2018 12/31/2018 1.090.93 7999 Services Dec 2018 12/31/2018 7,700.56 Page 15 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 Usecmtran Checks by Date - Detail By Check Date Detail Check Amount 7999 Services Dec 2018 12/31/2018 1,856.65 7999 Services Dec 2018 12/31/2018 31218.99 7999 Services Dec 2018 12/31/2018 631.32 7999 Services Dec 2018 12/31/2018 229.90 7999 Services Dec 2018 12/31/2018 1,088.16 7999 Services Dec 2018 12/31/2018 3,573.27 Check Total: 39.524.16 Check No: 9442 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: STA03 State Wtr Res Cntrl Board LW- 1020539 Water System Fees7- 1- 19 to6 -30 -19 12/1912018 20,858.00 Check Total: 20,858.00 Check No: 9443 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: TIM04 Time Warner Cable LLC 0010799010 Services 1 -18 to 2 -17 -2019 01/09/2019 97.94 0270666010 Services 1-19 tot -I8 -2019 01/09/2019 100.06 Check Total: 198.00 Check No: 9444 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: TURIO Turtle & Hughes, Inc. 3261951 -00 Sy1. Bulbs 12/11/2018 34.75 3268433 -00 8' LED Strip Light 12/19/2018 229.59 3270671 -00 Hubbell 4000 Series Lens 12/20/2018 128.00 3263528 -00 Safety Glasses / Electrical Tape 12/11/2018 30.39 Check Total: 422.73 Check No: 9445 Check Date: 01117/2019 Vendor: USCO2 USC Foundation Office 16206 Water Purveyor Membership -D Escobedo 12/18/2018 270.00 Check Total: 270.00 Check No: 9446 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: USO04 US Postmaster W20560 Brochure Postage Spring 2019/ #70001 01/1012019 1,350.00 Check Total: 1.350.00 Check No: 9447 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: VOY02 US Bank Voyager Fleet System 8690175098 Fuel 11 -25 to 12 -24 -2018 12/24/2018 14,609.59 Check Total: 14,609.59 Check No: 9448 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: VVM V & V Manufacturing 47598 Police Badge 12/18/2018 135.66 Check Total: 135.66 Check No: 9449 Check Date: 01/17/2019 Vendor: ZELDOW William Z,eldow W 18248 Refund - Class Cancelled 01/14/2019 99.00 Check Total: 99.00 Date Totals: 860.252.57 Check No: 9450 Check Date: 01/18/2019 Vendor: cea City Fmployees Associates PR Batch 2 1 2019 SBMMA Dues - CEA 01/16/2019 46.15 Check Total: 46.15 Check No: 9451 Check Date: 01/18/2019 Vendor: CIT48 SBSPA PR Batch 2 1 2019 SBSPA Dues (CEA) 01/16/2019 184.64 Check Total: 184.64 Check No: 9452 Check Date: 01/18/2019 Vendor: ICMA Vantagepoint Transfer Agents 302409 PR Batch 2 1 2019 457 City Contribution 01/16/2019 1,373.85 PR Batch 2 1 2019 457 City Contribution 01/16/2019 2,780.06 PR Batch 2 1 2019 457 Plan Employee Cont 01/1612019 18,808.50 Check Total: 22,962.41 Page 16 City of Seal Beach Accounts Payable Printed: 01/22/2019 10:29 User:mtrun Checks by Date - Detail By Check Date Detail Check No: 9453 Check Date: 01/18/2019 Vendor: OCE01 O.C. E.A. PR Batch 2 1 2019 OCEA Dues 01/1612019 Check No: 9454 Check Date: 01/18/2019 Vendor: OCSDI Orange County Sherifrs Depart PR Batch 2 1 2019 Case No 18WCSCO1899 01/16/2019 Check No: 9455 Check Date: 01/18/2019 Vendor: PMA Seal Beach Police Management Association PR Batch 2 1 2019 PMA Dues 01/16/2019 Check No: 9456 Check Date: 01118/2019 Vendor: POA01 Seal Beach Police Officers Assoc PR Batch 2 1 2019 POA Dues 01/16/2019 Check No: 9457 Check Date: 01/18/2019 Vendor: SBMSMA SBMSMA PR Batch 2 1 2019 S13MSMA Dues 01/16/2019 Check No: 9458 Check Date: 01/18/2019 Vendor: USB US Bank Pars 6746022400 PR Batch 2 1 2019 PARS Employee Portion 01/16/2019 PR Batch 2 1 2019 PARS Employer Portion 01/16/2019 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Date Totals: Report Total: Check Amount 255.32 255.32 25.01 25.01 360.00 360.00 1,150.00 1,150.00 34.62 34.62 1,908.74 400.22 2,308.96 27.327.11 1,959,198.22 Pagc 17 CO62R• Ua W wm E cEN J Q M W 1 H LLO U E a` y n Co aMO] N Q vS V O a y O h j N (OIQ r a U Q S DC N O Cu: Q OyY NT u c O c z n nin N d m m nnNO M 4 mvn rn o o M O ro n m C c in mr f m o ZMoo c M a O O Vl N O N 1 N m O N h N Y U Z m F vU T vS V O a 0 j v a U Q S DC N O N Q OyY NT u cc N d m U Z Q c in mr rn° d c d « d d N C Y O d N Y U N> N L_. .L_. S N L VI d o o w o 3 U N LL LL V N C C Nj w N N0 m F vU T U vS V 0 a E a n C 3 L y c E $ nx v L 9 U d J r a R 0 u OCl) d Y0aR 2 y U O W m R NJ W N NU) > 0 F R U a` Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y JC Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R@ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 s? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz NLL g NLL g Y @C YC @ 0 YC @ 0 YC @ ` Y 0 Y 0 Y `Y `Y 0 Y 0 Y `Y Y 0 Y `Y `Y 0 YC 0 YC 0 C 0 C `@ 0 @ 0 YC 0 YC `YC `YC 0 YC 0 YC 0 YC 0 YC 0 YC 0 YC `YC o YC `YC o YC ` O o O O o o 0 Y Y Y O O O o YO C C C c c C c C C C c c @R @ @ @ @RRR m R @ @ R @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@c mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmNmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm M Q (O c0 N O M Q Q (O (O N aD aD O N N N N N (O A r W O N r M t0 N (O (D (O O Z Z O th V N N •- N Q" M M r Q (O Ul a0 eD O (O of Q t0 M M O W a7 M O Q! O> O) r O4OOMAL6OJNMMMV (p M m N (p 6 H N N (O M (O tD M N A Q N (O N N M M Q r 0 (O M (O M N Q M Q (O N M (O Q r r M. (O N M. O) O O. M. N eD Q M N. QOMQNQ) QI Q O) A O c0 O) O of (O N N M M (O Q m (O Q w Q M N n fD m •- N Q Q n O) aD cd W N Q cp N O O v Q Q c0 M r i0 OOOQmMofONc0aDMONMc0OQO (0 N M W A (p c0 M r Q M O Q M M Q 47 N A W O b 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o s °o v o 0 0 o a o 0 0 o e o v o 0 o s °o 0 NN M---r M OMM MN 0000 aD A NCO --- A A OA (O O)- --cli N NONN N — — N — — — N N N N N — — — N N N 0 0 0 0 0 N N " N N N N N N N N M M O O O O — — N Q Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q N N N N N N N— N N N N N N N N O (O O ap O O m 4) W O O id Z Z V N r 5 O N V i(J r;3 0 6 6 N C7 M M N) M A m m O N M N 4 A V a0 co (n co n cn co corn rco corrmrn r AmmmrArommm(nA A Amco (o con Q Q M V M izz N M M Iz M N N z N r i[l 6 0 0 th (D (O V V O M D7 N m a7 Z Z O O M O N O O O O N O O O O O N O O O M O O O O O N N N O O N O 1z M N V R m m m lD N R 0 0 0 N Vl N@ 0 1 @ N@ R R (9 @ N VI N N Vl N N V N N R o (/ 1 R Z @ m RNR@@@RR@@@R@@@@R@@@RR@@@0@ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m N o o 0 OZzZzZzzzzzzzzZzzzzzZZZZZZZZZC7Z rzrzrrrzzrzrzrrzzrrzzzzzrzrrm ,v @QJJ3JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ@QJ@RwVINN@NNNNRRRRN@@NWNNNNNNX0000000 N @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mR mR R R @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R R H Z Z Z Z Z Z Z U K w N W N N N N N W N N N N W@ W@ N N N N W N N N N N N N r Q Q Q Q Q Q Q d LLLL HFHHF-HH HH I- F- F- HF- HFHF HHHHFF- HHHHtn t4N NNNNNNNNNNfnNNN / n f4NNNfANNNfANNHZ Z Z Z ZZ Z R Y0a 2 3UO W f3 r J N0N W N N N j r LL cO F a` m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c m N N •- - •- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N — — — N N N N N N N N N N I th r M f1 O 01 I m M — uJ M M N B 1z 6 r z r m y3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y .L0 Y Y Y Y C rn ('O i0 N 0 M I O t0 ` O M 1 V N i0 i0 i0 LL) i0 O V 1 W N O O O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mcr rrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr mN OH m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o M Z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y c c c c C c G c c C O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 m N m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm O. Y OI co 0 ikfUmUQZZ ` L K ¢ U >-.o u C U ¢ (O L C— r C m d a m U LL °°_ - A j N N N N N N mm m m mm V V 0 0 0" — — — — — — — — Y r c m° m °° m U m rn = E E m m y Q m m E mo `o o ouv_ o v c n o ,_, a OCCcmTcT¢ c C m OI m p j u E E m LL m N G C C y E mEmmmmof = E m m m o° Y p o m m m o 3o >t0 o mLLLLiimmQH> m H a m m cD Q o Q m Z, U x m m G z U V co co w m N V W O W N OV ) 4 QO) W M A OO1, ) W m W W O P,: N 6 N M < m m6WO6Qm O N10 V m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c m N N •- - •- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N — — — N N N N N N N N N N I th r M f1 O 01 I m M — uJ M M N B 1z 6 r z r m y3 io c G r ----------------------- r r W W W W W W r r E C rn ('O i0 N 0 M I O t0 ` O M 1 V N i0 i0 i0 LL) i0 O V 1 W N O Om ID V aD t0 lh V O O V O O .- •- O) V V V V? V O W N N V V t0 aD aD > m mN OH O C m a m O m p p0N o'w LL U Oaz trnm o ¢ o W UmJ UoroUoOzr U U¢ zp U a E ZU °U Z 0 m= ? o } U°-20 U- m - o n o= 0, ELmo c o mU =Z U U z r Z mN NZ yU cqLL¢ N ub 2'0m a O U CO an dUYOI co 0 ikfUmUQZZ ` L K ¢ U >-.o u C U ¢ (O L C— r C m d a m U LL °°_ - m m ii , z w° in c °° d E N =- w o. > c m m o o m o y ammWmcc° m o z Q c¢ c O o m m o m 10 '° m °ic z V° c vlrc m° m °° m U m rn = E E m m y Q m m E mo `o o ouv_ o v c n o ,_, a OCCcmTcT¢ c C m OI m p j u E E m LL m N G C C y E mEmmmmof = E m m m o° Y p o m m m o 3o >t0 o mLLLLiimmQH> m H a m m cD Q o Q m Z, U x m m G z U V co co w Agenda Item: D AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:January 28, 2019 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager FROM:Patrick Gallegos, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:City of Seal Beach Strategic Plan ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council receive and file the City of Seal Beach Six-Month Strategic Objectives update. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Strategic planning is employed to establish major goals and objectives for the City. It provides the principal guidance for the preparation of the City budget, program objectives and a plan for implementation and accountability. A strategic plan provides the basis for improving services and preserving a high quality of life in the City. A strategic plan is a living document which features a framework that can be adjusted based on the current needs of the community. On a regular basis, the City Council will review and revise the plan taking into account the City’s Mission, the current challenges facing the City, and identifying external factors and trends that might impact the future. On September 12, 2018, the City Council held a Special Meeting to review the progress made on the six-month objectives and re-evaluate the three-year goals as needed. The attached matrix provides an update on the current status of the six-month objectives as of December 10, 2018. The City Council will reconvene in a Special Meeting on March 13, 2019 to review the progress made on the six month objectives. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: No legal analysis is required for this item. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this item. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City of Seal Beach Six-Month Strategic Objectives update. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Patrick Gallegos Jill R. Ingram Patrick Gallegos, Assistant City Manager Jill R. Ingram, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. City of Seal Beach Six-Month Strategic Objectives – Redline Version B. City of Seal Beach Six-Month Strategic Objectives – Clean Version *Contingent upon passage of Measure BB. ACITY OF SEAL BEACH STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES September 12, 2018 – March 13, 2019 THREE-YEAR GOAL: PROVIDE A QUALITY BEACH AND PIER ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING POTENTIALLY A RESTAURANT WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS DONE ON TARGET REVISED 1. By March 13, 2019 Public Works Director Complete renovation of the City’s 1st Street restaurant building to meet building code requirements. X 2. By March 13, 2019 Public Works Director Present to the City Council a sand replenishment program for East Beach to include education on process and funding need. X *Contingent upon passage of Measure BB. B THREE-YEAR GOAL: ACHIEVE SHORT- AND LONG-TERM FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS DONE ON TARGET REVISED 1. By March 13, 2019 Director of Public Works Present results for water and sewer rate increases and make a recommendation to the City Council for action. X 2. By March 13, 2019 Finance Director Recommend to the City Council for action the contracting of a qualified Project Manager to analyze the City’s current fees for services and a realistic mechanism for cost recovery. X 3. By March 13, 2019 Executive Team Determine a path forward if Measure BB does pass, and if it does not pass. X *Contingent upon passage of Measure BB. C THREE-YEAR GOAL: IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS DONE ON TARGET REVISED 1. By March 13, 2019 Assistant City Manager Present to the City Council for consideration a contract for managed IT services. X *Contingent upon passage of Measure BB. D THREE-YEAR GOAL: ATTRACT, DEVELOP, COMPENSATE AND RETAIN QUALITY STAFF WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS DONE ON TARGET REVISED 1. By March 13, 2019 Executive Team Present to the City Council an analysis of necessary staffing levels to facilitate future budget planning. X 2. By March 13, 2019 Assistant City Manager Present to the City Council the financial analysis of the Classification and Compensation study. X 3. By March 13, 2019 City Manager Promote civility and decorum through an outreach campaign. X X Resolution Establishing a Choose Civility Program and Updating the City Council Rules of Procedure was approved at the 10-22-18 City Council meeting. *Contingent upon passage of Measure BB. E THREE-YEAR GOAL: ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS DONE ON TARGET REVISED 1. By March 13, 2019 Police Chief Continue Community Oriented Police (COP) Team year-round with officers assigned to Jack Haley substation.* X We currently have officers in background. Once they are hired and off training, the COP Team will be installed. 2. By March 13, 2019 Marine Safety Chief Conduct a professional evaluation on number of visitors per year in an effort to assist with determining public safety resources needed. X 3. By March 13, 2019 OCFA Division Chief OCFA assess impact of calls for service related to homeless. X 4. By March 13, 2019 Police Chief Assign Leisure World a police officer.* X We currently have officers in background. Once they are hired and off training, the Leisure World Detective/Officer will be installed. 5. By March 13, 2019 Police Chief Expand community policing teams to each of the 5 Seal Beach Council Districts.* X *Contingent upon passage of Measure BB. ACITY OF SEAL BEACH STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES September 12, 2018 – March 13, 2019 THREE-YEAR GOAL: PROVIDE A QUALITY BEACH AND PIER ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING POTENTIALLY A RESTAURANT WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS DONE ON TARGET REVISED 1. By March 13, 2019 Public Works Director Complete renovation of the City’s 1st Street restaurant building to meet building code requirements. X 2. By March 13, 2019 Public Works Director Present to the City Council a sand replenishment program for East Beach to include education on process and funding need. X *Contingent upon passage of Measure BB. B THREE-YEAR GOAL: ACHIEVE SHORT- AND LONG-TERM FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS DONE ON TARGET REVISED 1. By March 13, 2019 Director of Public Works Present results for water and sewer rate increases and make a recommendation to the City Council for action. X 2. By March 13, 2019 Finance Director Recommend to the City Council for action the contracting of a qualified Project Manager to analyze the City’s current fees for services and a realistic mechanism for cost recovery. X 3. By March 13, 2019 Executive Team Determine a path forward if Measure BB does pass, and if it does not pass. X *Contingent upon passage of Measure BB. C THREE-YEAR GOAL: IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS DONE ON TARGET REVISED 1. By March 13, 2019 Assistant City Manager Present to the City Council for consideration a contract for managed IT services. X *Contingent upon passage of Measure BB. D THREE-YEAR GOAL: ATTRACT, DEVELOP, COMPENSATE AND RETAIN QUALITY STAFF WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS DONE ON TARGET REVISED 1. By March 13, 2019 Executive Team Present to the City Council an analysis of necessary staffing levels to facilitate future budget planning. X 2. By March 13, 2019 Assistant City Manager Present to the City Council the financial analysis of the Classification and Compensation study. X 3. By March 13, 2019 City Manager Promote civility and decorum through an outreach campaign. X Resolution Establishing a Choose Civility Program and Updating the City Council Rules of Procedure was approved at the 10-22-18 City Council meeting. *Contingent upon passage of Measure BB. E THREE-YEAR GOAL: ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS DONE ON TARGET REVISED 1. By March 13, 2019 Police Chief Continue Community Oriented Police (COP) Team year-round with officers assigned to Jack Haley substation.* X We currently have officers in background. Once they are hired and off training, the COP Team will be installed. 2. By March 13, 2019 Marine Safety Chief Conduct a professional evaluation on number of visitors per year in an effort to assist with determining public safety resources needed. X 3. By March 13, 2019 OCFA Division Chief OCFA assess impact of calls for service related to homeless. X 4. By March 13, 2019 Police Chief Assign Leisure World a police officer.* X We currently have officers in background. Once they are hired and off training, the Leisure World Detective/Officer will be installed. 5. By March 13, 2019 Police Chief Expand community policing teams to each of the 5 Seal Beach Council Districts.* X Agenda Item: E AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:January 28, 2019 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager FROM:Patrick Gallegos , Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:Approval of Employment Agreement for City Clerk ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 6889 approving the Executive Employment Agreement between the City of Seal Beach and Gloria Harper to be the City of Seal Beach City Clerk and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The City Manager has appointed Gloria Harper as the Seal Beach City Clerk. The City Clerk position is an executive management position in the City. Executive managers serve in an at-will capacity, exempt from the overtime provisions of State and Federal law, and are employed pursuant to standard employment agreements. The proposed employment agreement for Ms. Harper that is attached to this report is consistent with the other agreements for similar employees. Ms. Harper’s base monthly salary will be $9,657.02 per month. She will receive the same benefits as other executive management employees. As with other employees, Ms. Harper will pay a 7% annual contribution to CalPERS. The agreement provides for a severance payment of four (4) months’ salary if the employment agreement is terminated by the City without cause. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: No legal analysis is required for this item. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The salary and benefits costs for the City Clerk’s position are included in the current budget. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 6889 approving the Executive Employment Agreement between the City of Seal Beach and Gloria Harper to be the City of Seal Beach City Clerk and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Patrick Gallegos Jill R. Ingram Patrick Gallegos , Assistant City Manager Jill R. Ingram, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 6889 B. Employment Agreement RESOLUTION 6889 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SEAL BEACH CITY CLERK AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves the executive employment services agreement for the City Clerk between the City and Gloria Harper. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members:_______________________________________ NOES: Council Members:_______________________________________ ABSENT: Council Member:________________________________________ ABSTAIN: Council Members:_______________________________________ Thomas Moore, Mayor ATTEST: ______ Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 6889 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January, 2019. ______ Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk Agenda Item: F AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:January 28, 2019 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager FROM:Patrick Gallegos, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:Hourly Wages For Part-time, Seasonal, and Temporary Employees ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 6890 establishing hourly wages for part- time, seasonal, and temporary employees, and repealing on the effective date specified, all resolutions in conflict therewith. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: On January 22, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 6784 establishing hourly wages for part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees. This Resolution was adopted in order to remain in compliance with the State of California’s Minimum Wage Order. On January 1, 2018, California’s minimum wage rose to $11.00 per hour. The last revision to this salary schedule was effective on January 1, 2018 (Attachment “A”). On January 1, 2019, California’s minimum wage rose to $12.00 per hour and is mandated by State law to continue to increase over the next several years for employers with (26) employees or more, as follows: January 1, 2019 $12.00 per hour January 1, 2020 $13.00 per hour January 1, 2021 $14.00 per hour January 1, 2022 $15.00 per hour Schedule for CA Minimum Wage 2017-2023 (Attachment “B”) In order to remain in compliance with the State of California’s Minimum Wage Order, through Resolution 6890, the City is requesting adoption of a revised salary schedule for part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees (Attachment “C”). The changes to the salary schedule for part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees will be to adjust Grade 1 to reflect the new California minimum wage of $12.00 per hour and to increase Grades 2, 4, 6, and 7, as part of the current salary schedule which establishes (5%) intervals between grades. For Grades 5 and 8, it is recommended that they become obsolete for now, as there are no job classifications within those grades. For Grades 9-23, it is recommended they remain unchanged. In subsequent years, as the California minimum wage increases, the City’s salary schedule for part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees will need to be adjusted accordingly, effective each January 1st through the year 2022. The minimum wage increases will be exclusive of any potential cost-of-living adjustments that the City Council may wish to consider for part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees in future years. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed this staff report and approved it as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Adequate funding was budgeted for the 2019 minimum wage increase required by State law in the approved FY 2018-19 budget. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 6890 establishing hourly wages for part- time, seasonal, and temporary employees, and repealing on the effective date specified, all resolutions in conflict therewith. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Patrick Gallegos Jill R. Ingram Patrick Gallegos, Assistant City Manager Jill R. Ingram, City Manager Prepared by: Nancy Ralsten, Management Analyst ATTACHMENTS: A. Current Pay Structure B. Schedule for CA Minimum Wage 2017-2023 C. Proposed Pay Structure D. Resolution 6890 Attachment B State of California Department of Industrial Relations Minimum Wage Although there are some exceptions, almost all employees in California must be paid the minimum wage as required by state law. Effective January 1, 2017, the minimum wage for all industries will be increased yearly. From January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2022, the minimum wage will increase for employers employing 26 or more employees. This increase will be delayed one year for employers employing 25 or fewer employees, from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2023. The scheduled increases may be temporarily suspended by the Governor, based on certain determinations. (Please see the chart below for the complete schedule of rate increases). For more information and guidance on how to count employees for the purpose of determining whether an employer qualifies as an employer with 25 employees or less please see New Minimum Wage Phase- in Requirements 2017-2023, SB 3 Frequently Asked Questions page. There are some employees who are exempt from the minimum wage law, such as outside salespersons, individuals who are the parent, spouse, or child of the employer, and apprentices regularly indentured under the State Division of Apprenticeship Standards. Minimum Wage Order (MW-2017) There is an exception for learners, regardless of age, who may be paid not less than 85 percent of the minimum wage rounded to the nearest nickel during their first 160 hours of employment in occupations in which they have no previous similar or related experience. There are also exceptions for employees who are mentally or physically disabled, or both, and for nonprofit organizations such as sheltered workshops or rehabilitation facilities that employ disabled workers. Such individuals and organizations may be issued a special license by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement authorizing employment at a wage less than the legal minimum wage. Labor Code Sections 1191 and 1191.5 Schedule for California Minimum Wage rate 2017-2023. Date Minimum Wage for Employers with 25 Employees or Less Minimum Wage for Employers with 26 Employees or More January 1, 2017 $10.00/hour $10.50/hour January 1, 2018 $10.50/hour $11.00/hour January 1, 2019 $11.00/hour $12.00/hour January 1, 2020 $12.00/hour $13.00/hour January 1, 2021 $13.00/hour $14.00/hour January 1, 2022 $14.00/hour $15.00/hour January 1, 2023 $15.00/hour Grade Job Classifications Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 1 Office Aide $12.00 $12.60 $13.23 $13.89 $14.59 2 Crossing Guard $12.60 $13.23 $13.89 $14.59 $15.32 Maintenance Aide Pool Lifeguard Recreation Facility Leader Beach Lifeguard Trainee 3 4 Police Aide $13.23 $13.89 $14.59 $15.32 $16.08 Swim Instructor 5 6 Assistant Pool Manager $13.89 $14.59 $15.32 $16.08 $16.89 Senior Recreation Facility Leader 7 Intern $14.59 $15.32 $16.08 $16.89 $17.73 8 9 Recreation Specialist $14.95 $15.70 $16.48 $17.31 $18.17 Pool Manager 10 Recreation Coordinator $15.70 $16.48 $17.31 $18.17 $19.08 11 $16.48 $17.31 $18.17 $19.08 $20.04 12 Account Clerk/Water Meter Reader $17.31 $18.17 $19.08 $20.04 $21.04 Aquatics Coordinator 13 Beach Lifeguard $18.17 $19.08 $20.04 $21.04 $22.09 14 $19.08 $20.04 $21.04 $22.09 $23.20 15 Junior Lifeguard Coordinator $20.04 $21.04 $22.09 $23.20 $24.36 16 Equipment Operator $21.04 $22.09 $23.20 $24.36 $25.57 17 Beach Operations Supervisor $22.09 $23.20 $24.36 $25.57 $26.85 Rescue Boat Operator Mechanic 17A Maintenance Worker PT $22.78 $23.92 $25.11 $26.37 $27.68 18 $23.20 $24.36 $25.57 $26.85 $28.19 19 $24.36 $25.57 $26.85 $28.19 $29.60 20 Executive Assistant PT $25.57 $26.85 $28.19 $29.60 $31.08 21 $26.85 $28.19 $29.60 $31.08 $32.64 22 $28.19 $29.60 $31.08 $32.64 $34.27 23 $29.60 $31.08 $32.64 $34.27 $35.98 City of Seal Beach Part-Time Employees Pay Structure January 1, 2019 Resolution XXXX Attachment D RESOLUTION 6890 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING HOURLY WAGES FOR PART-TIME, SEASONAL, AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES, AND REPEALING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE SPECIFIED, ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH WHEREAS, the Government Code of the State of California prescribes a procedure for resolving matters regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment; and WHEREAS, part-time salary grades have been updated to provide multiple steps within a range and to provide for a five percent increase in between each step; and WHEREAS, grades for part-time positions have been updated to reflect duties, educational, specialized training, licenses and/or certification and skills needed; and WHEREAS, if an employee is hired on a part-time basis to an existing classification, that employee shall be paid at the hourly equivalent of the assigned step within the assigned grade for that job classification. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Seal Beach City Council hereby: Section 1. Approves the 2019 City of Seal Beach Pay Structure for Part-Time Employees, effective January 1, 2019, attached hereto as Attachment “C” and incorporated by this reference. Section 2. Repeals all resolutions regarding hourly wages for part-time, seasonal and temporary employees in conflict with this resolution and Attachment “C” attached hereto. Resolution Number 6890 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January , 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: _____________________________________ NOES: Council Members: _____________________________________ ABSENT: Council Members: _____________________________________ ABSTAIN: Council Members: _____________________________________ Thomas Moore, Mayor ATTEST: Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 6890 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January , 2019. _______ Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk Agenda Item: G AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:January 28, 2019 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager FROM:Steve Myrter, P.E. , Public Works Director SUBJECT:Professional Services Agreement with AKM Consulting Engineers for Design Engineering Services of the 6th Street Alley Water line and Sewer line Replacement Project ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 6891 awarding and authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement to AKM Consulting Engineers to provide engineering services for the design of the 6th Street alley water line and sewer line replacement Project including construction support services for a not-to-exceed agreement amount of $175,496. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: At the fiscal year 2018-19 Capital Improvement Project Budget preparations in June 2018, staff presented the need and proposed scope of work to replace the existing 8-inch diameter water line and existing 6-inch diameter sewer line aligned within the 6th Street Alley between Electric Avenue and the Ocean Avenue Alley. Both of these pipelines have reached their useful service lives and are in need of replacement. The project scope will also include replacing all water services, installation of new sewer manholes, and repaving of the entire alley in the right of way. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has approved the professional services agreement and proposed resolution as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: In the approved fiscal year 2018-19 CIP Budget a total of $1,400,000 has been allocated for the 6th Street alley water and sewer replacement project (SS1902) with $700,000 allocated from the water fund and $700,000 allocated from the sewer fund. Staff requested that AKM submit a proposal to provide engineering services for the design of this Project including construction support services. AKM submitted a proposal to provide these engineering design services for a not-to-exceed fee of $175,496. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 6891 awarding and authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with AKM Consulting Engineers to provide engineering services for the design of the 6th Street alley water line and sewer line replacement Project including construction support services for a not-to-exceed agreement amount of $175,496. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Steve Myrter Jill R. Ingram Steve Myrter, P.E. , Public Works Director Jill R. Ingram, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 6891 B. Agreement RESOLUTION 6891 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL AWARDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH AKM CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE 6TH STREET ALLEY WATER LINE AND SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: SECTION 1.The City Council hereby awards a Professional Services Agreement to AKM Consulting Engineers (“AKM”), to provide engineering services for the design of the 6th Street alley water line and sewer line replacement Project including construction support services, in a total not-to- exceed amount of $175,496. SECTION 2.The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Seal Beach and AKM, and all related documents, on behalf of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members ________________ Thomas Moore, Mayor ATTEST: ______ Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy Resolution 6891 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January, 2019. ________ Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT for 6th Street Alley, Water Line and Sewer Line Improvements CIP SS1902 Between City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 & AKM Consulting Engineers 553 Wald Irvine, CA 92618 Phone # (949) 753-7333 This Professional Service Agreement (“the Agreement”) is made as of January 22, 2019 (the “Effective Date”), by and between AKM Consulting Engineers (“Consultant”), a California corporation, and the City of Seal Beach (“City”), a California charter city, (collectively, “the Parties”). 2 of 16 RECITALS A. City desires certain professional services. B. Pursuant to the authority provided by its City Charter and Government Code § 37103, if applicable, City desires to engage Consultant to provide Professional Engineering services in the manner set forth herein and more fully described in Section 1.0. C. Consultant represents that the principal members of its firm are qualified professional Engineers and are fully qualified to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement in a good and professional manner; and it desires to perform such services as provided herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Parties' performance of the promises, covenants, and conditions stated herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows. AGREEMENT 1.0Scope of Services 1.1. Consultant shall provide those services (“Services”) set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. To the extent that there is any conflict between Exhibit A and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. 1.2. Consultant shall perform all Services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. 1.3. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. 1.4. As a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Consultant hereby represents that it has the experience necessary to undertake the Services to be provided. In light of such status and experience, Consultant hereby covenants that it shall follow the customary professional standards in performing all Services. The City relies upon the skill of Consultant, and Consultant’s staff, if any, to do and perform the Services in a skillful, competent, and professional manner, and Consultant and Consultant’s staff, shall perform the Services in such manner. Consultant shall, at all times, meet or exceed any and all applicable professional standards of care. The acceptance of Consultant’s work by the City shall not operate as a release of Consultant from such standard of care and workmanship. 3 of 16 1.5 Consultant will not be compensated for any work performed not specified in the Scope of Services unless the City authorizes such work in advance and in writing. The City Manager may authorize extra work to fund unforeseen conditions up to the amount approved at the time of award by the City Council. Payment for additional work in excess of this amount requires prior City Council authorization. 2.0 Term This term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue for a term of two (2) years unless previously terminated as provided by this Agreement. 3.0Consultant’s Compensation City will pay Consultant in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A for Services but in no event will the City pay more than $180,928. Consultant will not be compensated for any work performed not specified in the Scope of Services unless the City authorizes such work in advance and in writing. The City Manager may authorize extra work to fund unforeseen conditions up to the amount approved at the time of award by the City Council. Payment for additional work in excess of this amount requires prior City Council authorization. Any additional work authorized by the City Council pursuant to this Section will be compensated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A. 4.0Method of Payment 4.1. Consultant shall submit to City monthly invoices for all services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such invoices shall be submitted within 15 days of the end of the month during which the services were rendered and shall describe in detail the services rendered during the period, the days worked, number of hours worked, the hourly rates charged, and the services performed for each day in the period. City will pay Consultant within 30 days of receiving Consultant’s invoice. City will not withhold any applicable federal or state payroll and other required taxes, or other authorized deductions from payments made to Consultant. 4.2. Upon 24-hour notice from City, Consultant shall allow City or City’s agents or representatives to inspect at Consultant’s offices during reasonable business hours all records, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets and other records maintained by Consultant in connection with this Agreement. City’s rights under this Section 4.2 shall survive for two years following the termination of this Agreement. 4 of 16 5.0Termination 5.1. This Agreement may be terminated by City, without cause, or by Consultant based on reasonable cause, upon giving the other party written notice thereof not less than 30 days prior to the date of termination. 5.2. This Agreement may be terminated by City upon 10 days’ notice to Consultant if Consultant fails to provide satisfactory evidence of renewal or replacement of comprehensive general liability insurance as required by this Agreement at least 20 days before the expiration date of the previous policy. 6.0Party Representatives 6.1. The City Manager is the City’s representative for purposes of this Agreement. 6.2. Zeki Kayiran, PE is the Consultant's primary representative for purposes of this Agreement. It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability, and reputation of Zeki Kayiran PE were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Zeki Kayiran PE shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. Consultant may not change its representative without the prior written approval of City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7.0Notices 7.1. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed 48 hours after deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at the following addresses: To City: City of Seal Beach 211-8th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Attn: City Manager To Consultant: AKM Consulting Engineers 553 Wald Irvine, CA 92618 Attn: Zeki Kayiran 7.2. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 5 of 16 8.0Independent Contractor 8.1. Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. All services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision, and all personnel shall possess the qualifications, permits, and licenses required by State and local law to perform such Services, including, without limitation, a City of Seal Beach business license as required by the Seal Beach Municipal Code. Consultant will determine the means, methods, and details of performing the services. Consultant shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the services and compliance with the customary professional standards. 8.2. Any additional personnel performing services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: Social Security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 8.3. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from Consultant’s personnel practices. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section. 9.0 Confidentiality Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without prior written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if applicable law requires disclosure. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant’s covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 6 of 16 10.0 Subcontractors No portion of this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of the City. Consultant is fully responsible to City for the performance of any and all subcontractors. 11.0 Assignment Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement whether by assignment or novation, without the prior written consent of City. Any purported assignment without such consent shall be void and without effect. 12.0 Inspection and Audit of Records Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all services and other matters covered under this Agreement, including but expressly not limited to, all services performed, salaries, wages, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets, costs, expenses, receipts and other records with respect to this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records on the services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of all services in connection therewith. All such records shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. At all times during regular business hours, Consultant shall provide City with free access to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make copies and transcripts as City deems necessary, and shall allow inspection of all program data, information, documents, proceedings and activities and all other matters related to the performance of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall retain all financial and program service records and all other records related to the services and performance of this Agreement for at least three (3) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. City’s rights under this Section 12.0 shall survive for three (3) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. 13.0 Insurance 13.1. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that Consultant has secured all insurance required under this Section. Consultant shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the City. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be on forms provided by the City if requested. All certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 7 of 16 13.2. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the City. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and, if required by the City, (3) Professional Liability. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage and if Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) Professional Liability: $1,000,000 per claim/aggregate. 13.3. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or approved by the City to state: (1) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced or canceled except after 30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City; (2) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its directors, officials, officers, (3) coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it; (4) for general liability insurance, that the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (5) for automobile liability, that the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible. 13.4. All insurance required by this Section shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions and shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. 13.5. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall be declared to and approved by the City. Consultant guarantees that, at the option of the City, either: 8 of 16 (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers; or (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 14.0 Indemnification, Hold Harmless, and Duty to Defend 14.1. Indemnity for Design Professional Services. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, indemnify and hold harmless the City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees” in this Section 14.0), from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, liens, and losses of any nature whatsoever, including fees of accountants and other professionals, and all costs associated therewith, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs of defense (collectively “Claims”), whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, in whole or in part, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant , and/or its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of design professional services under this Agreement by a “design professional,” as the term is defined under California Civil Code § 2782.8(c).] 14.2. Other Indemnitees. Other than in the performance of professional services, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the Indemnitees from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, liens and losses of any nature whatsoever, including fees of accountants, attorneys and other professionals, and all costs associated therewith, and the payment of all consequential damages (collectively “Damages”), in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts or omissions of Consultant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, suppliers, or contractors, or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, including the Indemnitees’ active or passive negligence, except for Damages arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. Consultant shall defend the Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any Damages with counsel of the Indemnitees’ choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all attorneys’ fees and experts’ costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. Consultant shall reimburse the Indemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by the Indemnitees in connection therewith. 9 of 16 14.3 Subcontractor Indemnification. Consultant shall obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those in this Section 14.0 from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. If Consultant fails to obtain such indemnities, Consultant shall be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Indemnitees from and against any and all Claims in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, are claimed to arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts or omissions of Consultant’s subcontractor, its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant’s subcontractor shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, including the Indemnitees’ active or passive negligence, except for Claims or Damages arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. 14.4 The obligations of Consultant under this or any other provision of this Agreement shall not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act. Consultant expressly waives any statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to the Indemnitees. Consultant’s indemnity obligation set forth in this Section 14.0 shall not be limited by the limits of any policies of insurance required or provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. 14.5 Consultant’s covenants under this Section 14.0 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 15.0 Equal Opportunity Consultant affirmatively represents that it is an equal opportunity employer. Consultant shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or age. Such non-discrimination includes, but is not limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff, or termination. 16.0 Labor Certification By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 10 of 16 17.0 Prevailing Wage and Payroll Records If this Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute “public works” as defined in the California Labor Code, then Consultant shall comply in all respects with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including those set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 18.0 Entire Agreement This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. 19.0 Severability The invalidity in whole or in part of any provisions of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of the other provisions of this Agreement. 20.0 Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 21.0 No Third Party Rights No third party shall be deemed to have any rights hereunder against either party as a result of this Agreement. 22.0 Waiver No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a party shall give the other party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise. 23.0 Prohibited Interests; Conflict of Interest 23.1. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Consultant further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner 11 of 16 with the performance of the Services. Consultant shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Consultant "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code §§1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City on any matter in connection with which Consultant has been retained. 23.2. Consultant further warrants and maintains that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Nor has Consultant paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Consultant hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 23.3. Consultant warrants and maintains that it has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Consultant, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Consultant at any time during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited "conflict of interest" under applicable laws as described in this subsection 24.0 Attorneys' Fees If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party all of its attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred in connection therewith. 25.0 Exhibits All exhibits referenced in this Agreement are hereby incorporated into the Agreement as if set forth in full herein. In the event of any material discrepancy between the terms of any exhibit so incorporated and the terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control. 26.0 Corporate Authority The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said Party and that 12 of 16 by his or her execution, the Consultant is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF SEAL BEACH By: _________________________ Jill R. Ingram, City Manager Attest: By: _________________________ Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk Approved as to Form: By: _________________________ Craig A. Steele, City Attorney CONSULTANT: AKM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, a California corporation By: __________________________ Name:__ Its: __ By: ________________________ Name:___ Its: ___ (Please note, two signatures required for corporations pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 313.) 13 of 16 EXHIBIT A Consultants Proposal 14 of 16 EXHIBIT B TERMS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW REQUIREMENTS 1. This Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute “public works” as defined in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code (“Chapter 1”). Further, Consultant acknowledges that this Agreement is subject to (a) Chapter 1 and (b) the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) implementing such statutes. Therefore, as to those Services that are “public works”, Consultant shall comply with and be bound by all the terms, rules and regulations described in 1(a) and 1(b) as though set forth in full herein. 2. California law requires the inclusion of specific Labor Code provisions in certain contracts. The inclusion of such specific provisions below, whether or not required by California law, does not alter the meaning or scope of Section 1 above. 3. Consultant shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with California Labor Code Section 1725.5, and has provided proof of registration to City prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform work with any subcontractor that is not registered with DIR pursuant to Section 1725.5. Consultant and subcontractors shall maintain their registration with the DIR in effect throughout the duration of this Agreement. If Consultant or any subcontractor ceases to be registered with DIR at any time during the duration of the project, Consultant shall immediately notify City. 4. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4, Consultant’s Services are subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by DIR regulations. 5. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Agreement are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. Consultant acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of such prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post such rates at each job site covered by this Agreement. 6. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. Consultant shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor. 7. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subcontractor to: keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified in 15 of 16 Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776; and inform City of the location of the records. 8. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 and California Administrative Code of Regulations, Ttitle 8, sSection 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Consultant shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60 days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of its subcontractors shall submit to City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement. 9. Consultant shall not perform Work with any Subcontractor that has been debarred or suspended pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. Consultant and subcontractors shall not be debarred or suspended throughout the duration of this Contract pursuant to Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. If Consultant or any subcontractor becomes debarred or suspended during the duration of the project, Consultant shall immediately notify City. 10. Consultant acknowledges that eight hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. Consultant shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $25.00 for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code sSection 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of eight hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay. 11. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Consultant hereby certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self- insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.” 12. For every subcontractor who will perform work on the project, Consultant shall be responsible for such subcontractor’s compliance with Chapter 1 and Labor Code 16 of 16 Sections 1860 and 3700, and Consultant shall include in the written contract between it and each subcontractor a copy of those statutory provisions and a requirement that each subcontractor shall comply with those statutory provisions. Consultant shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor’s compliance, including without limitation, conducting a periodic review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor and upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure. 13. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend (at Consultant’s expense with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and independent contractors serving in the role of City officials, and volunteers from and against any demand or claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of or incidental to any acts or omissions listed above by any person or entity (including Consultant, its subcontractors, and each of their officials, officers, employees and agents) in connection with any work undertaken or in connection with the Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys’ fees, and other related costs and expenses. All duties of Consultant under this Section shall survive the termination of the Agreement. Agenda Item: H AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:January 28, 2019 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager FROM:Steve Myrter, P.E. , Director of Public Works SUBJECT:Installation of 31 Smart Irrigation Controls Using Rebate Funding ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 6892 approving agreement with Horizon for the installation of 31 smart irrigation controls throughout the City. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: In an effort to meet the future demands for water in Southern California, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and its 26 member agencies are currently offering a rebate program that can be used to purchase and install smart irrigation controllers. The rebate program is called the SoCal Watersmart program also known as the Public Agency Landscape Rebate – PAL Program. Through this MWD sponsored program the City will replace 31 existing irrigation controllers (with manually set timers) servicing 14 open space and park sites located throughout the City. The irrigated areas scheduled for new smart irrigation controllers are shown on exhibit A. The new smart irrigation controllers are able to communicate with the national weather service and adjust water flows automatically depending on the weather conditions. Through this capability it has been shown that smart irrigation controllers reduce irrigation water consumption by up to 50 percent. Also each irrigation controller can be accessed and adjusted remotely which will represent a considerable cost savings in staff time. The City has already received pre-approval for all locations, but will not be required to make any payment for work until the total amount of the rebate is received. Participation in this program is cost neutral to the City. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The program will be 100% cost neutral to the City. The City will issue a purchase order to the vendor in the amount of $81,840 plus tax and will not be required to submit any payment to the vendor until the rebate is received in full. The vendor will then refund the total cost of tax on the project. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 6892 approving agreement with Horizon for the installation of thirty-one smart irrigation controls throughout the City. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Steve Myrter Jill R. Ingram Steve Myrter, P.E. , Director of Public Works Jill R. Ingram, City Manager Prepared by: Tim Kelsey, Recreation Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 6892 B. Agreement C. Smart Controller Locations Map RESOLUTION 6892 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF 31 SMART IRRIGATION CONTROLERS THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the professional services agreement (“Agreement”) between the City of Seal Beach and Horizon for the installation of 31 smart irrigation controllers in the net amount of $81,840 plus sales tax to be paid after rebates are received from SoCal Watersmart rebate program. Section 2. The Council hereby directs the City Manager to execute the Agreement. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Thomas Moore, Mayor ATTEST: Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 6892 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January, 2019. Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk WESTMINSTER AVE LAMPSON AV OCEAN AV P A CI FI CCOASTHWYALMOND AV 1ST ST5TH STBOLSA AV GOLDEN RAIN RDMARINA DR CENTRAL AV SEALBEACHBLVDELE CTRIC AV NORTH GATE RD CANDLEB ERRY AV 17TH STMAIN STASTERST12THSTST.CLOUD DR SEAL BEACH BLVD1STSTA L M O N D A VCOLLEGE PARK DR HEATHER STµProposed WeathermaticSmart C ontroller Locations Agenda Item: I AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:January 28, 2019 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager FROM:Steve Myrter, Director of Public Works SUBJECT:Approval of Tree Maintenance Agreement with BrightView Tree Care ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council approve Resolution 6893 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with BrightView Tree Care for citywide tree maintenance. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: As a result of budget constraints, the FY 2018-2019 budget allocation for annual tree trimming services was reduced to $100,000 annually. Last summer a new Tree Maintenances Service Agreement was bid out, and the City received three bids, all of which represented a much higher cost increase than anticipated. At the September 10, 2018 Council Meeting, staff recommended that all bids be rejected and the Tree Maintenances Service Agreement be rebid with a more refined “scope of work” to more closely match the allocated $100,000 annual budget. In the interim, staff awarded a contract for the trimming of City-owned queen palms under the Public Works Director’s signature authority. This contract was awarded at a cost of $30,000 and the work has since been completed. Completion of this work resulted in a balance of $70,000 to complete the trimming of all remaining palm trees as planned specifically for FY 2018-2019. On December 11, 2018 staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) soliciting bids for citywide tree maintenance services. The RFP was structured to complete the remaining trimming with a “reduced scope” of work for FY 2018-2019, including the trimming of all remaining species of palm trees. The RFP was also structured to restore tree trimming services to previous standards starting FY 2019-2020. In response to the RFP the City received 3 qualified bids. The responses of the bids for each Fiscal Year are below: Vendor Cost of Service BrightView Tree Care $ 294,550 Great Scott $ 398,347 West Coast Arborist $ 359,615 Staff has reviewed all proposals and is recommending that BrightView Tree Care is qualified to perform the services that the City requires. The agreement is for three years with two optional one-year extensions. The agreement does not account for emergency work or tree removal in the base cost of the maintenance, however prices for these services are included as itemized unit prices. Staff will evaluate and determine each year the number of trees that require removal and include this in the tree trimming budget for future years. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: No legal analysis is required for this item. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is currently a remaining balance of $70,000 within the allocated tree trimming budget for FY 2018-2019. The contractor is proposing to complete this remaining scheduled tree trimming scope for $30,000 which results in a savings of $40,000. Staff will still be required to perform some tree removals this year that will be funded using these savings. As noted, the RFP was also structured to request a low bid based on trimming work being restored to pre-FY 2018-2019 standards. To perform this scope of work, BrightView Tree Care submitted a total low bid of $294,550 for the three fiscal years, FY 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. This includes $30,650 for FY 2018-2019; $131,950 for FY 2019-2020, and $131,950 for FY 2020-2021. The bid also includes $131,950 for each optional one-year extension, should the City exercise the extension(s). Based on this bid amount staff recommends increasing the current “reduced scope” tree trimming budget allocation as part of the FY 2019-2020 City budget process to $131,950 which will not include additional funds for unscheduled emergency work. Staff anticipates a request of $150,000 total for tree maintenance in FY 2019-2020. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Resolution 6893 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with BrightView Tree Care for citywide tree maintenance. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Steve Myrter Jill R. Ingram Steve Myrter, Director of Public Works Jill R. Ingram, City Manager Prepared by: Tim Kelsey, Recreation Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 6893 B. Agreement Exhibit A-Scope of Work Exhibit B-Tree Maintenance Services Proposal RESOLUTION 6893 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL AWARDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES WITH BRIGHT VIEW TREE CARE WHEREAS, the Tree Maintenance proposal process for the City of Seal Beach was last completed in 2013; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2018, the City issued a request for proposals (RFP) soliciting bids for citywide tree maintenance services with a scope of services including a reduced scope of services for Fiscal Year 2018- 2019 up to $100,000, and structured to restore tree trimming services for future years to the previous standards starting Fiscal Year 2019-2020; and WHEREAS, the City received bids from three service provider agencies including Bright View Tree Care; and WHEREAS, Bright View Tree Services submitted the lowest responsible bid in the amount of $30,650 for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2018-2019, and $162,600 for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 and Fiscal Year 2020-2021. NOW, THEREFORE, THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. The City Council hereby awards the professional services agreement (“Agreement”) to Bright View Tree Care for tree maintenance services for a term of three years, in the total amount not to exceed $294,550, and two optional one-year extensions, as follows: A. Through the end of Fiscal Year 2018-2019, in the amount not to exceed $30,000; and B. For Fiscal Year 2019-2020, the amount not to exceed $131,950; and C. For Fiscal Year 2020-2021, in the amount not to exceed $131,950; and D. If the City elects one or both optional one-year extensions, in the amount not to exceed $131,950 for each optional one-year extension; and E. The City Council further authorizes the City Manager to approve additional work including but not limited to emergency tree removal, in a total amount not to exceed $30,000 for each fiscal year; and F. The City Council rejects all other bids. Section 2. The Council hereby authorizes directs the City Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Thomas Moore, Mayor ATTEST: Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 6893on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January, 2019. Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk Contract Scope of Work The work shall include furnishing all labor and equipment necessary to fully comply with the scope of work contained herein. Payment for tree services will be controlled by the unit bid prices provided. No additional compensation will be provided. EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL The contractor’s crew foreman and supervisor shall be Certified Arborists in good standing with the International Society of Arboriculture. Tree trimmers shall also be Certified Tree Workers One certified arborist per crew and all trimmers must be certified tree workers. Contract personnel shall wear uniform shirts with the company name or logo printed on them, and they shall wear reflective safety vests while working within the roadway right-of-way. All aerial trucks shall be equipped with but not limited to the following; appropriate chain saws, loppers, pole pruners, hand pruners, blowers and plywood to complete all necessary work. No Contractor personnel shall be employed on any work site under these specifications that are found to be incompetent, disorderly, troublesome, intemperate, or otherwise objectionable. Any employee who fails or refuses to perform the work properly and acceptably, as determined by the City Representative, shall be discharged or removed from working on City jobs immediately. Contractor trucks and other vehicles shall be of one color with the Contractor’s name or logo identified. All vehicles and equipment shall be in good condition and appearance. All vehicles will display a sign on the vehicle while working on City areas indicating the Contractor is under contract with the City of Seal Beach. The City’s Representative must approve the design of the signs the Contractor will provide. Contractor is prohibited from parking his equipment overnight on City streets. Contractor shall provide their foremen with a laptop or other computerized device for the purpose of having the ability to view the City’s tree database and to collect the City’s tree asset numbers during pruning and any other tree related operation. Contractor shall have the capability to provide completed work orders and pertinent information in an Excel spreadsheet format to be imported into the City’s work order system. Contractor shall submit the completed form electronically. The City shall provide the Excel spreadsheet form. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS PRUNING SPECIFICATIONS Pruning shall conform to American National Standard, ANSI A300, and Tree Care Operations for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance – Standard Practices. Pruning will generally be Maintenance Pruning as described in ANSI A300, Section 5.3.2. Palm Requirement: During the removal of fronds, seeds/pods the contractor shall check and remove any loose petioles from all palm species. This practice is not only limited to the base of the palm frond growth. Trees shall be pruned as required to remove broken or diseased branches, to allow for public use access, maintenance access, and for safety. It shall be the Contractor's prime pruning responsibility to conduct a pruning program which will ultimately develop natural tree scaffolding, strength, and appearance consistent with the intended use. Before any work commences, the Contractor will prune one typical tree of each different species scheduled for pruning as an example. Any necessary corrections to the example, as determined by the Director of Public Works or Designee, shall be made prior to proceeding with production work. All major pruning operations shall be scheduled and approved by the Director of Public Works or Designee before work begins. Topping, tip pruning, or pollarding trees will not be allowed. Pruning shall be done by those experienced and skilled in pruning techniques (i.e., under the continual supervision of a certified arborist). All cuts shall be done using proper arboricultural and horticultural practices. Dressing wounds will not be allowed. All trimmings and debris shall be cleaned up, removed, and disposed of off-site at the end of each day's work. Contractor shall clean all tire marks from hardscape, i.e., sidewalks, parking lots, curbs, gutters, etc., BEFORE final payment is received. Clean-up work shall consist of restoring site to original condition after work has been performed. Existing tree stakes, ties, and guys shall be checked and corrected as needed by the tree maintenance contractor. Ties will be adjusted to prevent girdling. Unneeded stakes, ties, and guys of trees planted after one year, shall be gradually loosened and ultimately removed. Broken stakes shall be replaced as required. Ailing or stunted trees which fail to meet expected growth expectations shall be brought to the attention of the Public Works Maintenance Supervisor. Under no circumstances will stripping of lower branches (raising up) of young trees be permitted. Tree suckers shall be removed as needed. Lower branches can be removed only after tree is able to stand erect without staking or other support. Any individual dead limb or branch, detached or not, is a safety hazard and will be removed as needed by the tree maintenance contractor. The Contractor will replace and be held liable for any damages done to trees or landscaping due to poor management procedures of services rendered(i.e., improper staking, damage done by not removing tie wires, improper pruning, etc.). If, in the opinion of the City, a newly planted tree dies as a direct result of neglect, inadequate care, or inadequate maintenance, the replacement item and required labor shall be provided by the contractor at no cost to the City. This includes material newly planted and material which has been planted. Replacement must be of comparable size and species and acceptable. Surrounding plant material (turf, ground cover, shrubs, and vines) shall be protected during tree maintenance operations. The Contractor shall be responsible for all damage caused by poor procedures. The City will require full and complete repair of the damaged areas and plants. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS Tree Maintenance operations shall conform to American National Standard, ANSI Z133.1, Pruning, Trimming, Repairing, Maintaining, and Removing Trees and Cutting Brush – Safety Requirements. It shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to obtain the most current ANSI Z133.1 specifications. TREE REMOVALS In addition to the ANSI A300 and Z133.1 standards, the following tree removal specifications shall apply: Each tree to be removed will be painted with a white spot at the base of the tree trunk. All tree stumps are to be ground within five (5) work days. Stump grinding is to be a minimum of twelve inches (12”) below grade or until tree roots are no longer present. All stump chips are to be removed and the void backfilled with native soil or clean fill dirt, which is to be compacted and leveled to grade suitable for seeding or planting. All costs associated with stump grinding shall be included as part of the unit cost for tree removals. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to call in the tree stump location to Underground Service Alert (USA) prior to grinding the tree stump. In cases where it is determined that the trees scheduled for removal have died due to the Eucalyptus Longhorn Borer or any other Borer, the wood shall be disposed of by hauling to an authorized disposal station. At no time shall any wood from trees having died from the Eucalyptus Longhorn Borer or any other Borer be hauled anywhere other than the authorized disposal station. The City Representative must approve the disposal station prior to any disposal taking place. Payment for complete stump removal shall be included in the tree removal operation UNIT PRICE and no additional compensation will be allowed for crew rental rates, etc. Payment for tree removals will not occur until all related stumps have been removed. It shall be the judgment of the City’s Representative to determine if a tree has died from Eucalyptus Longhorn Borer activity. The City may require the Contractor to show receipts of any or all disposed wood prior to payment for tree removals being made. Contractor shall notify the City immediately if any damage to City property occurs. Examples: broken irrigation heads, valves or piping, damaged drinking fountains, play equipment, non-target trees, turf and shrubbery, and any and all other city property damaged during the course of performing work for the City. All repairs must be completed within 5 days of the occurrence. Replacement of damaged landscaping or property will be replaced in-kind and the site restored to its original condition. TRAFFIC SAFETY Contractor shall conform to all City of Seal Beach traffic safety requirements and operating rules at all times which this contract is in effect. The City will provide the Contractor with a Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which will be used as a reference. Vehicular traffic lane and bike lane closures on arterial streets shall be between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. only, no exceptions. Contractor will be responsible for supplying and using all safety equipment necessary to close or delineate traffic lanes to through vehicle or pedestrian traffic. This is to include a high-visibility arrow board or arrow boards. The City must approve all traffic safety equipment prior to use. A traffic control plan for all arterial streets listed will be submitted to Public Works staff within five (5) days prior to work on any arterial street. High visibility arrow boards shall be used while working on all arterial streets. Failure on the part of the contractor to safely close traffic, bicycle areas, and pedestrian ways and to adhere to all other guidelines associated with maintenance operations adjacent to vehicle, bicycle areas, and foot traffic areas shall incur a $400.00 performance deficiency deduction per infraction. TREE INVENTORY SERVICE Contractor shall have the capability to inspect and to inventory City trees by utilizing a GPS (global positioning system) device compatible with the City’s mobile device application. The inspection and inventory collection shall be performed by an ISA certified arborist. The information collected shall include the confirmation of the tree asset number, trunk diameter, height and canopy spread, maintenance needs and the general condition of the tree. Any obvious defects shall be noted and brought to the attention of the City’s representative. Contractor shall inventory all of the City’s trees once during the term of this contractor, to be completed within the first year of the contract term. Contractor will also update the inventory by including maintenance work, new plantings and removal history on a quarterly basis. Contractor shall provide the City with a copy of the master tree inventory as well as updated quarterly inventory updates. The cost for tree inventory management work shall be included in the unit bid pricing provided for tree services and no additional compensation will be allowed. INSPECTION The Contractor’s Representative shall meet with the City’s Representative prior to beginning work in each of the specified locations to inspect and determine the pruning objectives of the location. Once work begins, it shall be the responsibility of the Contractor’s Representative to visually inspect each tree prior to pruning. If a condition is observed that requires additional attention, this condition will be reported immediately to the City’s Representative. The Contractor’s Representative shall be responsible to verify that all work in progress is in accordance with ANSI Z133.1 Safety Requirements. The Contractor’s Representative shall be responsible to verify that all work in progress is in accordance with ANSI A300 Standard Practices, and City of Seal Beach pruning objectives. The City’s Representative shall have the option to withhold payment for completed work not complying with ANSI trim standards and City of Seal Beach pruning objectives. COMMUNICATION The Contractor shall have the ability to contact its field crews within thirty (30) minutes of notification by the City during normal working hours. The Contractor’s Representative and each crew foreman shall have a portable cellular telephone. The phone numbers shall be given to the City’s Representative. The Contractor’s Representative and each crew foreman shall be accessible for communication during normal work hours. Each crew foreman shall call the City’s Representative daily prior to 7:00 a.m. to discuss crew locations and work schedules. The Contractor’s Representative and each crew foreman shall meet with the City’s Representative once per week at the Operations Support Facility to discuss all contract activities. The Contractor shall notify in writing, by use of a City-approved flyer, residents of property adjoining the location of the work at least seven (7) days before the start of work in that area or on the adjacent street. The Contractor is responsible for posting “temporary no-parking” signs at least forty-eight (48) hours before using the parking lane for tree trimming purposes. In the case of work requiring mass removal of green waste, which may interfere with the use by residents or businesses of their driveways, suitable provisions shall be made by the Contractor at such time to provide access to said driveways. Efforts shall be made by the Contractor to minimize the duration of said blocking and to notify the residents of this need well in advance. Further, the Contractor shall provide access to each residential or commercial establishment each evening. The Contractor shall provide a Contractor Representative (Supervisor) who is a Certified Arborist, certified by the International Society of Arboriculture. It is expected that this person will be able to communicate effectively in both written and oral English. Any order or communication given to the Contractor’s Representative shall be deemed as delivered to the Contractor. WORKING HOURS Workdays are Monday through Friday. On occasion, the Contactor shall provide work crews to perform routine maintenance activities on Saturdays. Work completed under this arrangement shall be paid at the unit price of such work. Working hours shall be no earlier than 7:00 a.m. and no later than 4:00 p.m. Arterial street working hours shall be 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The Contractor will have staff available for phone contact (not an answering service), Monday through Friday, between 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to respond to call-outs, questions and verification of schedules. PERFORMANCE DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER The Contractor shall adjust his work force in order to accomplish those activities that are not affected by weather during periods when inclement weather hinders normal operations. The Contractor shall not remove his work force form the job site unless he has previously notified the City’s Representative. The Contractor may be required during inclement weather to perform clean-up tasks as requested by the City’s Representative. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CODE SECTION 3503 California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503 states, “It is unlawful to take, possess or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird,” and therefore, it shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to bypass and leave undisturbed any or all trees scheduled for pruning or removal if active nesting birds or eggs are found to occupy the tree(s) all in accordance within the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Agenda Item: J AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:January 28, 2019 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager FROM:Joe Miller, Chief of Police SUBJECT:Parking Related Municipal Code Changes and Parking Policy Revisions ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council: 1. Introduce, read by title only, and waive further reading of Ordinance 1672 approving changes to the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code relating to parking and public parking lots, and 2. That the City Council approve revisions to City Council Policy 100-9, Parking Permits. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: In July 2017, the Chief of Police signed the first agreement for the initial phase of the parking project with Dixon Resources Unlimited (“Dixon”) as the contract amount was within the City Manager’s authority and delegated to the Chief of Police. The services required under this agreement for phase one have been completed, including the selection, placement, and implementation of an ongoing parking meter pilot project in the Main Street municipal parking lots, as well as the implementation of upgraded parking citation equipment used by the parking enforcement personnel. This upgraded citation writing technology allows for more efficient ticket issuance, as well as accompanying pictures taken of the violation, which is visible to the violator via the online parking portal provided by Citation Processing Center. The second phase of the project has also been completed, which included the selection of parking program vendors. These vendors have installed both multi-space parking machines in the beach parking lots and single space meters in the Main Street municipal lots. The third phase of the project includes an assessment of the existing Seal Beach Municipal Code parking provisions with recommendations designed to support current and future parking program changes, clarify regulations, and facilitate enforcement practices. Staff presented recommended updates to Council on November 13, 2018 with a second reading at a Council meeting on December 10, 2018. Based on feedback from Council, staff has proposed several additional updates to the municipal code and policy documents. New changes include: vehicle movement defined separately in commercial versus non-commercial areas; commercial areas defined as: Main Street between Ocean Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway; Ocean Avenue between 8th Street and 10th Street; Central Avenue between 8th Street and 10th Street; and Electric Avenue between 8th Street and 10th Street; non-commercial areas require vehicle movement of 30 feet rather than 150 feet; and a policy update to allow temporary permits to be obtained by residents temporarily unable to move a vehicle from an on-street parking space. A summary of all proposed municipal code changes are as follows: 8.15.010: No Parking Areas, additional language that provides flexibility to City Council to prevent parking in areas specified by City Council resolution. 8.15.020. Marking of Parking Spaces. Flexibility to enable City Council to designate where vehicles must park within a single parking space, rather than allowing oversize vehicles to park in multiple spaces. 8.15.025 Storage of Vehicles on Street or City Property. Commercial areas defined. Vehicles that have not moved a minimum of 150 feet in commercial areas or 30 feet in non-commercial areas within 72 hours will be deemed stationary and may be removed. Prevents repair facilities from storing vehicles on street. 8.15.055 Short Term Parking Zones, allows hours for short-term parking zones to be designated by City Council, rather than limited to specific hours. Vehicles that have not moved a minimum of 150 feet in commercial areas and 30 feet in non- commercial areas will be deemed stationary. 8.15.065 Parking on City Property. Language added to clarify City Council authority to establish rules for the use of permits and any methods of collection for parking on City property. 8.15.070 Curb Markings. Removal of specific hours from code to allow flexibility. Removes reference to hotels for white curbs, as the language applies to additional locations. 8.15.080 Parking in Alley. Requires active loading in alleys with a three-minute maximum for passenger loading and a twenty-minute maximum for commercial loading. 8.15.085 Parking of Oversize Vehicles. Includes language that prohibits parking of oversize vehicles in lots. 8.15.095 Taxicab and Rideshare Vehicle Stands. Includes language for taxicabs, rideshares, and cars for hire rather than just taxicabs. 8.15.110 Parking Permits. Allows City Manager or designee to designate permit areas and assign rules. Includes permit parking in the Library lot. Revised to account for permit parking that may be validated by license plate rather than physical permit display. Allows City Council to designate valid permit timeframes. Designates fraudulent use of permits and resulting fine/penalty. 8.15.115 Diagonal Parking Zones. Requires front-in parking unless otherwise designated with signage. Front-in parking will facilitate enforcement with License Plate Recognition. 8.20.010 Parking Without Payment Prohibited. Adjusted to allow for the Pay by Plate configuration and validation by license plate number. 8.20.15 Head-in Parking Only. Requires head-in parking in lots. 8.20.020 Sunset Aquatic Park Parking Restriction. Adjusted to allow for the Pay by Plate configuration and validation by license plate number. 8.25.035 Copies of Citation. Allows City Council to set the amount paid for a copy of the original citation. NEW: Electric Vehicles. Allows electric vehicle parking only while actively charging. NEW: Reparking restrictions in timed parking zones. Sets a 150 feet restriction for vehicle movement in order to be deemed non-stationary. NEW: Obstruction of Enforcement. Prevents removal of tire chalking. A summary of proposed Policy changes are as follows: allow temporary permits to be obtained by residents temporarily unable to move a vehicle from an on- street parking space; grant authority to approve permits to the Finance Department; require temporary permit holders to abide by other parking rules and regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Ordinance and Policy and has approved as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this item. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Introduce, read by title only, and waive further reading of Ordinance 1672 approving changes to the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code relating to parking and public parking lots, and 2. That the City Council approve revisions to City Council Policy 100-9, Parking Permits. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Joe Miller Jill R. Ingram Joe Miller, Chief of Police Jill R. Ingram, City Manager Prepared by: Commander Steve Bowles ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance 1672 (Redline) B. Ordinance 1672 (Clean) C. Parking Permit Policy 100-9 (Redline) D. Parking Permit Policy 100-9 (Clean) ORDINANCE NO. XXXX1672 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTERS 8.15, 8.20 AND 8.25 OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING OF VEHICLES IN THE CITY, REGULATIONS FOR PARKING IN CITY PARKING LOTS AND AMENDING THE PROCESS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OF PARKING CITATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. (a) The City of Seal Beach (the “City”) is a charter city duly organized under the constitution and the laws of the State of California. (b) Pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 22507 and other applicable State laws, the City Council is authorized to make and enforce additional restrictions on stopping, standing and parking on the City. (c) The restrictions adopted herein are intended to be consistent with, and in addition to, the provisions of existing State law. SECTION 2. Chapter 8.15 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended and restated to read as follows (text to be deleted is struck-through, text to be added is underlined): “Chapter 8.15 STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING 8.15.005 Application of Chapter. A. The provisions of this chapter prohibiting stopping, standing or parking of a vehicle shall apply at all times herein specified except when it is necessary to stop a vehicle to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or official traffic control device. B. The provisions of this chapter imposing a time limit on standing or parking shall not relieve any person from the duty to observe other and more restrictive provisions of the Vehicle Code or this code. 8.15.010 No Parking Areas. No person shall stop, stand or park any vehicle in any of the following places: A. Within a parkway. B. Within a divisional island, unless authorized by signs or markings. C. In any area where stopping, standing or parking of vehicles is prohibited as indicated by signs or by red paint upon the curb surface. D. In any area where the stopping, standing or parking of the vehicle would constitute a hazard. E. In any area where the stopping, standing or parking of the vehicle would block the entrance to a garage or driveway. This provision shall not apply if the owner or occupant thereof has granted permission. F. In the Surfside Colony in any area between the white lines where stopping, standing or parking of the vehicle would constitute a hazard. (Ord. 1566; Ord. 1515) A. General: It shall be unlawful for the driver of a vehicle to stop, park or leave standing such vehicle whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the direction of a police officer, traffic officer, or traffic sign or signal: 1 In an intersection; 2 In a crosswalk; 3 Within a divisional island, unless authorized by signage or markings; 4 In such no parking or restricted parking areas as designated by the city; 5 In such no parking or restricted parking areas as may be defined, designated or established by City Council resolution; 6 In violation of any provision of this Code or applicable State law; 7 On a sidewalk; 8 On any portion of the area extending from a roadway edge of the curb (or from the highest point of a rolled curb) to the sidewalk; 9 In any area where stopping, standing or parking of vehicles is prohibited as indicated by signs or by red paint upon the curb surface; 10 In any area where the stopping, standing or parking of the vehicle would block the entrance to a garage or driveway. This provision shall not apply if the owner or occupant thereof has granted permission, and 11 In the Surfside Colony in any area between the white lines where stopping, standing or parking of the vehicle would constitute a hazard. 8.15.015 Stop Signs. The traffic engineer shall erect and maintain a stop sign at each street intersecting a through street or portion thereof, at the entrances of other intersections where a stop is required and at railroad grade crossings where a stop is required. 8.15.020 Marking of Parking Spaces. A. The traffic engineer may install and maintain parking space markings adjacent to curbings to indicate where parking is permitted. B. No vehicle shall be stopped, left standing or parked other than within a single parking space unless the size of such vehicle makes compliance impossible. (Ord. 1515) B. No vehicle shall be stopped, left standing or parked other than within a single parking space. 8.15.025 Storage of Vehicles on Street or City Property. No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle upon a street or other city property for more than 72 consecutive hours. (Ord. 1515) A. For purposes of this section, the following locations are deemed to be commercial areas: 1. Main Street between Ocean Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway 2. Ocean Avenue between 8th Street and 10th Street 3. Central Avenue between 8th Street and 10th Street 4. Electric Avenue between 8th Street and 10th Street B. For purposes of this section, any location that is outside of a commercial area as defined in Section A above, is deemed to be a non-commercial area. C. No vehicle shall be parked or left standing on a street for seventy-two (72) or more consecutive hours. Vehicles parked longer than 72 hours may be removed from a City street. D. Any vehicle in a non-commercial area that has not moved a minimum of 30 feet after 72 consecutive hours shall be deemed to have remained stationary. E. Any vehicle in a commercial area that has not moved a minimum distance of 150 feet after 72 consecutive hours shall be deemed to have remained stationary. F. Vehicles that remain stationary longer than 72 hours may be cited and removed by the Police Department. G. Motor vehicles which are parked, resting, or otherwise immobilized on any highway or public right-of-way and which lack an engine, transmission, wheels, tires, doors, windshield, or any other part or equipment necessary to operate safely on the highways of this state, are hereby declared a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare and may be removed immediately upon discovery by the Police Department. H. It is unlawful for any person whose business involves the repair or servicing of vehicles or vehicle components to store, stand or park any vehicle on any public street or public property after that person has accepted custody of that vehicle from the customer. I.Vehicle storage time shall not exceed thirty days on the premises of the repair facility. Vehicles awaiting repair shall be stored in a designated off-street storage area and shall not be stored in parking or other open areas. 8.15.030 Vehicle Servicing on Street. A. No person shall construct, repair or grease any vehicle or part thereof upon a street. This provision does not apply to emergency repairs. B. No person shall wash or polish any vehicle or part thereof upon a street. 8.15.035 Parking Adjacent to Schools. The traffic engineer may erect signs to prohibit parking adjacent to school property when deemed necessary to prevent traffic interference or the creation of a hazard. 8.15.040 Parking on Narrow Streets. The traffic engineer may place signs and markings to prohibit parking upon any street having a roadway width less than 20 feet, or upon one side of any street having a roadway width less than 30 feet. 8.15.045 Parking on Grades. No person shall stop, leave standing or park any unattended vehicle on a street having a grade exceeding 3% unless the wheels of such vehicle are blocked by turning them against the curb or by other means. 8.15.050 Emergency Parking Signs. The traffic engineer may place temporary signs to prohibit parking of vehicles on streets and alleys during the holding of authorized parades or special events. Such signs shall be promptly removed after the parade or special event. 8.15.055 Short Term Parking Zones. Unless otherwise permitted by signs, no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in a short term parking zone between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. of any day for longer than the prescribed period. For purposes of this section, the term “short term parking zone” means an area in which signs, parking meters or curb markings prescribe a short term period for parking of vehicles. (Ord. 1515) The traffic engineer may designate short-term parking zones. Unless otherwise permitted by signs, no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in a short term parking zone between the hours designated by the traffic engineer on any day for longer than the prescribed period. For purposes of this section, the term “short term parking zone” means an area in which signs, parking meters or curb markings prescribe a short term period for parking of vehicles. Any vehicle that has not moved a distance of 150 feet in commercial areas preceding the short-term parking time limit shall be deemed to have remained stationary. 8.15.060 No Stopping Zones. The traffic engineer may designate no stopping zones by placing and maintaining appropriate signs. 8.15.065 Parking on City Property. A. The traffic engineer may erect and maintain signs to restrict or prohibit the driving or parking of vehicles on city property. B. The city council may by resolution determine fees and methods of collection for the regulation of public parking on city owned or operated parking lots. The city council also may by resolution establish provisions for the issuance of parking permits authorizing parking on city owned or operated parking lots without payment of a fee. (Ord. 1515) B. The City Council may by resolution determine fees and methods of collection for the privilege of public parking on any street, municipal parking lot or other city property. The City Council also may by resolution establish provisions for the issuance of parking permits authorizing parking on any street or municipal parking lot without payment of a fee, and appropriate regulations for parking on public property. 8.15.070 Curb Markings. The traffic engineer shall utilize the following curb markings to indicate parking regulations: A.Red: no stopping, standing or parking at any time except as permitted by the Vehicle Code, and except that a bus may stop in a red zone that is signed or marked as a bus zone. B.Yellow: no stopping, standing or parking between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on any day other than Sunday for any purpose other than loading or unloading of passengers or materials. The period of passenger loading or unloading shall not exceed 3 minutes, and the period of materials loading or unloading shall not exceed 20 minutes. B. Yellow: no stopping, standing or parking during hours designated by signage for any purpose other than loading or unloading of passengers or materials. The period of active passenger loading and unloading shall not exceed 3 minutes, and the period of materials loading and unloading shall not exceed 20 minutes. C.White: no stopping, standing or parking between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on any day for any purpose other than loading or unloading of passengers, or depositing mail in an adjacent mailbox, for a period not exceeding 3 minutes. When the zone is in front of a hotel, the restrictions shall apply at all times. When the zone is in front of a theater, the restrictions shall apply when the theater is open. When the zone is established at a taxicab stand, taxicabs and automobiles for hire may remain in the zone for 40 minutes. C. White: no stopping, standing during posted hours for any purpose other than loading or unloading of passengers, or depositing mail in an adjacent mailbox, for a period of time not exceeding 3 minutes. When the zone is in front of a theater, the restrictions shall apply only when the theater is open. When the zone is established at a taxicab stand, taxicabs, rideshare vehicles and automobiles for hire may remain in the zone for 20 minutes. D.Green: no stopping, standing or parking between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on any day for a period longer than the time indicated on the curb unless otherwise indicated by signs. D. Green: no stopping, standing or parking between hours and on days designated by City Council resolution for a period longer than the time indicated on the curb unless otherwise indicated by signs or curb markings. E. A licensed driver shall be present in or immediately adjacent to any vehicle stopped for the purpose of active loading or unloading passengers or materials. 8.15.075 Loading Zones. The traffic engineer may determine and mark loading zones as follows: A. At any place in the central traffic district or any business district. B. Elsewhere in front of the entrance to any place of business or in front of any hall or place used for the purpose of public assembly. C. In no event shall more than half of the total curb length in any block be reserved for loading zone purposes. 8.15.080 Parking in Alley. A. No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in an alley for any purpose other than the loading or unloading of freight or passengers. B. No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in an alley in a manner that blocks the entrance to a garage. C. Except in Alley Parking Zones as designated and posted, no person shall stop or stand any vehicle in an alley for a period of time longer than is necessary for the active loading or unloading of passengers or materials. Such loading or unloading shall not consume more than 3 minutes for passengers nor more than 20 minutes for materials. No person shall stop or stand any vehicle in any alley in such a manner that would prevent the passage of emergency vehicles. 8.15.085 Parking of Oversize Vehicles. A.Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following words and phrases shall mean: 1.Nonmotorized Vehicle: a trailer, camp trailer, semi-trailer or trailer coach as defined in the Vehicle Code. 2.Oversize Vehicle: a vehicle or combination of vehicles that exceeds 20 feet in length or 90 inches in width exclusive of projecting lights or devices as allowed by Vehicle Code Sections 35109 and 35110. “Oversize vehicle” does not include a sedan or limousine manufactured expressly for carrying 10 or fewer passengers. B.Prohibitions. 1. No person shall park or leave standing an oversize vehicle upon any street between 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. 2. No person shall park or leave standing upon any street a non-motorized vehicle that has been detached from its motor vehicle. 3. No person shall park or leave standing an oversize vehicle in any City parking lot. C.Exemptions. 1. Subsection B of this section does not apply to the following: a. Commercial vehicles making pick ups or deliveries of goods, wares or merchandise. b. Vehicles displaying a valid permit issued by the chief of police. 2. Paragraph 2 of subsection B of this section does not apply to vehicles being loaded or unloaded, or if emergency repairs are being made to the vehicle or to an adjacent property. D.Permits. The chief of police or designee may issue temporary permits for the overnight parking of an oversize vehicle or non-motorized vehicle upon making the following findings: 1. The proposed parking will not constitute a hazard. 2. The proposed parking is necessary due to special circumstances. For purposes of this provision, “special circumstances” includes without limitation: a. The vehicle belongs to a house guest temporarily residing in the city. A permit issued based on this circumstance shall not be valid longer than 14 days. b. The vehicle is newly purchased and a permanent parking place is being arranged. A permit issued based on this circumstance shall not be valid longer than 14 days. c. The vehicle belongs to a new resident and a permanent parking place is being arranged. A permit issued based on this circumstance shall not be valid longer than 14 days. d. The vehicle is used on a daily basis for work and on-premises parking is not reasonably possible. A permit issued based on this circumstance shall not be valid longer than 6 months. e. The proposed parking is necessary for loading or unloading. A permit issued based on this circumstance shall not be valid longer than one day. E.Appeals. Decisions involving the permit provided for in this section shall be subject to the administrative review procedure of Chapter 1.20 of this code. The city manager or designee shall be hearing officer for the purpose of such procedure, and the decision of the hearing officer shall be final and not subject to further administrative or City appeal. 8.15.090 Truck Parking. A.Prohibitions. No person shall park any commercial vehicle, truck, trailer or truck-trailer combination that exceeds a width of 80 inches on any street for a period longer than 2 hours. B.Exemptions. Subsection A of this section does not apply to vehicles displaying a valid permit issued by the chief of police. C.Permits. The chief of police or designee may issue temporary permits for the parking on a street of a commercial vehicle, truck, trailer or truck-trailer combination that exceeds a width of 80 inches upon making the following findings: 1. The proposed parking will not adversely affect the subject neighborhood. 2. The proposed parking is necessary due to special circumstances. For purposes of this provision, “special circumstances” means either: a. The vehicle is immobile due to accident or mechanical failure. b. The vehicle is being loaded or unloaded and such work requires more than 2 hours to complete. c. The vehicle is necessary for the performance of a service at an adjacent property and such work requires more than 2 hours to complete. D.Appeals. Decisions involving the permit provided for in this section shall be subject to the administrative review procedure of Chapter 1.20 of this code. The city manager or designee shall be hearing officer for the purpose of such procedure, and the decision of the hearing officer shall be final and not subject to further administrative or City appeal. 8.15.095 Taxicab and Rideshare Vehicle Stands. A. The traffic engineer may determine locations for and establish taxicab stands. The curb surface within each taxicab stand shall be painted white and marked “Taxicab Stand” in red lettering or shall be designated by appropriate signs. A. Rideshare. For the purpose of this Chapter a rideshare is defined as a vehicle that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation through an Internet-enabled application or digital platform to connect passengers with drivers of vehicles for hire. B. The traffic engineer may determine locations for active passenger loading and unloading for taxicabs, rideshare vehicles or other automobiles identified as “for hire.” The curb surface shall be designated by appropriate signage. When such a loading and unloading zone is designated, taxicabs, rideshare vehicles and other automobiles shall not stop or stand for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers in another location within a one (1) City block of such designated location. C. No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle other than a taxicab, rideshare vehicle or automobiles identified as “for hire” in a taxicab stand or designated loading and unloading zone. 8.15.100 Surfside Colony Fire Hydrants. A. No person shall stop, leave standing or park a vehicle within 15 feet of the main fire hydrants located within the Surfside Colony at Phillips Avenue and A Row, and Phillips Avenue and C Row, except when the vehicle is attended in the front seat by a licensed driver capable of immediately moving the vehicle. B. No person shall stop, leave standing or park a vehicle within 10 feet of any other fire hydrant within the Surfside Colony unless the vehicle is attended in the front seat by a licensed driver capable of immediately moving the vehicle. 8.15.105 Parking Meters and Zones. A. Parking meter zones are hereby established at the off-street municipal parking lots and along Main Street, Ocean Avenue, Central Avenue and Electric Avenue as delineated on the “City of Seal Beach Parking Meter Zone Map” dated September 23, 2002. Such map is incorporated herein by reference. The city manager or the designee thereof shall cause parking meters to be installed and maintained in all parking meter zones. B. The payment to be deposited in parking meters or multispace meters, or by other approved methods of payment, the parking time allowed following deposit of payment, the hours during which such deposits are required, and the days of the week and the weeks of the year during which such deposits are required for parking meters in all zones shall be prescribed by City Council resolution. B. Parking meters in the parking meter zones shall be operated between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on every day unless otherwise indicated by signs at a particular zone. The parking meter fees for parking meter zones shall be $1.00 per hour on a year-round basis. C. Parking meters in the parking meter zones shall be operated according to the posted signs. The parking meter fees for parking meter zones shall be prescribed by City Council resolution. D. No person shall do any of the following: 1. Fail to deposit the parking meter fee immediately after parking a vehicle in a parking meter zone and for the entire time that person has a vehicle parked in the parking meter zone during the parking meter hours of operation. 2. Deposit in a parking meter a defaced coin or slug. 3. Deface, injure, or tamper with a parking meter. 4. Attach a bicycle, newsrack, fabric, handbill, flier, sticker, note, or other article to a parking meter. 5. Allow a vehicle owned or operated by such person to remain parked at a parking meter displaying the time expired signal. This provision does not apply to the period necessary after initial occupancy of a parking meter space for the immediate deposit of the parking meter fee. 5. Allow a vehicle owned or operated by such person to remain parked at a paid parking space beyond the expired time. This provision does not apply to the period necessary after initial occupancy of a paid parking space for the immediate deposit of the parking meter fee. 6. Park a vehicle across a line or marking designating a parking meter space. 7. Park a vehicle that does not conform to the maximum vehicle length limit applicable to the lot. 8. Allow a vehicle parked by such person to remain in a parking meter space after receipt of a citation for failure to pay the parking meter fee. A violation of this provision shall occur after passage, from the issuance of the citation, of the parking time limit of the lot. 9. Purchase time for paid parking using any method of payment for the purpose of increasing or extending the parking time of any vehicle beyond the legal parking time which has been established for the parking space or zone adjacent to which said parking meter is placed. D. The parking of a vehicle at a parking meter displaying the time expired signal shall constitute prima facie evidence that the vehicle has been parked in such space longer than permitted by this section. E. The parking of a vehicle at a paid parking space beyond the expired payment time shall constitute prima facie evidence that the vehicle has been parked in such space longer than permitted by this section. F. Mechanical failure of a parking meter shall be a defense to a citation for failure to pay the parking meter fee, provided that the person cited is not responsible for such failure. 8.15.110 Parking Permits. A. Parking permits may be issued for areas in which parking has been limited or prohibited by this title subject to the following restrictions: A. The City Manager or designee shall be authorized and directed to issue, upon written applications, parking permits. Each such permit shall be designated by City Council resolution to reflect the particular parking permit parking district as well as the license plate number of the motor vehicle for which it is issued. Consistent with this chapter, the City Manager or designee is authorized to issue such written rules and regulations as he/she deems necessary or appropriate to govern the process and terms for the issuance of parking permits. Rules and regulations shall be available for public review at City Hall and at the Police Department during normal business hours. This title is subject to the following restrictions: 1. On Main Street, Ocean Avenue from Eighth Street to Tenth Street, and Central Avenue from Eighth Street to Tenth Street, residential parking permits may allow 2-hour parking. 2. In the municipal parking lots on Main Street, residential parking permits may allow parking between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. 3. In the Eighth Street city employee parking lot south of Central Avenue, residential parking permits may allow parking between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. 4. In the Library Lot, parking permits may allow residential parking between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. B. Parking permits may be issued in the following categories: 1. Residential Parking Permit: Any city resident may purchase a residential parking permit for each vehicle owned or leased by that resident. Applicants shall submit their name, address, proof of residence and the make, model and license number of each vehicle. Permits shall be displayed on the left rear bumper of the vehicle. 1. Residential Parking Permit: Any city resident may purchase a residential parking permit. Applicants shall submit their name, address, proof of residence and the make, model and license number of each vehicle. Permits shall be displayed or validated as directed by the city. 2. Guest Parking Permit: Any city resident may purchase up to two guest parking permits. Applicants shall submit their name, address and proof of residence. Permits shall be displayed on the inside left rear window of the vehicle. 2. Guest Parking Permit: Any city residence may purchase guest parking permits. Applicants shall submit their name, address and proof of residence. Permits shall be displayed or validated as designated by the city. Permits shall be valid within timeframes designated by the city. 3. Merchant/Employee Parking Permit: Any merchant or employee working within the Old Town area may purchase a merchant/employee parking permit. Applicants shall submit their name, business address, proof of employment and the make, model and license number of the vehicle. Permits shall be displayed on the left rear bumper of the vehicle. 3. Merchant/Employee Parking Permit: Any merchant or employee working within the Old Town area may purchase a merchant/employee parking permit. Applicants shall submit their name, business address, proof of employment and the make, model and license number of the vehicle. Permits shall be displayed or validated as directed by the city. This permit shall be valid for parking on certain streets or parking lots as designated by the city. C. Parking permits shall be valid from July 1st of the year issued until June 30th of the following year or until a change in ownership of the vehicle for which it is issued, whichever occurs earlier. C. Parking permits shall be valid within timeframes designated by the city or until a change of ownership of the vehicle for which it is issued, whichever comes first. D. A parking permit shall be destroyed by the permittee upon a change in ownership of the vehicle for which it issued or a change in address by the permittee. The permittee shall promptly report such destruction to the city. E. Parking permit fees shall be as set by City Council resolution. F. The following acts shall constitute fraudulent use of a permit punishable by a fine to be prescribed by City Council resolution and/or revocation of any permit currently held: 1. For any person to falsely represent himself or herself as eligible for a residential parking permit or to furnish false information in an application therefor; 2. For any person holding a valid residential parking permit issued pursuant hereto to permit use or display of or to use or display such permit on a motor vehicle other than that for which the permit was issued; 3. For any person to copy, reproduce or otherwise bring into existence a facsimile or counterfeit parking permit or permits; 4. For any person to knowingly use or display a facsimile or counterfeit parking permit in order to evade time limitations on parking applicable in a residential parking permit area; 5. For any person holding a valid parking permit issued pursuant hereto to sell, give or exchange said permit to any other person. 8.15.115 Diagonal Parking Zones. A. On any of the streets or portions of streets established by City Council resolution as diagonal parking zones, when signs or pavement markings are in place indicating such diagonal parking, it shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to park such vehicle in a manner that interferes with vehicles traveling in the driving lane or to park any vehicle except: 1. At the angle to the curb indicated by signs or pavement markings allotting space to park vehicles and entirely within the limits of such allotted space. 1. To park a vehicle in any orientation other than at the angle to the curb or edge of the roadway indicated by signs or markings, or in any paid parking space in any orientation other than with the front of the vehicle closest to the Parking Meter or curb, unless the space is expressly designated for "back in only" Parking. 2. With the front wheel nearest the curb within 6 inches of such curb. B. The provisions of this section shall not apply when such vehicle is actually engaged in the process of loading or unloading passengers, freight or goods, in which event the other applicable provisions of this chapter shall be complied with. 8.15.120 Re-parking restrictions in timed parking zones. On-street parking on a city street. A vehicle will be deemed to have been stopped, parked or left standing for longer than the time allowed in this section, if it has not been moved at least 150 feet in commercial areas or 30 feet in residential areas following the expiration of the posted time limit in a timed parking zone. A vehicle may not re-park sooner than a “timeout period” (equal to double the posted time limit) following the time at which a vehicle was initially parked. 8.15.125 Obstruction of Enforcement. No person shall obstruct the enforcement of this Chapter by any officer or employee of the City by removing, obliterating or concealing any distinguishing mark placed by any such officer or employee on any vehicle in the course of enforcing any provision of this Chapter.” SECTION 3. Chapter 8.20 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended and restated to read as follows (text to be deleted is struck-through, text to be added is underlined): “Chapter 8.20 MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING LOTS 8.20.005 Damaging Equipment Prohibited. No person shall damage any device or equipment, including, without limitation control gates, pay stations, signs, and parking meters, used in the operation of a motor vehicle parking lot. 8.20.010 Parking Without Payment Prohibited. A. No person shall drive a motor vehicle into a motor vehicle parking lot without payment of a required entrance fee. B. No person shall park a motor vehicle in a motor vehicle parking lot without payment of a required parking fee. C. No person shall park a motor vehicle in a motor vehicle parking lot without a valid parking permit properly displayed or validated as directed by the City on the driver’s side dashboard with the expiration date and time clearly visible from the exterior of the vehicle. 8.20.15 Head in Parking Only. Vehicles shall be parked with the rear of the vehicle oriented closest to the traffic lane and within the space indicated unless otherwise specified by signage. 8.20.020 Sunset Aquatic Park Parking Restriction. A. No person shall park any vehicle within Sunset Aquatic Park between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., unless the vehicle contains a properly displayed valid parking permit, issued by the operator of the Sunset Aquatic Park. Such permit shall be clearly visible from the exterior of the vehicle shall be displayed or validated as directed by the City. B. No person shall park a camper, recreational vehicle or vehicle and boat combination at any time within Sunset Aquatic Park. 8.20.025 Electric Vehicle Parking Stalls. Each electric vehicle parking stall will be clearly marked with signage. When so marked, it is unlawful to park in a designated electric vehicle charging station parking stall unless the vehicle is actively charging.” SECTION 3.Section 8.25.020 of Chapter 8.25 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (text to be deleted is struck-through, text to be added is underlined): “8.25.020 Citation Process. Parking citations shall be issued in accordance with the following procedures: A. If a vehicle is unattended during the time of the violation, the issuing officer shall securely attach to the vehicle a parking citation setting forth the violation, including reference to the section of the Vehicle Code, Public Resources Code or this code, or the federal statute or regulation, that has been violated; the date; the approximate time of the violation; the location of the violation; a statement indicating that payment is required to be made not later than 21 days from the date of the citation issuance; and the procedure for the registered owner or operator to deposit the parking penalty or contest the citation. The parking citation shall also set forth the vehicle license number and registration expiration date if they are visible; the last 4 digits of the vehicle identification number if they are readable through the windshield; the color of the vehicle; and, if possible, the make of the vehicle. B. The parking citation shall be accompanied by a written notice of: the parking penalty amount due for that violation; the address of the person authorized to receive a deposit of the parking penalty; a statement in bold print that payment of the parking penalty for the parking violation may be sent through the mail; and instructions on obtaining information on the procedures to contest the citation. C. The parking citation shall be served by attaching it to the vehicle either under the windshield wiper or in another conspicuous place upon the vehicle so as to be easily observed by the person in charge of the vehicle upon the return of that person. D. Once the parking citation is prepared and attached to the vehicle, the issuing officer shall file the citation with the processing agency. E. If, during the issuance of the parking citation, without regard to whether the vehicle was initially attended or unattended, the vehicle is driven away prior to attachment of the citation to the vehicle, the issuing officer shall file the citation with the processing agency. The processing agency shall mail within 15 days of issuance of the parking citation, a copy of the citation to the registered owner. F. If, within 21 days after the parking citation is attached to the vehicle, the issuing officer or the issuing agency determines that, in the interest of justice, the citation should be cancelled, the issuing agency shall notify the processing agency to cancel the citation. The reason for the cancellation shall be set forth in writing. G. If, after a copy of the parking citation is attached to the vehicle, the issuing officer determines that there is incorrect data on the citation, including without limitation the date or time, the issuing officer may indicate in writing on a form attached to the original citation, the necessary correction to allow for the timely entry of the citation on the processing agency’s data system. A copy of the correction shall be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle. SECTION 4.Section 8.25.035 of Chapter 8.25 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (text to be deleted is struck-through, text to be added is underlined): “8.25.035 Copies of Citation. Within 15 days of request, made by mail or in person, the processing agency shall mail or otherwise provide to the registered owner, or the registered owner’s agent, a copy of the original parking citation. The fee for such copy shall be in amount set by city council resolution and shall not exceed $2. Until the issuing agency or processing agency complies with a request to provide a copy of the parking citation, the processing agency may not proceed pursuant to Vehicle Code Sections 22651(i), 22651.7 or 40220. (Ord. 1515) The processing agency shall mail or otherwise provide to the registered owner, or the registered owner’s agent, a copy of the original parking citation. The fee for such copy shall be in amount set by City Council resolution. Until the issuing agency or processing agency complies with a request to provide a copy of the parking citation, the processing agency may not proceed pursuant to Vehicle Code Sections 22651(i), 22651.7 or 40220.” SECTION 5.Section 8.25.050 of Chapter 8.25 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (text to be deleted is struck-through, text to be added is underlined): “8.25.050 Review Process. A. Initial Review. For a period of 21 days from the issuance of a parking citation, or 14 days from the mailing of a notice of delinquent parking citation, a person may request an initial review of the citation or the notice by the issuing agency. The request for initial review may be made by telephone, in writing or in person and there shall be no charge for the initial review. If, following the initial review, the issuing agency is satisfied that the violation did not occur, that the registered owner was not responsible for the violation, or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the citation appropriate in the interests of justice, then the issuing agency shall cancel the parking citation or the notice of delinquent parking citation. The issuing agency shall advise the processing agency of the cancellation. Either the issuing agency or the processing agency shall mail the results of the initial review to the contestant. B. Administrative Hearing—In General. If a contestant is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, such person may request an administrative hearing on the violation no later than 21 days following the mailing of the results of the initial review. The request may be made by telephone, in writing or in person. Before the expiration of the period for requesting an administrative hearing, the contestant shall deposit with the processing agency the amount of the parking penalty and shall file, on a processing agency issued form, a written explanation of the grounds for appeal. The processing agency may waive the deposit requirement upon satisfactory proof by the contestant of an inability to pay the parking penalty due. The administrative hearing shall be held within 90 days of the hearing request; provided, however, that the contestant may request one continuance, not to exceed 21 days. C. Administrative Hearing—Elements. 1. The contestant shall have the choice of an administrative hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the city. 2. If the contestant is a minor, such person may appear at an administrative hearing or admit responsibility for the parking violation without the necessity of the appointment of a guardian. The processing agency may proceed against the minor in the same manner as against an adult. 3. The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the issuing agency and approved by the city manager. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair and impartial review of contested parking violations. 4. The issuing officer is not required to participate in the administrative hearing. The issuing agency is not required to produce any evidence other than the parking citation, or copy thereof, and information received from the department identifying the registered owner of the vehicle. The documentation in proper form shall be prima facie evidence of the violation. 5. The hearing examiner’s decision following the administrative hearing may be personally delivered to the contestant or sent by first-class mail. 6. Upon determining that a contestant has committed the violation, the hearing examiner may, consistent with the issuing agency’s guidelines, allow payment of the parking penalty in installments. Alternatively, the issuing agency may allow for deferred payment or payment in installments if the contestant provides satisfactory evidence of inability to pay the parking penalty in full. If authorized by City Council resolution, the hearing examiner may permit the performance of community service in lieu of payment of a parking penalty.” SECTION 6. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby determines that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it can be seen with certainty that the adjustment of certain parking restrictions and requirements that already exist in the City is not a “project” under CEQA since such adjustments will not result in any physical change to the environment. SECTION 7. 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 invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part hereof. The City Council of the City of Seal Beach hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 8. Savings Clause. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal or amendment by this Ordinance of any ordinance or part or portion of any ordinance previously in effect in the City or within the territory comprising the City, shall in any manner affect the prosecution for the violation of any ordinance, which violation was committed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, nor be construed as a waiver of any license, fee or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation of such ordinances. Sections of the Seal Beach Municipal Code not amended by this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect, and those existing sections amended by this Ordinance shall remain in effect until this Ordinance takes effect. SECTION 9. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 28__th day of January______________, 20198. __________________________ Thomas Moore, Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM ______________________________________________________ Robin L. Roberts, City Clerk Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk Craig A. Steele, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Dana EngstromRobin Roberts, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was passed, approved and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28__th day of _January__________, 20198 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members ____________________________________________ NOES: Council Members ____________________________________________ ABSENT: Council Members ____________________________________________ ABSTAIN: Council Members ____________________________________________ and do hereby further certify that Ordinance 1672 Number XXXX has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836. ___________________________ Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk Robin L. Roberts, City Clerk ORDINANCE 1672 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTERS 8.15, 8.20 AND 8.25 OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING OF VEHICLES IN THE CITY, REGULATIONS FOR PARKING IN CITY PARKING LOTS AND AMENDING THE PROCESS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OF PARKING CITATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. (a) The City of Seal Beach (the “City”) is a charter city duly organized under the constitution and the laws of the State of California. (b) Pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 22507 and other applicable State laws, the City Council is authorized to make and enforce additional restrictions on stopping, standing and parking on the City. (c) The restrictions adopted herein are intended to be consistent with, and in addition to, the provisions of existing State law. SECTION 2. Chapter 8.15 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended and restated to read as follows “Chapter 8.15 STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING 8.15.005 Application of Chapter. A. The provisions of this chapter prohibiting stopping, standing or parking of a vehicle shall apply at all times herein specified except when it is necessary to stop a vehicle to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or official traffic control device. B. The provisions of this chapter imposing a time limit on standing or parking shall not relieve any person from the duty to observe other and more restrictive provisions of the Vehicle Code or this code. 8.15.010 No Parking Areas. A. General: It shall be unlawful for the driver of a vehicle to stop, park or leave standing such vehicle whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the direction of a police officer, traffic officer, or traffic sign or signal: 1. In an intersection; 2. In a crosswalk; 3. Within a divisional island, unless authorized by signage or markings; 4. In such no parking or restricted parking areas as designated by the city; 5. In such no parking or restricted parking areas as may be defined, designated or established by City Council resolution; 6. In violation of any provision of this Code or applicable State law; 7. On a sidewalk; 8. On any portion of the area extending from a roadway edge of the curb (or from the highest point of a rolled curb) to the sidewalk; 9. In any area where stopping, standing or parking of vehicles is prohibited as indicated by signs or by red paint upon the curb surface; 10. In any area where the stopping, standing or parking of the vehicle would block the entrance to a garage or driveway. This provision shall not apply if the owner or occupant thereof has granted permission, and 11. In the Surfside Colony in any area between the white lines where stopping, standing or parking of the vehicle would constitute a hazard. 8.15.015 Stop Signs. The traffic engineer shall erect and maintain a stop sign at each street intersecting a through street or portion thereof, at the entrances of other intersections where a stop is required and at railroad grade crossings where a stop is required. 8.15.020 Marking of Parking Spaces. A. The traffic engineer may install and maintain parking space markings adjacent to curbings to indicate where parking is permitted. B. No vehicle shall be stopped, left standing or parked other than within a single parking space. 8.15.025 Storage of Vehicles on Street or City Property. For purposes of this section, the following locations are deemed to be commercial areas: 1. Main Street between Ocean Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway 2. Ocean Avenue between 8th Street and 10th Street 3. Central Avenue between 8th Street and 10th Street 4. Electric Avenue between 8th Street and 10th Street A. For purposes of this section, any location that is outside of a commercial area as defined in Section A above, is deemed to be a non-commercial area. B. No vehicle shall be parked or left standing on a street for seventy-two (72) or more consecutive hours. Vehicles parked longer than 72 hours may be removed from a City street. C. Any vehicle in a non-commercial area that has not moved a minimum of 30 feet after 72 consecutive hours shall be deemed to have remained stationary. D. Any vehicle in a commercial area that has not moved a minimum distance of 150 feet after 72 consecutive hours shall be deemed to have remained stationary. E. Vehicles that remain stationary longer than 72 hours may be cited and removed by the Police Department. F. Motor vehicles which are parked, resting, or otherwise immobilized on any highway or public right-of-way and which lack an engine, transmission, wheels, tires, doors, windshield, or any other part or equipment necessary to operate safely on the highways of this state, are hereby declared a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare and may be removed immediately upon discovery by the Police Department. G. It is unlawful for any person whose business involves the repair or servicing of vehicles or vehicle components to store, stand or park any vehicle on any public street or public property after that person has accepted custody of that vehicle from the customer. H. Vehicle storage time shall not exceed thirty days on the premises of the repair facility. Vehicles awaiting repair shall be stored in a designated off-street storage area and shall not be stored in parking or other open areas. 8.15.030 Vehicle Servicing on Street. A. No person shall construct, repair or grease any vehicle or part thereof upon a street. This provision does not apply to emergency repairs. B. No person shall wash or polish any vehicle or part thereof upon a street. 8.15.035 Parking Adjacent to Schools. The traffic engineer may erect signs to prohibit parking adjacent to school property when deemed necessary to prevent traffic interference or the creation of a hazard. 8.15.040 Parking on Narrow Streets. The traffic engineer may place signs and markings to prohibit parking upon any street having a roadway width less than 20 feet, or upon one side of any street having a roadway width less than 30 feet. 8.15.045 Parking on Grades. No person shall stop, leave standing or park any unattended vehicle on a street having a grade exceeding 3% unless the wheels of such vehicle are blocked by turning them against the curb or by other means. 8.15.050 Emergency Parking Signs. The traffic engineer may place temporary signs to prohibit parking of vehicles on streets and alleys during the holding of authorized parades or special events. Such signs shall be promptly removed after the parade or special event. 8.15.055 Short Term Parking Zones. The traffic engineer may designate short-term parking zones. Unless otherwise permitted by signs, no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in a short term parking zone between the hours designated by the traffic engineer on any day for longer than the prescribed period. For purposes of this section, the term “short term parking zone” means an area in which signs, parking meters or curb markings prescribe a short term period for parking of vehicles. Any vehicle that has not moved a distance of 150 feet in commercial areas preceding the short-term parking time limit shall be deemed to have remained stationary. 8.15.060 No Stopping Zones. The traffic engineer may designate no stopping zones by placing and maintaining appropriate signs. 8.15.065 Parking on City Property. A. The traffic engineer may erect and maintain signs to restrict or prohibit the driving or parking of vehicles on city property. B. The City Council may by resolution determine fees and methods of collection for the privilege of public parking on any street, municipal parking lot or other city property. The City Council also may by resolution establish provisions for the issuance of parking permits authorizing parking on any street or municipal parking lot without payment of a fee, and appropriate regulations for parking on public property. 8.15.070 Curb Markings. The traffic engineer shall utilize the following curb markings to indicate parking regulations: A.Red: no stopping, standing or parking at any time except as permitted by the Vehicle Code, and except that a bus may stop in a red zone that is signed or marked as a bus zone. B. Yellow: no stopping, standing or parking during hours designated by signage for any purpose other than loading or unloading of passengers or materials. The period of active passenger loading and unloading shall not exceed 3 minutes, and the period of materials loading and unloading shall not exceed 20 minutes. C. White: no stopping, standing during posted hours for any purpose other than loading or unloading of passengers, or depositing mail in an adjacent mailbox, for a period of time not exceeding 3 minutes. When the zone is in front of a theater, the restrictions shall apply only when the theater is open. When the zone is established at a taxicab stand, taxicabs, rideshare vehicles and automobiles for hire may remain in the zone for 20 minutes. D. Green: no stopping, standing or parking between hours and on days designated by City Council resolution for a period longer than the time indicated on the curb unless otherwise indicated by signs or curb markings. E. A licensed driver shall be present in or immediately adjacent to any vehicle stopped for the purpose of active loading or unloading passengers or materials. 8.15.075 Loading Zones. The traffic engineer may determine and mark loading zones as follows: A. At any place in the central traffic district or any business district. B. Elsewhere in front of the entrance to any place of business or in front of any hall or place used for the purpose of public assembly. C. In no event shall more than half of the total curb length in any block be reserved for loading zone purposes. 8.15.080 Parking in Alley. A. No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in an alley for any purpose other than the loading or unloading of freight or passengers. B. No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in an alley in a manner that blocks the entrance to a garage. C. Except in Alley Parking Zones as designated and posted, no person shall stop or stand any vehicle in an alley for a period of time longer than is necessary for the active loading or unloading of passengers or materials. Such loading or unloading shall not consume more than 3 minutes for passengers nor more than 20 minutes for materials. No person shall stop or stand any vehicle in any alley in such a manner that would prevent the passage of emergency vehicles. 8.15.085 Parking of Oversize Vehicles. A.Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following words and phrases shall mean: 1.Nonmotorized Vehicle: a trailer, camp trailer, semi-trailer or trailer coach as defined in the Vehicle Code. 2.Oversize Vehicle: a vehicle or combination of vehicles that exceeds 20 feet in length or 90 inches in width exclusive of projecting lights or devices as allowed by Vehicle Code Sections 35109 and 35110. “Oversize vehicle” does not include a sedan or limousine manufactured expressly for carrying 10 or fewer passengers. B.Prohibitions. 1. No person shall park or leave standing an oversize vehicle upon any street between 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. 2. No person shall park or leave standing upon any street a non-motorized vehicle that has been detached from its motor vehicle. 3. No person shall park or leave standing an oversize vehicle in any City parking lot. C.Exemptions. 1. Subsection B of this section does not apply to the following: a. Commercial vehicles making pick ups or deliveries of goods, wares or merchandise. b. Vehicles displaying a valid permit issued by the chief of police. 2. Paragraph 2 of subsection B of this section does not apply to vehicles being loaded or unloaded, or if emergency repairs are being made to the vehicle or to an adjacent property. D.Permits. The chief of police or designee may issue temporary permits for the overnight parking of an oversize vehicle or non-motorized vehicle upon making the following findings: 1. The proposed parking will not constitute a hazard. 2. The proposed parking is necessary due to special circumstances. For purposes of this provision, “special circumstances” includes without limitation: a. The vehicle belongs to a house guest temporarily residing in the city. A permit issued based on this circumstance shall not be valid longer than 14 days. b. The vehicle is newly purchased and a permanent parking place is being arranged. A permit issued based on this circumstance shall not be valid longer than 14 days. c. The vehicle belongs to a new resident and a permanent parking place is being arranged. A permit issued based on this circumstance shall not be valid longer than 14 days. d. The vehicle is used on a daily basis for work and on-premises parking is not reasonably possible. A permit issued based on this circumstance shall not be valid longer than 6 months. e. The proposed parking is necessary for loading or unloading. A permit issued based on this circumstance shall not be valid longer than one day. E.Appeals. Decisions involving the permit provided for in this section shall be subject to the administrative review procedure of Chapter 1.20 of this code. The city manager or designee shall be hearing officer for the purpose of such procedure, and the decision of the hearing officer shall be final and not subject to further administrative or City appeal. 8.15.090 Truck Parking. A.Prohibitions. No person shall park any commercial vehicle, truck, trailer or truck-trailer combination that exceeds a width of 80 inches on any street for a period longer than 2 hours. B.Exemptions. Subsection A of this section does not apply to vehicles displaying a valid permit issued by the chief of police. C.Permits. The chief of police or designee may issue temporary permits for the parking on a street of a commercial vehicle, truck, trailer or truck-trailer combination that exceeds a width of 80 inches upon making the following findings: 1. The proposed parking will not adversely affect the subject neighborhood. 2. The proposed parking is necessary due to special circumstances. For purposes of this provision, “special circumstances” means either: a. The vehicle is immobile due to accident or mechanical failure. b. The vehicle is being loaded or unloaded and such work requires more than 2 hours to complete. c. The vehicle is necessary for the performance of a service at an adjacent property and such work requires more than 2 hours to complete. D.Appeals. Decisions involving the permit provided for in this section shall be subject to the administrative review procedure of Chapter 1.20 of this code. The city manager or designee shall be hearing officer for the purpose of such procedure, and the decision of the hearing officer shall be final and not subject to further administrative or City appeal. 8.15.095 Taxicab and Rideshare Vehicle Stands. A. Rideshare. For the purpose of this Chapter a rideshare is defined as a vehicle that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation through an Internet-enabled application or digital platform to connect passengers with drivers of vehicles for hire. B. The traffic engineer may determine locations for active passenger loading and unloading for taxicabs, rideshare vehicles or other automobiles identified as “for hire.” The curb surface shall be designated by appropriate signage. When such a loading and unloading zone is designated, taxicabs, rideshare vehicles and other automobiles shall not stop or stand for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers in another location within a one (1) City block of such designated location. C. No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle other than a taxicab, rideshare vehicle or automobiles identified as “for hire” in a taxicab stand or designated loading and unloading zone. 8.15.100 Surfside Colony Fire Hydrants. A. No person shall stop, leave standing or park a vehicle within 15 feet of the main fire hydrants located within the Surfside Colony at Phillips Avenue and A Row, and Phillips Avenue and C Row, except when the vehicle is attended in the front seat by a licensed driver capable of immediately moving the vehicle. B. No person shall stop, leave standing or park a vehicle within 10 feet of any other fire hydrant within the Surfside Colony unless the vehicle is attended in the front seat by a licensed driver capable of immediately moving the vehicle. 8.15.105 Parking Meters and Zones. A. Parking meter zones are hereby established at the off-street municipal parking lots and along Main Street, Ocean Avenue, Central Avenue and Electric Avenue as delineated on the “City of Seal Beach Parking Meter Zone Map” dated September 23, 2002. Such map is incorporated herein by reference. The city manager or the designee thereof shall cause parking meters to be installed and maintained in all parking meter zones. B. The payment to be deposited in parking meters or multispace meters, or by other approved methods of payment, the parking time allowed following deposit of payment, the hours during which such deposits are required, and the days of the week and the weeks of the year during which such deposits are required for parking meters in all zones shall be prescribed by City Council resolution. C. Parking meters in the parking meter zones shall be operated according to the posted signs. The parking meter fees for parking meter zones shall be prescribed by City Council resolution. D. No person shall do any of the following: 1. Fail to deposit the parking meter fee immediately after parking a vehicle in a parking meter zone and for the entire time that person has a vehicle parked in the parking meter zone during the parking meter hours of operation. 2. Deposit in a parking meter a defaced coin or slug. 3. Deface, injure, or tamper with a parking meter. 4. Attach a bicycle, newsrack, fabric, handbill, flier, sticker, note, or other article to a parking meter. 5. Allow a vehicle owned or operated by such person to remain parked at a paid parking space beyond the expired time. 6. Park a vehicle across a line or marking designating a parking meter space. 7. Park a vehicle that does not conform to the maximum vehicle length limit applicable to the lot. 8. Allow a vehicle parked by such person to remain in a parking meter space after receipt of a citation for failure to pay the parking meter fee. A violation of this provision shall occur after passage, from the issuance of the citation, of the parking time limit of the lot. 9. Purchase time for paid parking using any method of payment for the purpose of increasing or extending the parking time of any vehicle beyond the legal parking time which has been established for the parking space or zone adjacent to which said parking meter is placed. E. The parking of a vehicle at a paid parking space beyond the expired payment time shall constitute prima facie evidence that the vehicle has been parked in such space longer than permitted by this section. F. Mechanical failure of a parking meter shall be a defense to a citation for failure to pay the parking meter fee, provided that the person cited is not responsible for such failure. 8.15.110 Parking Permits. A. The City Manager or designee shall be authorized and directed to issue, upon written applications, parking permits. Each such permit shall be designated by City Council resolution to reflect the particular parking permit parking district as well as the license plate number of the motor vehicle for which it is issued. Consistent with this chapter, the City Manager or designee is authorized to issue such written rules and regulations as he/she deems necessary or appropriate to govern the process and terms for the issuance of parking permits. Rules and regulations shall be available for public review at City Hall and at the Police Department during normal business hours. This title is subject to the following restrictions: 1. On Main Street, Ocean Avenue from Eighth Street to Tenth Street, and Central Avenue from Eighth Street to Tenth Street, residential parking permits may allow 2-hour parking. 2. In the municipal parking lots on Main Street, residential parking permits may allow parking between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. 3. In the Eighth Street city employee parking lot south of Central Avenue, residential parking permits may allow parking between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. 4. In the Library Lot, parking permits may allow residential parking between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. B. Parking permits may be issued in the following categories: 1. Residential Parking Permit: Any city resident may purchase a residential parking permit. Applicants shall submit their name, address, proof of residence and the make, model and license number of each vehicle. Permits shall be displayed or validated as directed by the city. 2. Guest Parking Permit: Any city residence may purchase guest parking permits. Applicants shall submit their name, address and proof of residence. Permits shall be displayed or validated as designated by the city. Permits shall be valid within timeframes designated by the city. 3. Merchant/Employee Parking Permit: Any merchant or employee working within the Old Town area may purchase a merchant/employee parking permit. Applicants shall submit their name, business address, proof of employment and the make, model and license number of the vehicle. Permits shall be displayed or validated as directed by the city. This permit shall be valid for parking on certain streets or parking lots as designated by the city. C. Parking permits shall be valid within timeframes designated by the city or until a change of ownership of the vehicle for which it is issued, whichever comes first. D. A parking permit shall be destroyed by the permittee upon a change in ownership of the vehicle for which it issued or a change in address by the permittee. The permittee shall promptly report such destruction to the city. E. Parking permit fees shall be as set by City Council resolution. F. The following acts shall constitute fraudulent use of a permit punishable by a fine to be prescribed by City Council resolution and/or revocation of any permit currently held: 1. For any person to falsely represent himself or herself as eligible for a residential parking permit or to furnish false information in an application therefor; 2. For any person holding a valid residential parking permit issued pursuant hereto to permit use or display of or to use or display such permit on a motor vehicle other than that for which the permit was issued; 3. For any person to copy, reproduce or otherwise bring into existence a facsimile or counterfeit parking permit or permits; 4. For any person to knowingly use or display a facsimile or counterfeit parking permit in order to evade time limitations on parking applicable in a residential parking permit area; 5. For any person holding a valid parking permit issued pursuant hereto to sell, give or exchange said permit to any other person. 8.15.115 Diagonal Parking Zones. A. On any of the streets or portions of streets established by City Council resolution as diagonal parking zones, when signs or pavement markings are in place indicating such diagonal parking, it shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to park such vehicle in a manner that interferes with vehicles traveling in the driving lane or to park any vehicle except: 1. To park a vehicle in any orientation other than at the angle to the curb or edge of the roadway indicated by signs or markings, or in any paid parking space in any orientation other than with the front of the vehicle closest to the Parking Meter or curb, unless the space is expressly designated for "back in only" Parking. 2. With the front wheel nearest the curb within 6 inches of such curb. B. The provisions of this section shall not apply when such vehicle is actually engaged in the process of loading or unloading passengers, freight or goods, in which event the other applicable provisions of this chapter shall be complied with. 8.15.120 Re-parking restrictions in timed parking zones. On-street parking on a city street. A vehicle will be deemed to have been stopped, parked or left standing for longer than the time allowed in this section, if it has not been moved at least 150 feet in commercial areas or 30 feet in residential areas following the expiration of the posted time limit in a timed parking zone. A vehicle may not re-park sooner than a “timeout period” (equal to double the posted time limit) following the time at which a vehicle was initially parked. 8.15.125 Obstruction of Enforcement. No person shall obstruct the enforcement of this Chapter by any officer or employee of the City by removing, obliterating or concealing any distinguishing mark placed by any such officer or employee on any vehicle in the course of enforcing any provision of this Chapter.” SECTION 3. Chapter 8.20 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended and restated to read as follows “Chapter 8.20 MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING LOTS 8.20.005 Damaging Equipment Prohibited. No person shall damage any device or equipment, including, without limitation control gates, pay stations, signs, and parking meters, used in the operation of a motor vehicle parking lot. 8.20.010 Parking Without Payment Prohibited. A. No person shall drive a motor vehicle into a motor vehicle parking lot without payment of a required entrance fee. B. No person shall park a motor vehicle in a motor vehicle parking lot without payment of a required parking fee. C. No person shall park a motor vehicle in a motor vehicle parking lot without a valid parking permit properly displayed or validated as directed by the City. 8.20.15 Head in Parking Only. Vehicles shall be parked with the rear of the vehicle oriented closest to the traffic lane and within the space indicated unless otherwise specified by signage. 8.20.020 Sunset Aquatic Park Parking Restriction. A. No person shall park any vehicle within Sunset Aquatic Park between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., unless the vehicle contains a properly displayed valid parking permit, issued by the operator of the Sunset Aquatic Park. Such permit shall be displayed or validated as directed by the City. B. No person shall park a camper, recreational vehicle or vehicle and boat combination at any time within Sunset Aquatic Park. 8.20.025 Electric Vehicle Parking Stalls. Each electric vehicle parking stall will be clearly marked with signage. When so marked, it is unlawful to park in a designated electric vehicle charging station parking stall unless the vehicle is actively charging.” SECTION 3.Section 8.25.020 of Chapter 8.25 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows “8.25.020 Citation Process. Parking citations shall be issued in accordance with the following procedures: A. If a vehicle is unattended during the time of the violation, the issuing officer shall securely attach to the vehicle a parking citation setting forth the violation, including reference to the section of the Vehicle Code, Public Resources Code or this code, or the federal statute or regulation, that has been violated; the date; the approximate time of the violation; the location of the violation; a statement indicating that payment is required to be made not later than 21 days from the date of the citation issuance; and the procedure for the registered owner or operator to deposit the parking penalty or contest the citation. The parking citation shall also set forth the vehicle license number and registration expiration date if they are visible; the last 4 digits of the vehicle identification number if they are readable through the windshield; the color of the vehicle; and, if possible, the make of the vehicle. B. The parking citation shall be accompanied by a written notice of: the parking penalty amount due for that violation; the address of the person authorized to receive a deposit of the parking penalty; a statement in bold print that payment of the parking penalty for the parking violation may be sent through the mail; and instructions on obtaining information on the procedures to contest the citation. C. The parking citation shall be served by attaching it to the vehicle either under the windshield wiper or in another conspicuous place upon the vehicle so as to be easily observed by the person in charge of the vehicle upon the return of that person. D. Once the parking citation is prepared and attached to the vehicle, the issuing officer shall file the citation with the processing agency. E. If, during the issuance of the parking citation, without regard to whether the vehicle was initially attended or unattended, the vehicle is driven away prior to attachment of the citation to the vehicle, the issuing officer shall file the citation with the processing agency. The processing agency shall mail a copy of the citation to the registered owner. F. If, within 21 days after the parking citation is attached to the vehicle, the issuing officer or the issuing agency determines that, in the interest of justice, the citation should be cancelled, the issuing agency shall notify the processing agency to cancel the citation. The reason for the cancellation shall be set forth in writing. G. If, after a copy of the parking citation is attached to the vehicle, the issuing officer determines that there is incorrect data on the citation, including without limitation the date or time, the issuing officer may indicate in writing on a form attached to the original citation, the necessary correction to allow for the timely entry of the citation on the processing agency’s data system. A copy of the correction shall be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle. SECTION 4.Section 8.25.035 of Chapter 8.25 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows “8.25.035 Copies of Citation. The processing agency shall mail or otherwise provide to the registered owner, or the registered owner’s agent, a copy of the original parking citation. The fee for such copy shall be in amount set by City Council resolution. Until the issuing agency or processing agency complies with a request to provide a copy of the parking citation, the processing agency may not proceed pursuant to Vehicle Code Sections 22651(i), 22651.7 or 40220.” SECTION 5.Section 8.25.050 of Chapter 8.25 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows “8.25.050 Review Process. A. Initial Review. For a period of 21 days from the issuance of a parking citation, or 14 days from the mailing of a notice of delinquent parking citation, a person may request an initial review of the citation or the notice by the issuing agency. The request for initial review may be made by telephone, in writing or in person and there shall be no charge for the initial review. If, following the initial review, the issuing agency is satisfied that the violation did not occur, that the registered owner was not responsible for the violation, or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the citation appropriate in the interests of justice, then the issuing agency shall cancel the parking citation or the notice of delinquent parking citation. The issuing agency shall advise the processing agency of the cancellation. Either the issuing agency or the processing agency shall mail the results of the initial review to the contestant. B. Administrative Hearing—In General. If a contestant is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, such person may request an administrative hearing on the violation no later than 21 days following the mailing of the results of the initial review. The request may be made by telephone, in writing or in person. Before the expiration of the period for requesting an administrative hearing, the contestant shall deposit with the processing agency the amount of the parking penalty and shall file, on a processing agency issued form, a written explanation of the grounds for appeal. The processing agency may waive the deposit requirement upon satisfactory proof by the contestant of an inability to pay the parking penalty due. The administrative hearing shall be held within 90 days of the hearing request; provided, however, that the contestant may request one continuance, not to exceed 21 days. C. Administrative Hearing—Elements. 1. The contestant shall have the choice of an administrative hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the city. 2. If the contestant is a minor, such person may appear at an administrative hearing or admit responsibility for the parking violation without the necessity of the appointment of a guardian. The processing agency may proceed against the minor in the same manner as against an adult. 3. The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the issuing agency and approved by the city manager. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair and impartial review of contested parking violations. 4. The issuing officer is not required to participate in the administrative hearing. The issuing agency is not required to produce any evidence other than the parking citation, or copy thereof, and information received from the department identifying the registered owner of the vehicle. The documentation in proper form shall be prima facie evidence of the violation. 5. The hearing examiner’s decision following the administrative hearing may be personally delivered to the contestant or sent by first-class mail. 6. Upon determining that a contestant has committed the violation, the hearing examiner may, consistent with the issuing agency’s guidelines, allow payment of the parking penalty in installments. Alternatively, the issuing agency may allow for deferred payment or payment in installments if the contestant provides satisfactory evidence of inability to pay the parking penalty in full. If authorized by City Council resolution, the hearing examiner may permit the performance of community service in lieu of payment of a parking penalty.” SECTION 6. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby determines that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it can be seen with certainty that the adjustment of certain parking restrictions and requirements that already exist in the City is not a “project” under CEQA since such adjustments will not result in any physical change to the environment. SECTION 7. 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 invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part hereof. The City Council of the City of Seal Beach hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 8. Savings Clause. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal or amendment by this Ordinance of any ordinance or part or portion of any ordinance previously in effect in the City or within the territory comprising the City, shall in any manner affect the prosecution for the violation of any ordinance, which violation was committed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, nor be construed as a waiver of any license, fee or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation of such ordinances. Sections of the Seal Beach Municipal Code not amended by this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect, and those existing sections amended by this Ordinance shall remain in effect until this Ordinance takes effect. SECTION 9. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the _28_th day of _January_, 2019. __________________________ Thomas Moore, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was passed, approved and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of _January_, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members ____________________________________________ NOES: Council Members ____________________________________________ ABSENT: Council Members ____________________________________________ ABSTAIN: Council Members ____________________________________________ and do hereby further certify that Ordinance 1672 has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836. ___________________________ Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk 1 of 1 (100-9) CITY OF SEAL BEACH COUNCIL POLICY & ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE SUBJECT: PARKING PERMITS SECTION 100 INDEX NO. 9 ISSUE DATE 04/24/06 REVISION DATE 11/13/1801/28 /2019 COUNCIL APPROVAL Minute Action CITY MANAGER APPROVAL 1. SCOPE This policy applies to the administration of parking permits within the Old Town district and beach parking lots of the City. 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT This policy defines the various parking permits available (Residential, Business, Employee, Public Official and Temporary), describes the areas where each permit is authorized for use, presents a schedule of fees and establishes expiration dates. The policy serves to formalize the processes associated with managing parking issues within the City. As a result, staff will be able to organize the issuance of permits in a professional and equitable manner, thereby offering greater consistency and continuity of service to the community. 3. POLICY A. Residential Permits Residential permits are available to all residents with appropriate documentation as outlined in Section 4 (Procedures) of this policy. ■Types Available: ▪ Residential Sticker ▪ Guest Placard (only issued with Residential or Riviera Permits) ▪ Riviera Sticker (special sticker only issued to residents of Riviera Drive; permit is identified with the capital letter A) ■ Fees: ▪ Residential stickers: The fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. 2 (100-9) ▪ Guest placards: The fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. The number of permits per household is limited to two (2) unless otherwise established by City Council. ▪ Optional for Riviera residents – The number of guest stickers is limited to two (2) unless otherwise established by City Council (note: stickers will be placed on hangers when purchased or will require a license plate associated with the permit). ■ Guidelines for Use: ▪ Permits allow the vehicle to remain parked in excess of one (1) hour on residential streets posted with one (1) hour parking signs. ▪ Riviera permits are valid on Riviera Street and allow the vehicle to remain parked in excess of one (1) hour on residential streets posted with one (1) hour parking signs ■ Color – Correlates with annual DMV tags ■ Areas Not Valid: ▪ Main Street ▪ Municipal Parking lots ▪ Fire station parking lot (8th / Central Ave) ▪ Ocean Ave between 8th and 10th streets (2 hour parking only) ▪ Central Ave between 8th and 10th streets (2 hour parking only) ▪ Municipal beach parking lots ■ Expiration: ▪ All residential permits expire annually on October 31st B. Business Permits ■ Types Available: ▪ Merchant Placard ▪ Contractor Sticker ▪ Vending Sticker ■ Fees: Merchant – Placards purchased for fiscal year will begin on July 1st and expire on June 30th of each year and will be charged at the fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. 3 (100-9) Contractor and Vending – Fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. ■ Guidelines for Use: ▪ Merchant Placard – Business owner(s) / employees are authorized to use the 8th Street City Hall / Fire Station Parking Lot (“8th St. Lot”) or the Beach Parking Lots for business purposes only. ▪ Contractor Sticker – Contractor’s vehicle is authorized to remain parked in excess of one (1) hour on residential streets posted with one (1) hour parking signs. ▪ Vending Sticker – Verifies business owner has obtained a license for the vending machine(s) and has complied with the City’s Municipal Code. ■ Color – Correlates with annual DMV tags ■ Areas Not Valid: ▪ Main Street ▪ Streets indicating street sweeping. ▪ Ocean Ave between 8th and 10th streets (2 hour parking only) ▪ Central Ave between 8th and 10th streets (2 hour parking only) ■ Expiration: ▪ Merchant Placards will expire annually on June 30th. ▪Contractor and Vending Stickers will expire annually, one year from date of issuance. ■ Special Restrictions – Merchant Placards: ▪ Placards issued will be restricted to the number of employees reported on the business license renewal bill. ▪ No more than 10 placards will be issued to one merchant unless accompanied by the appropriate documentation. ▪ Merchants are responsible for maintaining control of all placards issued to their respective business. ▪ No refunds shall be made for placard(s) purchased. ▪ Placards are not valid for use in beach lots or for recreational purposes. 4 (100-9) ▪ No overnight parking – use of parking lot is restricted to signs posted at lots. ▪ No oversized vehicles allowed – any vehicle in excess of 8 ft. wide or 20 ft. in length is not allowed to park in the 8th St. Lot at any time. Violators will be towed at the owner’s expense. ▪ Placard allows merchants / employees to park in any space EXCEPT those reserved for City and Fire Department Employees. ▪ Spaces are available on a first come, first serve basis. Parking is not guaranteed. C. Employee and Public Official Placards: ■ Type Available: ▪ Employee Placard ▪ Lifeguard (Beach Maintenance Workers) Placard ▪ Public Official Placard ■ Fees: Fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. ■ Guidelines for Use: ▪ Employee – Employee parking is reserved in the 8th Street Lot and behind City Hall ▪ Lifeguard / Beach Maintenance Workers – Municipal beach lots ▪ City and Authorized Public Officials – Citywide; No restrictions ■ Color: ▪ Employee & Lifeguard / Beach Maint. Workers - Correlates with annual DMV tags ▪ Public Official - Color will be changed annually, but will not correlate with annual DMV tags ■ Expiration: ▪ Employee and Lifeguard/Beach Maintenance Workers - Expires annually on April 30th. ▪ Public Officials – no expiration. 5 (100-9) ■ Special Restrictions: ▪ Beach Maintenance Workers – Department must retain control of allocated placards. Placards should be issued at beginning of shift and returned at end of shift. ▪ Permits are NOT for recreational purposes and are not authorized for personal use or beach parking. D. Temporary Permits – ■ Restrictions – ▪ Temporary permits are to be issued by the Finance Department ONLY. ■ Issuance – Issuance is limited to: ▪ Visitors for meetings at City Hall that will extend beyond one (1) hour in duration. ▪ Residents for special events requiring more than two (2) guests; valid for specific day of event only. ▪ New Seal Beach residents unable to obtain residential permit due to out of state license plates; not to exceed 20 days as required by CA Department of Motor Vehicles. ■ Fees –The fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. ■ Guidelines for Use – Specified by ‘Area’ indicated on permit. ■ Color –determined by Finance and subject to change periodically. ■ Expiration – Specified by ‘Date Valid’ indicated on permit E. Oversized Vehicle Permit – (Vehicle exceeding 20ft. in length or 90 inches wide). ■ Paper permits are issued by the Police Department in sets of six (6) unless otherwise established by City Council. ■ The fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. ■ Each permit is valid for one (1) day. ■ Vehicle must comply with all other City Municipal Code and City Vehicle Code parking codes. F. Pier Vendor/Service Permit – 6 (100-9) ■ 8 ½ x 11 permit with the official City seal ■ Issued by the Finance Department ■ Valid the day of issuance only ■ Valid for Pier only ■ The fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. 4. PROCEDURE Parking permits are issued upon creation of an account in the parking permit portal and DMV verification of vehicles. Permits ordered on-line can be picked up from the e Finance Department. A. Residential Permits: ■ Requirements – All of the following documents must be present at time of purchase: ▪ A valid CA Driver’s License (DL) - in accordance with CA DMV regulations ▪ Current Registration (or temporary DMV issued sticker for new vehicle) ▪ Proof of Residency (other than driver’s license) ▪ Guest placard requires only proof of residency and CA DL. ■ Placement ▪ All stickers must be affixed to the left rear bumper or to the outside lower left portion of the rear window of the vehicle, where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. . ▪ Guest placards must be suspended from the rear view mirror of the guest vehicle, where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. B. Business Permits: ■ Requirements: - Merchant, Contractor and Vending ▪ Copy of current City business license. ▪ Placards will be issued to the owner or manager of the business only. ▪ No more than 10 placards will be issued unless accompanied by the most recent quarterly report filed to verify number of employees. 7 (100-9) ■ Placement: ▪ Merchant Placard – Placard should be hung from rear view mirror, where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. ▪ Contractor Sticker – Sticker must be affixed to the left rear bumper or to the outside lower left portion of the rear window of the vehicle , where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. ▪ Vending Sticker – Sticker must be affixed on each vending machine so that the sticker is conspicuously visible, where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. C. Employees/Public Officials: ■ Requirements: ▪ Employees must be active and on payroll. ▪ Public Officials include City Council Members and other Officials as appointed by the Council and/or City Manager. ■ Placement: Placard must be suspended from the rear view mirror of the vehicle, where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. D. Temporary Permits: ■ Requirements: Permits are issued for visitors to City Hall and must be obtained through the City Manager’s Office or the Finance Department. ■ Placement: 8 (100-9) Permits must be suspended from the rear view mirror of the Vehiclevehicle, where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. ■ When a resident is temporarily unable to move a vehicle from an on-street parking space and on-premises parking is not reasonably possible. ■Prior to issuance of a temporary parking permit the Finance Department may make such investigation as deemed necessary to determine whether a permit should be issued. The Finance Department may deny issuance of a temporary parking permit if all applicable laws and regulations have not been met; if the application contains incomplete, false, or misleading information; if the requested area or time for the temporary parking permit is in a zone or during a time that prohibits stopping, parking or standing of the type of vehicle being proposed; or if it is determined that issuance of the permit would unduly interfere with or constitute a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian movement, governmental functions or City services and operations, or enforcement of applicable law, rules or regulations. ■ A temporary parking permit issued does not waive compliance with any other applicable law, rule or regulation (i.e. street sweeping). ■Fees – No charge ■Guidelines for Use – Specified by ‘Area’ indicated on permit ■Color – determined by Finance and changes periodically ■Expiration – Specified by ‘Date Valid’ indicated on permit; not to exceed 30 days E. Oversized Vehicles/Pier Vendor Permits: ■ Requirements: Permits are issued at the Police Department located at 911Seal Beach Blvd. Oversized Vehicles – ▪ Registered Owner Name ▪ Vehicle license ▪ State of Registration ▪ Duration of stay 9 (100-9) ▪ Length of Vehicle ▪ Location where vehicle will be parked ▪ Estimated time in and out ■ Placement: Permits to be placed according to procedures issued at the Police Department. 5. ISSUANCE Approved by City Council on November 13, 2018January 28, 2019 Date * * * * 1 of 1 (100-9) CITY OF SEAL BEACH COUNCIL POLICY & ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE SUBJECT: PARKING PERMITS SECTION 100 INDEX NO. 9 ISSUE DATE 04/24/06 REVISION DATE 01/28/2019 COUNCIL APPROVAL Minute Action CITY MANAGER APPROVAL 1. SCOPE This policy applies to the administration of parking permits within the Old Town district and beach parking lots of the City. 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT This policy defines the various parking permits available (Residential, Business, Employee, Public Official and Temporary), describes the areas where each permit is authorized for use, presents a schedule of fees and establishes expiration dates. The policy serves to formalize the processes associated with managing parking issues within the City. As a result, staff will be able to organize the issuance of permits in a professional and equitable manner, thereby offering greater consistency and continuity of service to the community. 3. POLICY A. Residential Permits Residential permits are available to all residents with appropriate documentation as outlined in Section 4 (Procedures) of this policy. ■Types Available: ▪ Residential Sticker ▪ Guest Placard (only issued with Residential or Riviera Permits) ▪ Riviera Sticker (special sticker only issued to residents of Riviera Drive; permit is identified with the capital letter A) ■ Fees: ▪ Residential stickers: The fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. 2 (100-9) ▪ Guest placards: The fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. The number of permits per household is limited to two (2) unless otherwise established by City Council. ▪ Optional for Riviera residents – The number of guest stickers is limited to two (2) unless otherwise established by City Council (note: stickers will be placed on hangers when purchased or will require a license plate associated with the permit). ■ Guidelines for Use: ▪ Permits allow the vehicle to remain parked in excess of one (1) hour on residential streets posted with one (1) hour parking signs. ▪ Riviera permits are valid on Riviera Street and allow the vehicle to remain parked in excess of one (1) hour on residential streets posted with one (1) hour parking signs ■ Color – Correlates with annual DMV tags ■ Areas Not Valid: ▪ Main Street ▪ Municipal Parking lots ▪ Fire station parking lot (8th / Central Ave) ▪ Ocean Ave between 8th and 10th streets (2 hour parking only) ▪ Central Ave between 8th and 10th streets (2 hour parking only) ▪ Municipal beach parking lots ■ Expiration: ▪ All residential permits expire annually on October 31st B. Business Permits ■ Types Available: ▪ Merchant Placard ▪ Contractor Sticker ▪ Vending Sticker ■ Fees: Merchant – Placards purchased for fiscal year will begin on July 1st and expire on June 30th of each year and will be charged at the fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. 3 (100-9) Contractor and Vending – Fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. ■ Guidelines for Use: ▪ Merchant Placard – Business owner(s) / employees are authorized to use the 8th Street City Hall / Fire Station Parking Lot (“8th St. Lot”) or the Beach Parking Lots for business purposes only. ▪ Contractor Sticker – Contractor’s vehicle is authorized to remain parked in excess of one (1) hour on residential streets posted with one (1) hour parking signs. ▪ Vending Sticker – Verifies business owner has obtained a license for the vending machine(s) and has complied with the City’s Municipal Code. ■ Color – Correlates with annual DMV tags ■ Areas Not Valid: ▪ Main Street ▪ Streets indicating street sweeping. ▪ Ocean Ave between 8th and 10th streets (2 hour parking only) ▪ Central Ave between 8th and 10th streets (2 hour parking only) ■ Expiration: ▪ Merchant Placards will expire annually on June 30th. ▪Contractor and Vending Stickers will expire annually, one year from date of issuance. ■ Special Restrictions – Merchant Placards: ▪ Placards issued will be restricted to the number of employees reported on the business license renewal bill. ▪ No more than 10 placards will be issued to one merchant unless accompanied by the appropriate documentation. ▪ Merchants are responsible for maintaining control of all placards issued to their respective business. ▪ No refunds shall be made for placard(s) purchased. ▪ Placards are not valid for use in beach lots or for recreational purposes. ▪ No overnight parking – use of parking lot is restricted to signs 4 (100-9) posted at lots. ▪ No oversized vehicles allowed – any vehicle in excess of 8 ft. wide or 20 ft. in length is not allowed to park in the 8th St. Lot at any time. Violators will be towed at the owner’s expense. ▪ Placard allows merchants / employees to park in any space EXCEPT those reserved for City and Fire Department Employees. ▪ Spaces are available on a first come, first serve basis. Parking is not guaranteed. C. Employee and Public Official Placards: ■ Type Available: ▪ Employee Placard ▪ Lifeguard (Beach Maintenance Workers) Placard ▪ Public Official Placard ■ Fees:  Fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. ■ Guidelines for Use: ▪ Employee – Employee parking is reserved in the 8th Street Lot and behind City Hall ▪ Lifeguard / Beach Maintenance Workers – Municipal beach lots ▪ City and Authorized Public Officials – Citywide; No restrictions ■ Color: ▪ Employee & Lifeguard / Beach Maint. Workers - Correlates with annual DMV tags ▪ Public Official - Color will be changed annually, but will not correlate with annual DMV tags ■ Expiration: ▪ Employee and Lifeguard/Beach Maintenance Workers - Expires annually on April 30th. ▪ Public Officials – no expiration. 5 (100-9) ■ Special Restrictions: ▪ Beach Maintenance Workers – Department must retain control of allocated placards. Placards should be issued at beginning of shift and returned at end of shift. ▪ Permits are NOT for recreational purposes and are not authorized for personal use or beach parking. D. Temporary Permits – ■ Restrictions – ▪ Temporary permits are to be issued by the Finance Department ONLY. ■ Issuance – Issuance is limited to: ▪ Visitors for meetings at City Hall that will extend beyond one (1) hour in duration. ▪ Residents for special events requiring more than two (2) guests; valid for specific day of event only. ▪ New Seal Beach residents unable to obtain residential permit due to out of state license plates; not to exceed 20 days as required by CA Department of Motor Vehicles. ■ Fees –The fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. ■ Guidelines for Use – Specified by ‘Area’ indicated on permit. ■ Color –determined by Finance and subject to change periodically. ■ Expiration – Specified by ‘Date Valid’ indicated on permit E. Oversized Vehicle Permit – (Vehicle exceeding 20ft. in length or 90 inches wide). ■ Paper permits are issued by the Police Department in sets of six (6) unless otherwise established by City Council. ■ The fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. ■ Each permit is valid for one (1) day. ■ Vehicle must comply with all other City Municipal Code and City Vehicle Code parking codes. 6 (100-9) F. Pier Vendor/Service Permit – ■ 8 ½ x 11 permit with the official City seal ■ Issued by the Finance Department ■ Valid the day of issuance only ■ Valid for Pier only ■ The fee amount established within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule approved by City Council. 4. PROCEDURE Parking permits are issued upon creation of an account in the parking permit portal and DMV verification of vehicles. Permits ordered on-line can be picked up from the e Finance Department. A. Residential Permits: ■ Requirements – All of the following documents must be present at time of purchase: ▪ A valid CA Driver’s License (DL) - in accordance with CA DMV regulations ▪ Current Registration (or temporary DMV issued sticker for new vehicle) ▪ Proof of Residency (other than driver’s license) ▪ Guest placard requires only proof of residency and CA DL. ■ Placement ▪ All stickers must be affixed to the left rear bumper or to the outside lower left portion of the rear window of the vehicle, where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. . ▪ Guest placards must be suspended from the rear view mirror of the guest vehicle, where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. B. Business Permits: ■ Requirements: - Merchant, Contractor and Vending ▪ Copy of current City business license. ▪ Placards will be issued to the owner or manager of the business only. ▪ No more than 10 placards will be issued unless accompanied by the most recent quarterly report filed to verify number of employees. 7 (100-9) ■ Placement: ▪ Merchant Placard – Placard should be hung from rear view mirror, where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. ▪ Contractor Sticker – Sticker must be affixed to the left rear bumper or to the outside lower left portion of the rear window of the vehicle , where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. ▪ Vending Sticker – Sticker must be affixed on each vending machine so that the sticker is conspicuously visible, where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. C. Employees/Public Officials: ■ Requirements: ▪ Employees must be active and on payroll. ▪ Public Officials include City Council Members and other Officials as appointed by the Council and/or City Manager. ■ Placement: Placard must be suspended from the rear view mirror of the vehicle, where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. D. Temporary Permits: ■ Requirements: Permits are issued for visitors to City Hall and must be obtained through the City Manager’s Office or the Finance Department. ■ Placement: Permits must be suspended from the rear view mirror of the vehicle, where a physical permit is supplied. Otherwise, the permit holder is required to provide a license plate to be associated with the permit. ■ When a resident is temporarily unable to move a vehicle from an on-street parking space and on-premises 8 (100-9) parking is not reasonably possible. ■ Prior to issuance of a temporary parking permit the Finance Department may make such investigation as deemed necessary to determine whether a permit should be issued. The Finance Department may deny issuance of a temporary parking permit if all applicable laws and regulations have not been met; if the application contains incomplete, false, or misleading information; if the requested area or time for the temporary parking permit is in a zone or during a time that prohibits stopping, parking or standing of the type of vehicle being proposed; or if it is determined that issuance of the permit would unduly interfere with or constitute a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian movement, governmental functions or City services and operations, or enforcement of applicable law, rules or regulations. ■ A temporary parking permit issued does not waive compliance with any other applicable law, rule or regulation (i.e. street sweeping). ■ Fees – No charge ■ Guidelines for Use – Specified by ‘Area’ indicated on permit ■ Color – determined by Finance and changes periodically ■ Expiration – Specified by ‘Date Valid’ indicated on permit; not to exceed 30 days E. Oversized Vehicles/Pier Vendor Permits: ■ Requirements: Permits are issued at the Police Department located at 911Seal Beach Blvd. Oversized Vehicles – ▪ Registered Owner Name ▪ Vehicle license ▪ State of Registration ▪ Duration of stay ▪ Length of Vehicle ▪ Location where vehicle will be parked ▪ Estimated time in and out 9 (100-9) ■ Placement: Permits to be placed according to procedures issued at the Police Department. Approved by City Council on January 28, 2019 Date * * * * Agenda Item: K AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:January 28, 2019 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager FROM:Steve Myrter, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT:Urgency Ordinance to Regulate Wireless Communications Facilities in The Public Rights-Of-Way; Introduction And First Reading of Regular Ordinance to Regulate Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-Of-Way; Resolution Establishing Rules and Guidelines for Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-Of-Way ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council: 1. Adopt Urgency Ordinance 1676-U, An Ordinance of the Seal Beach City Council Amending Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Amend Section 6.10.010 and Section 6.10.065, Repeal Section 6.10.070, and Add New Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 Regulating Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way and Declaring the Urgency Thereof; and 2. Introduce for first reading, by title only and waive further reading, of Ordinance 1677, an Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach City Council Amending Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Amend Section 6.10.010 and Section 6.10.65, to Repeal Section 6.10.070, and to Add New Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 Regulating Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of- Way; and 3. Schedule the second reading of Ordinance 1677 for February 11, 2019; and 4. Adopt Resolution 6894, a Resolution of the Seal Beach City Council Establishing Rules and Guidelines for Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way, to be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance 1677; and 5. Direct the Public Works Director to adopt any additional policies, rules and guidelines to further implement the Ordinances, to be effective prior to April 15, 2019. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: 1. Introduction The purpose of the attached Ordinances and Resolution is to update the City Code regarding the City’s standards and requirements for the installation of new or modified small wireless facilities (“SWFs”) and eligible facilities (“EFs”) (collectively “WCFs”) in the public rights-of-way (“PROW”) within the City. Recent changes to federal and state laws have increasingly limited the extent to which the City may regulate WCFs in the PROW under certain circumstances. As a result, there is a need for the City to update its current ordinances based on current telecommunications trends, updates in laws, as well as aesthetic and location options for wireless facilities. The Ordinances will also authorize the Director of Public Works to adopt policies, rules and guidelines to further implement the Ordinances by adoption of Department policies, rules and guidelines, to ensure the maximum protections to the Seal Beach community, and to publish those Department policies, rules and guidelines on the City’s website. There is a lack of specifically-designed standards and regulations in the Municipal Code for wireless facilities located in the PROW, while the City has experienced increasing requests for information about the City’s regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities, and there are potential liabilities and negative consequences for noncompliance with state and federal regulations (including, without limitation, automatic approvals) present current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare. Under Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code, telephone companies (which includes most wireless telecommunication service providers) are allowed to access the PROW throughout California at such points as to not incommode the public use of the roads and highways, and subject to local control of the time, place, and manner in which the PROW is used. Currently, the City has several ordinances that apply to WCFs proposed to be located in the PROW or on private property, including Seal Beach Municipal Code Chapter 6.10 (Cable, Video and Telecommunications) of Title 6 (Franchises); and Chapter 11.4.70 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) in Part IV (Regulations Applying in Some or All Districts) of Title 11 (Zoning). These provisions have all been in effect since prior to the 2004 re-codification of the entire Municipal Code. Depending on the specific WCF proposed, an encroachment permit, excavation permit and/or building permit is required to construct or install a WCF within the PROW. For any construction or installation of WCF on private property or within the PROW, Chapter 11.4.70 of the Zoning Code requires approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). If the proposed WCF is on other City property (e.g., a public park, City building or other structure located anywhere in the City, or City-owned tower or pole within the PROW), the City acts in a proprietary capacity and requires a lease or other agreement acceptable to the City. In order to further comply with the federal and state laws regulating WCFs within the PROW, the proposed Ordinances would replace and modify the existing provisions as follows: Amend existing Section 60.10.010 (Definitions) to add new definitions relating to wireless telecommunications facilities; Repeal existing Section 6.10.070 (Uses of Public Rights-of-Way); Add new Section 6.10.070 (Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Rights- of-Way) to enact new requirements and standards for WCFs in the PROW addressing wireless facilities generally, establishing permit procedures, terms and conditions and other requirements for small wireless facilities (as defined by the FCC) and wireless facilities other than eligible facilities; Add new Section 6.10.075 (Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way -- Eligible Facilities Requests) to enact new regulations and standards for collocations on and modifications of existing towers and base stations in the PROW that qualify as “eligible facilities” under Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act and over which the City has only limited ministerial authority; Adopt Rules and Guidelines for Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way by Resolution to further establish standards and requirements regarding applications, development and design standards, operations and maintenance and conditions to implement new Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075; and Authorize the Director of Public Works to adopt any additional policies, rules and guidelines for small wireless facilities and eligible facilities in the public rights-of-way to further establish standards and requirements regarding applications, development, design and aesthetic standards, operations and maintenance requirements, and conditions consistent with new Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 and the Rules and Guidelines, and to publish those policies, rules and guidelines on the City’s website for use by applicants and interested members of the public prior to April 15, 2019. A City Council study session on wireless communications facilities permitting was held on November 13, 2018, at which time staff circulated a draft ordinance and draft resolution containing additional rules and guidelines to the City Council and all interested persons at the meeting, and outlined federal and state laws regulating wireless communications facilities in the City. Representatives of various wireless communications providers were present at the study session, including Verizon, Nexius, Crown Castle, Mobilitie and AT&T, and offered comments to the City Council and staff on wireless communications facilities on the drafts. Following receipt of stakeholder comments, revisions were made by City staff, and the revised draft ordinance amendments and rules and guidelines were circulated again to the stakeholders. Additional comments were received and evaluated by staff. The attached Urgency Ordinance and Regular Ordinance have been updated and revised based on those additional comments and further internal staff discussions. Staff recommends adoption of the urgency ordinance, Ordinance XXXX, which will be effective immediately. An urgency ordinance is needed because the City was not able to adopt an updated ordinance prior to the January 14, 2019 effective date of the FCC Ruling and Order, as a result of the City’s efforts to receive and respond to input from the various stakeholders and numerous comments submitted by the stakeholders over the past several months prior to staff finalizing its recommendations to the City Council. Staff also recommends adoption of the regular ordinance, Ordinance YYYY, which would be effective after two readings and the 30-day referendum period. In order to provide more flexibility for the City in responding to rapidly changing wireless technology, Staff recommends that the implementing policies, rules and guidelines be adopted by resolution of the City Council, and that the City Council also authorize the Public Words Director to adopt additional standards, criteria, policies and procedures to be published on the City’s website. The Ordinances and Resolution have been revised to so authorize the Director. 1. Recent Changes in Federal and State Law Since 2004, federal and state enactments and rulings of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) have added significant new limitations on the manner in which the City can regulate WCFs, including WCFs in the PROW. A brief summary of these enactments follows. a.FCC “Shot-Clock” Rules and California Assembly Bill 57 Under the Federal Telecommunications Act, the City must act “within a reasonable period of time” when reviewing an application for a wireless telecommunications facility. This requirement applies to facilities both in and outside of the PROW. In 2009, the FCC interpreted this statute to require cities to either approve or deny wireless facility applications before express deadlines – 90 days for collocation applications and 150 days for others. These deadlines do not start until an application is complete, provided the applicant is notified within 30 days that the application is incomplete. The shot clock may be tolled through a written agreement between the City and the applicant but not through a moratorium. The FCC shot clock rule only established a presumption of reasonableness or (in the case of non-compliance) unreasonableness. The FCC did not rule that an application would be deemed approved if a city failed to meet the applicable deadline. In 2015, however, the California legislature enacted Assembly Bill 57 (AB 57), which adopted new Government Code Section 65964.1, and provides for the first time a “deemed approved” remedy for violations of the FCC’s shot clock deadlines. Therefore, in California, if a city fails to act on an application within the time limits described above, the project is deemed approved. This law has been in effect since of January 1, 2016. The FCC shot clock and AB 57 are significant limitations on the City’s ability to regulate wireless telecommunication facilities in the PROW because the City must now factor in these deadlines when reviewing applications, issuing administrative-level decisions, and noticing and holding public hearings before the City Council. b.Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creations Act of 2012 (Section 6409(a)) In 2012, Congress enacted the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which contained an anomalous provision – Section 6409(a) – pertaining to local review of certain wireless telecommunication facilities. Under Section 6409(a), “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.” (Emphasis added.) Under an FCC ruling interpreting Section 6409(a), the statute generally applies to structures built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any licensed or authorized antennas and other non-tower supporting structures that support or house antennas, transceivers, or related equipment, even if the structures were not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support. The FCC has further ruled that, under Section 6409(a), a proposed modification “substantially changes” the physical dimensions of a tower or base station in the ROW if it: Increases the overall height of the tower or base station by more than 10% or 10 feet, whichever is greater; Involves installation of more than the “standard number” (which is undefined) of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four cabinets; Involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no pre-existing cabinets involved with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are more than 10% larger in height or overall volume than pre-existing associated cabinets; It entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site of the tower or base station; It would defeat the existing concealment elements of the wireless tower or base station; or It does not comply with conditions associated with the prior approval of the tower or base station unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding “substantial change” thresholds. The bottom line for the City is that any application to modify the location of an existing WCF that does not result in the changes listed above, must be approved regardless of any contrary locations. Moreover, the FCC interpreted Section 6409(a) to require the cities to act on eligible applications within 60 days from the date of filing, subject to limited tolling by agreement or for incompleteness (but not moratoria). c. New FCC Ruling and Order regarding Small Wireless Facilities On September 27, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (“Ruling and Order”), which establishes a new category of “small wireless facilities” and imposes additional substantial restrictions on cities and other state and local governments to regulate wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way with respect to fees and aesthetic requirements. As issued, this Ruling and Order would take effect on January 14, 2019. After the Ruling and Order were published, six lawsuits were filed in several federal circuit courts on behalf of numerous cities and counties in California, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington, including the cities of San Jose1 , Huntington Beach, and Seattle2; and the League of California Cities, League of Oregon Cities, and League of Arizona Cities and Towns. Sprint, Verizon and the Puerto Rico Telephone Company also filed legal challenges in the federal courts. The lawsuits filed on behalf of the cities and counties seek judicial determinations that the FCC Ruling and Order violate federal constitutional and statutory law and exceed the FCC’s authority. The providers’ lawsuits challenge the FCC’s failure to adopt a deemed-approved remedy for violation of the new rules regarding small wireless facilities. All six cases were consolidated in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 10, 2019, the Tenth Circuit denied a request for stay of the effectiveness of the FCC Ruling and Order filed by the City of San Jose and other petitioning cities, but granted their motion to transfer the cases back to the 1 The San Jose case was filed on behalf of the California cities of San Jose, Arcadia, Burlingame, Culver City, Fairfax, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Monterey, Ontario, Piedmont, San Jacinto, and Shafter; the Washington cities of Bellevue, Burien, Gig Harbor, Issaquah, and Kirkland; Las Vegas, Nevada; Portland, Oregon; and Yuma, Arizona. 2 The City of Seattle case was filed on behalf of Seattle, Tacoma, and Kings County, Washington; League of Oregon Cities; League of California Cities and League of Arizona Cities and Towns. Ninth Circuit. As a result, the requirements of the FCC Ruling and Order became effective on January 14, 2019. The merits of the cases have been returned to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. Local governments must comply with the aesthetic requirements of the FCC Ruling and Order within 90 days after publication of the Ruling and Order in the Federal Register, or by April 15, 2019. The Ruling and Order reaffirms that a state or local regulation will have the effect of prohibiting wireless telecommunications services, in violation of the Federal Telecommunications Act, if the regulation materially inhibits the provision of such services, including materially inhibiting additional services or improving existing services. Providers of wireless services must also be allowed to compete in a fair and balanced regulatory environment. Unless overturned, modified or stayed by the Ninth Circuit, the Ruling and Order establishes certain requirements for “small wireless facilities,” a new category of wireless facilities which are generally defined as facilities that meet each of the following conditions: The facilities: (i) are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas, or (ii) are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or (iii) do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater; and Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment is no more than three cubic feet in volume; and All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume. The Ruling and Order establishes new time deadlines (or “shot clocks”) for a city to act upon a small wireless facility application. A city must make a decision within 60 days of receipt of an application for a small wireless facility collocation using an existing structure, and within 90 days of receipt of an application for a small wireless facility using a new structure. The Ruling and Order also imposes short time deadlines for a city to notify an applicant if an application is incomplete. These shot clocks may be tolled by mutual agreement. A city’s failure to act within the applicable shot clock constitutes a “failure to act’ as required by federal law, and amounts to a presumptive prohibition on the provision of wireless services which entitles the applicant to seek expedited relief in court where the city will have the burden to justify its noncompliance. The Ruling and Order also codifies shot clocks that apply to state and local government decisions on applications for wireless communications facilities other than small wireless facilities and eligible facilities. The Ruling and Order also establishes a new three-part test to determine whether state or local agency fees prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting small wireless facilities in violation of the Telecommunications Act. To preclude a finding that the City’s fees prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting small wireless facilities, the City must demonstrate that the fees comply with all of the following requirements: The fees are a reasonable approximation of the state or local government’s costs; and Only objectively reasonable costs are factored into those fees; and The fees are no higher than the fees charged to similarly-situated competitors in similar situations. This test applies to all fees imposed by cities and other state and local governments, including fees for access to the PROW itself; fees for the attachment to or use of property within the PROW owned or controlled by the governmental agency; and fees reasonably related to the placement, construction, maintenance, repair, movement, modification, upgrade, replacement or removal of small wireless facilities in the PROW. Any fees imposed must be competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory. The Ruling and Order also establishes a “safe harbor” for fees, which are presumptively reasonable under the Telecommunications Act: $500 for non-recurring fees, including a single up-front application that includes up to five small wireless facilities, with an additional $100 for each small wireless facility beyond five, or $1,000 for non-recurring fees for a new pole (i.e., not a collocation) intended to support one or more small wireless facilities; and $270 per small wireless facility per year for all recurring fees, including any possible PROW access fee or fee for attachment to municipally-owned structures in the PROW. If a city wishes to exceed the above fees, the city must establish that the fees meet the three-part test outlined above (a reasonable approximation of costs, the costs are reasonable, and the fees are non-discriminatory). The Ruling and Order also provides guidance regarding the permissible scope of non-fee requirements for small wireless facilities in the PROW, particularly those relating to aesthetics, undergrounding and spacing. A city’s aesthetic requirements are not preempted if the aesthetic requirements are: Reasonable; No more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments; and Published in advance. As outlined above, as a result of the Tenth Circuit’s denial of the motion for stay, the FCC Ruling and Order is now effective. The City of Seal Beach, along with other local governments, must comply with its aesthetic requirements by April 15, 2019. d. General Impact of Recent Legislation and FCC Ruling and Order In sum, recent federal and state enactments and FCC rulings have considerably narrowed both the City’s substantive control over modifications to existing wireless facility locations in the PROW and the timeline for acting on applications to install or modify such facilities to the extent they qualify as small wireless facilities or eligible facilities. The FCC shot clock and AB 57 put significant pressure on the City to act promptly on applications it receives, which could occasionally not allow the City and its residents as much time as it is accustomed to having to hold public hearings. At the same time, Section 6409(a) outright preempts the City’s ability to deny applications to modify certain existing wireless facilities in the ROW if the modifications fall within the FCC’s broad definitions of those that do not result in a substantial change. The FCC’s new Ruling and Order, effective January 14, 2019, further limits a city’s ability to regulate small cell wireless facilities in the public right-of-way and the fees that the City may charge. 3. Overview of Ordinances and Resolution The proposed Ordinances and Resolution update the City’s requirements to comply with these recent changes in federal and state laws. The Ordinances require that no small wireless facility (“SWF”) can be located within the PROW of the City without obtaining a Small Wireless Facility Permit (“SWFP”). This is a new permit process that has its own application requirements, and will replace the current process set out in the Zoning Code (Chapter 11.4.070) with respect to deployment of small wireless facilities in the PROW. As proposed, there are two types of wireless permits, including a Small Wireless Facility Permit (“SWFP”); and an Eligible Facility Permit (“EFP”). The type of wireless communications facility proposed will determine the type of permit required. The new procedures are specifically drafted to regulate small wireless facilities and eligible facilities in the PROW in order to ensure compliance with the federal and state laws outlined above. As proposed, the Public Works Department would have the responsibility to receive and review applications for SWFPs and EFPs, subject to necessary input from other departments. The Director of Public Works would be authorized to issue decisions on all permits. The Ordinances specify the types of information, documentation and other material regarding the proposed small wireless facility or eligible facility. The proposed Ordinances also contain development criteria, preference requirements, maintenance standards and sets forth the required findings for approval of each type of permit. In general, the proposed Ordinances require the following: Small Wireless Facility Permit (SWFP) – Approval of a SWFP must be obtained from the Public Works Director in order for an applicant to construct or install a small wireless facility using an existing structure or on a new structure. Residents and business owners within 150 feet of the proposed WCF site will be notified of the application by a public notice mailed to them by the applicant as part of the application process; and they will have an opportunity to submit comments prior to the Director’s decision. The Director must make certain findings in order to approve the SWFP, including that the proposed facility meets all technical, development and design standards. The Director’s decision will be set forth in a written determination letter that will be sent to the applicant and posted on the City’s website, and therefore available to all members of the public. The Director’s decision is final. Eligible Facility Permit (EFP) – An EFP must be approved by the Director in order for the applicant to construct a modified or collocated WCF in the PROW which falls within the scope of Section 6409(a). Similar public notices of the ECP application will be issued to residents and business owners within 150 feet of the proposed site prior to the Director’s decision. Appropriate findings must be made by the Director that the proposed WCF qualifies as an eligible facility under federal law. The Director’s decision is final. Elimination of Administrative Wireless Communications Facility Permit (AWCFP) -- The prior draft Ordinances contained an additional type of permit, an AWCFP, that would govern the application and approval process for any wireless facility other than a small wireless facility or an eligible facility, such as very tall towers or “macro” towers. In order to allow more time to develop standards and processes for those latter facilities, and in light of the industry’s present focus on small wireless facilities in order to implement 5G technology, staff recommends that the current CUP procedure remain in place for those types of facilities pending further analysis. Staff will return to the City Council with recommendations for updated provisions governing other wireless facilities as soon as possible. Shot Clocks – When considering any application for a WCF, the City must comply with the applicable federal and/or state law requirements for notifying an applicant if the application is incomplete, and the deadline for issuance of the City’s final decision on the application. The Ordinances have been drafted to comply with each shot clock requirement. Independent Expert – If the City needs to retain an expert in the telecommunications field to review the technical portions of the application, the Ordinances provide the City with this authority and requires the applicant to pay for those costs to ensure the City’s cost recovery. Design, Aesthetic and Development Standards – The proposed Ordinances also establish general design, aesthetic and development criteria for WCFs, and authorize the Public Works Director to adopt additional policies, rules and guidelines regarding the applications and application procedures, and additional design, aesthetic, development and maintenance criteria, including standards for color, screening, and compatibility with the architecture of existing buildings, that each proposed WCF must meet. Conditions of Approval – The Ordinances contain authorization for the Director to impose time, place and manner conditions on the approval of a WCF consistent with state and federal law. Operation and Maintenance Standards – The Ordinances contain general maintenance and operation standards, and further provides for adoption of more specific standards by the Director including with relating to graffiti, equipment and landscape maintenance, and hours for testing and maintenance (8 a.m. to 5 p.m. unless a different time is approved by the Director). Abandonment and Revocation -- The proposed Ordinances also contain procedures regarding abandonment and removal of WCFs, and revocation of City permits. Proposals for installation or modification of wireless communications facilities on other City property, such as in parks, or on City buildings or other structures, would remain subject to control and regulation by the City in its proprietary capacity through leases or other agreements between the City and the party proposing the WCF. 4. Summary of Revisions from Prior Drafts Additional revisions have been made to the Ordinances and Resolution based on comments received from stakeholders and further review of the drafts and other ordinances and procedures in California, as follows: Findings – The urgency ordinance (Ordinance 1676-U) contains findings justifying its adoption to be immediately effective. Ordinance Purpose – Additional findings have been added to the “Purpose” section of the Ordinances to clarify the reasons for the City’s adoption of the Ordinances, to comply with the new FCC Ruling and Order pending further court decisions. Public Director Final Decision; No Appeal – The original draft ordinance provided for a right of appeal of the Director’s decisions to the City, and also allowed the Director to forward certain applications for review and decision by the City Council. Because the new FCC Ruling and Order has become effective as of January 14, 2019, federal and state law impose strict time limits on final decisions relating to small wireless facilities and eligible facilities as reflected in Section 6409(a) and the new FCC Ruling and Order, and the FCC Ruling and Order requires adoption of objective development and design standards, Staff no longer recommends that the Ordinances include an appeal process to the City Council. The appeal provision contained in the earlier draft have been eliminated, and the final decision on any proposed wireless facility permit would be made by the Director of Public Works. Locational Restrictions Along Electric Avenue – The Ordinances have been revised to clarify that wireless communications facilities are prohibited in or along the park, parkway and greenbelt in Electric Avenue, or on any decorative lighting, but WCFs may be allowed in the PROW along Electric Avenue in the following PROW locations, subject to all other requirements of the Ordinances: (1) On the north side of the PROW adjacent to the westbound lanes of Electric Avenue; or (2) On the south side of the PROW adjacent to the eastbound lanes of Electric Avenue. The latter locations already contain utility poles owned by Southern California Edison. The draft Ordinances include a diagram showing permissible locations along Electric Avenue. Locational Restriction Near Living Areas – The Ordinances have been corrected to prohibit small wireless facilities any closer than six feet from the living area of a residential dwelling unit. As used in the Ordinances, “living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including but not limited to bedrooms, windows, basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. General Locational Preferences – The Ordinances have been revised to clarify a preference for collocation on existing infrastructure (subject to all other requirements of the new provisions). Maintenance Encroachment Permit – The revised Ordinances provide that an encroachment permit will be required for minor maintenance or repairs, including but not limited to minor maintenance and repairs resulting from an emergency. If adopted on January 28, 2019, Ordinance 1676-U, the urgency ordinance, will become effective immediately. The regular ordinance, Ordinance 1677, requires two readings by the City Council. If the City Council approves the regular Ordinance for first reading on January 28th, staff also recommends that the City Council direct that the Ordinance be scheduled for its second reading at the next City Council meeting to be held on February 11, 2019. Ordinance 1677 would then become effective thirty days after the second reading. If the City Council adopts the urgency ordinance and approves the regular ordinance for first reading, staff also recommends that the City Council also adopt Resolution 6894 establishing Rules and Guidelines to further implement and regulate wireless communications facilities and eligible facilities. As proposed, the Resolution provides that it will be effective upon the effective date of the urgency ordinance, Ordinance 1676-U. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The proposed Ordinances and Resolution do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that they will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because they have no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Moreover, even if the proposed Ordinances and Resolution comprise a project for CEQA analysis, they fall within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the ordinances and Resolution as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this item. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended: 1. That the City Council adopt Ordinance 1676-U, an Ordinance of the Seal Beach City Council Amending Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Amend Section 6.10.010 and Section 6.10.65, Repeal Section 6.10.070, and Add New Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 Regulating Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way and Declaring the Urgency Thereof; 2. That the City Council introduce for first reading by title only and further reading waived, regular Ordinance 1677, an Ordinance of the Seal Beach City Council Amending Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Amend Section 6.10.010 and Section 6.10.65, Repeal Section 6.10.070, and Add a Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 Regulating Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way; 3. That the City Council direct staff to schedule the second reading of Ordinance 1677 for the February 11, 2019 regular meeting; 4. That the City Council adopt Resolution 6894, a Resolution of the Seal Beach City Council Establishing Rules and Guidelines for Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way; and 5. That the City Council authorize and direct the Public Works Director adopt additional policies, rules, regulations and guidelines to further implement the Ordinances and post them on the City’s website prior to April 15, 2019. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Steve Myrter Jill R. Ingram Steve Myrter, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jill R. Ingram, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U B. Ordinance 1677 C. Resolution 6894 D. Letter to AT&T E. Letter to Verizon Urgency Ordinance 1676-U 1 URGENCY ORDINANCE 1676-U AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 6.10 OF TITLE 6 OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND SECTION 6.10.010 AND SECTION 6.10.065, REPEAL SECTION 6.10.070, AND ADD NEW SECTIONS 6.10.070 AND 6.10.075 REGULATING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES AND ELIGIBLE FACILITES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1.Urgency Findings. On January 28, 2019, the City Council considered the adoption of this Urgency Ordinance at a duly noticed public meeting, and on the basis of the record thereof finds the following facts to be true: A. Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the Seal Beach City Charter and California Government Code Section 37100 provide the City of Seal Beach (“City”) with authority to enact local ordinances to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents. The Seal Beach City Charter provides that an ordinance declared by the City Council to be necessary as an emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health, or safety, and containing a statement of the reasons for its urgency, may be introduced and adopted at one and the same meeting. Government Code Section 36937(b) also authorizes the City Council to adopt an urgency ordinance to become effective immediately upon a four-fifths (4/5) vote, when such an ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, and safety; and B. Pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Government Code Section 36937(b), the City Council finds that it is necessary for this ordinance to take effect immediately in order to preserve the public peace, health, and safety of the City’s residents, businesses, and visitors due to the need to impose reasonable and lawful local controls, as permitted by law. The facts constituting the urgency are as follows: (1) On September 27, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) adopted its Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 83 FR 51867-01 (adopted September 26, 2018 and released September 27, 2018) [hereinafter “Report and Order”] relating to placement of small wireless facilities in public rights- of-way. The Report and Order took effect on January 14, 2019, and unless stayed by court or legislative action, or by further action by the FCC, states and local governments must comply with its terms. (2) The Report and Order purports to give providers of wireless services rights to utilize public rights of way and to attach so-called “small wireless facilities” to public infrastructure within the public rights-of-way, including infrastructure of the City of Seal Beach, subject to payment of “presumed reasonable”, non-recurring and recurring fees. The ability of local agencies to regulate use of their rights-of-way is substantially limited under the Report and Order. (3) Notwithstanding the limitations imposed on local regulation of small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way by the Report and Order, local agencies retain the Urgency Ordinance 1676-U 2 ability to regulate the aesthetics of small wireless facilities, including location, compatibility with surrounding facilities, spacing, and overall size of the facility, provided the aesthetic requirements are: (i) “reasonable”, i.e., “technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm or unsightly or out-of-character deployments”; (ii) “objective”, i.e., they “incorporate clearly-defined and ascertainable standards, applied in a principled manner”; are (iii) published in advance. Regulations that do not satisfy the foregoing requirements are likely to be subject to invalidation, as are any other regulations that “materially inhibit wireless service”, (e.g., overly restrictive spacing requirements.) The Report and Order require that states and local governments adopt aesthetic standards no later than April 15, 2019. (4) Local agencies also retain the ability to regulate small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way in order to more fully protect the public health and safety, ensure continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers. (5) The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the City's Municipal Code to provide uniform and comprehensive standards, regulations and permit requirements for the installation of wireless telecommunications facilities in the City's public rights-of-way. (6) The wireless telecommunications industry has expressed interest in submitting applications for the installation of “small cell” wireless telecommunications facilities in the City’s public rights-of-way. Other southern California cities have already received applications for small cells to be located within the public rights-of-way. (7) Installation of small cell and other wireless telecommunications facilities within the public rights-of-way which poses treat to the public health, safety and welfare, including land use conflicts and incompatibilities including excessive height of poles and towers; creation of visual and aesthetic blights and potential safety concerns arising from excessive size, heights, noise, or lack of camouflaging of wireless telecommunications facilities including the associated pedestals, meters, equipment and power generators; creation of unnecessary visual and aesthetic blight by failing to utilize alternative technologies or capitalizing on collocation opportunities which may negatively impact the unique quality and character of the City; cause substantial disturbance to right-of-way through the installation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities; create traffic and pedestrian safety hazards due to the unsafe location of wireless telecommunications facilities and impairment of accessible paths of travel; and, negatively impact City street trees where proximity conflicts may require unnecessary trimming of branches or require removal of roots due to related undergrounding of equipment or connection lines. (8) The Seal Beach Municipal Code currently regulates wireless telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way through the requirement for a conditional use permit (CUP) process in the Zoning Code (Title 11), requirements for encroachment/excavation permits and overall policies directed at telephone corporations in the public right-of-way. The existing standards have not been updated to reflect current telecommunications trends or necessary federal and state legal requirements. Further the primary focus of the current regulations is wireless telecommunications facilities located on private property, and the existing Code provisions were not specifically designed to address the unique legal and/or practical issues that arise in connection with wireless telecommunications facilities deployed in the public right-of-way. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U 3 (9) In addition to the Ruling and Order, state and federal law have changed substantially since the City last adopted regulations for wireless telecommunications facilities in the City. Such changes include modifications to “shot clocks” whereby the City must approve or deny installations within a certain period of time. State and federal laws require local governments to act on permit applications for eligible facilities within a prescribed time period and may automatically deem an application approved when a failure to act occurs. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii); 47 CFR §§ 1.6100 et seq.; Cal. Gov't Code § 65964.1. The FCC may require a decision on certain wireless telecommunications facility applications and/or eligible facility applications in as few as 60 days. See 447 C.F.R. § 1.6100(c)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 1.61003(c)(1)(i); see also Ruling and Order, 83 FR 51867-01, 51885-51886; In the Matter of Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd. 12865 (Oct. 17, 2014) [hereinafter “2014 Report and Order”]; In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review, Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. 13994 (Nov. 18, 2009) [hereinafter “2009 Declaratory Ruling”]. Pursuant to FCC regulations, the City cannot adopt a moratorium ordinance to toll the time period for review for certain type of facilities, even when needed to allow the City to maintain the status quo while it reviews and revises its policies for compliance with changes in state or federal law. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(c)(3); Ruling and Order, 83 FR 51886; 2014 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd. at 219, 265. The City is in immediate need of clear regulations for wireless installations in the public rights-of-way given the number of anticipated applications and legal timelines upon which the City must act. (10) The public rights-of-way in the City of Seal Beach is a uniquely valuable public resource, closely linked with the City’s natural beauty including the beach and coastline, and significant number of residential communities. The public right-of-way encompassed by Electric Avenue is historically significant as critical to development of a commuter electric railway line between Los Angeles and Newport Beach in the early Twentieth Century, and the Pier is historically significant as an example of as early development of coastal amusement along coastal areas, including the original pier site known as “Anaheim Landing", which is now registered as a California Historical Landmark. The reasonably regulated and orderly deployment of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way is desirable, and unregulated or disorderly deployment represents an ever-increasing and true threat to the health, welfare and safety of the community. The regulations of wireless telecommunications installations in the public right-of-way are also necessary to protect and preserve the aesthetics in the community, as well as the values of properties within the City, and to ensure that all wireless telecommunications facilities are installed using the least intrusive means possible. (11) The City finds that in light of more recent developments in federal and state law with respect to the regulation of small cell and other wireless telecommunications facilities, there is a need for the City to update its current ordinances based on current telecommunications trends, updates in laws, as well as aesthetic and location options for wireless facilities. The City is also considering amendments to current local regulations to insure the maximum protections to the Seal Beach community. The City Council also finds that the lack of specifically-designed standards and regulations in the Municipal Code for wireless telecommunications facilities located in the public rights-of-way, the increasing requests for information about the City’s regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities, the inability to adopt a temporary moratorium, the short time frames imposed by federal and state law for final decisions on wireless telecommunications facilities applications, and the potential liabilities and negative consequences for noncompliance with state and federal regulations (including, without limitation, automatic approvals) present current and immediate threat to the public health, safety Urgency Ordinance 1676-U 4 and welfare. The City Council further finds and declares that the immediate implementation of the Ordinance is necessary to preserve and protect public health, safety and welfare. (12) It is the intent of the City Council in adopting this Urgency Ordinance to supersede regulations of the City that conflict with the Report and Order, and to immediately establish consistent regulations governing deployment of small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way, in order to more fully protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The City Council declares that it adopts this Ordinance with the understanding that the City expressly reserves all rights to re-enact and/or establish new regulations consistent with State and federal law as it existed prior to adoption of the Report and Order in the event the Report and Order is invalidated, modified, or limited in any way. C. The City recognizes its responsibilities under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and state law, and believes that it is acting consistent with the current state of the law in ensuring that irreversible development activity does not occur that would harm the public health, safety, or welfare. The City does not intend that this Ordinance prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting telecommunications service; rather, but includes appropriate regulations to ensure that the installation, augmentation and relocation of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way are conducted in such a manner as to lawfully balance the legal rights of applicants under the Federal Telecommunications Act and the California Public Utilities Code while, at the same time, protect to the full extent feasible against the safety and land use concerns described herein. D. On January 28, 2019, the City Council of the City of Seal Beach conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Municipal Code amendments contained herein as required by law and received testimony from City staff and all interested parties regarding the proposed amendments. E. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred. SECTION 2.The City Council of the City of Seal Beach hereby amends Section 6.10.010 (Definitions) of Chapter 6.10 (Cable, Video and Telecommunications) of Title 6 (Franchises) to include the following definitions: “Action or to act: the approval authority’s grant of an application for a small wireless facility, eligible facility, or other wireless communications facility, or issuance of a written decision denying an application, pursuant to Section 6.10.070 or 6.10.075 of this chapter. Antenna: any system of poles, panels, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of electromagnetic waves or radio frequency signals, including devices with active elements extending in any direction, and directional parasitic arrays with elements attached to a generally horizontal boom which may be mounted on a vertical support structure. Amateur radio antenna: any antenna used for transmitting and receiving radio signals in conjunction with an amateur radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Antenna equipment: equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna, and, when collocated on a structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as such antenna. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U 5 Antenna facility: an antenna and associated antenna equipment. Applicant: any natural person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or other entity (or combination of entities), and the agents, employees, and contractors of such person or entity that seeks City permits or other authorizations under this chapter. Approval authority: the Director of Public Works designated to review and issue a decision on a proposed permit or other authorization under this chapter. Authorization: any approval that the approval authority must issue under applicable law prior to the installation, construction or other deployment of a small wireless facility, eligible facility, or any other wireless communications facility under Section 6.10.070 or Section 6.10.075 of this chapter, including, but not limited to, encroachment permit, excavation permit, zoning approval and/or building permit. Building or roof mounted: an antenna mounted on the side or top of a building or another structure (e.g., water tank, billboard, church steeple, freestanding sign, etc.), where the entire weight of the antenna is supported by the building, through the use of an approved framework or other structural system which is attached to one or more structural members of the roof or walls of the building. C.F.R: the Code of Federal Regulations. Collocation (also known as “colocation” or “co-location”): (1) For a small wireless facility subject to Section 6.10.070 of this chapter, “collocation” means: (a) mounting or installing an antenna facility on a pre-existing structure, and/or (b) modifying a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing an antenna facility on that structure. (2) For an eligible facility subject to Section 6.10.075 of this chapter, “collocation” has the meaning set forth in Section 6.10.075.B of this chapter. (3) For any other wireless communication facility subject to Section 6.10.070 of this chapter, “collocation” means the location of 2 or more wireless, hard wire, or cable communication facilities on a single support structure or otherwise sharing a common location. Collocation shall also include the location of communication facilities with other facilities (e.g., water tanks, light standards, and other utility facilities and structures). Competitive Local Carrier (CLC): a telecommunications company that competes with local telephone companies in providing local exchange service, as defined and regulated by the CPUC pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1001 as amended. CPUC: the California Public Utilities Commission. Decorative lighting : any light fixture that incorporates ornamental design features while also meeting the specific spread and lumen requirements dictated by the location and purpose. Design features may include post top and pendant bulbs, posts, bases, cross-arms, bollards and signage. Height, density and placement relative to nearby architectural features are also relevant to the design and purpose. Some examples in the City of Seal Beach include the Electric Avenue greenbelt, Seal Beach Pier and Main Street Business District. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U 6 Deployment: the installation, placement, construction, or modification of a small wireless facility, eligible facility or other wireless communications facility. Director: the Public Works Director of the City of Seal Beach. Dish antenna: a dish-like antenna used to link communication sites together by wireless transmissions of voice or data. Also called microwave dish antenna. Distributed antenna system (DAS): a network of one or more antenna and fiber optic nodes connecting to a common base station or “hub.” Electromagnetic field: the local electric and magnetic fields caused by voltage and the flow of electricity that envelop the space surrounding an electrical conductor. Eligible facility: as defined in Section 6409(a). See Section 6.10.075 of this chapter. Equipment cabinet: a cabinet or structure used to house equipment associated with a wireless, hard wire, or cable communication facility. FAA: the Federal Aviation Administration. Ground mounted: any freestanding antenna, the entire weight of which is supported by an approved freestanding platform, framework, or other structural system which is attached to the ground by a foundation. JFTB Los Alamitos: the Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos, California, also known as the Los Alamitos Army Airfield. Ministerial permit: – an excavation permit, encroachment permit, or building permit and any required ministerial permit application form and supporting documents required by the City. Monopole: a single freestanding pole, post, or similar structure, used to support equipment associated with a single communication facility. NEPA: the National Environmental Policy Act. NHPA: the National Historical Preservation Act. Naval Weapons Station (NWS): the Naval Weapon Station, Seal Beach, California. Panel: an antenna or array of antennas that are flat and rectangular and are designed to concentrate a radio signal in a particular area. Also referred to as a directional antenna. Permittee: includes the applicant and all successors in interest to the Wireless Communications Facility Permit (WFCP) issued by the City pursuant to Section 6.10.070 or 6.10.075 of this chapter, and any related ministerial permit approved by the City. Person: an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, association, trust, or other entity or organization, including a governmental entity. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U 7 Pole: a single shaft of wood, steel, concrete or other material capable of supporting the equipment mounted thereon in a safe and adequate manner and as required by provisions of this code. Public right-of-way (PROW): any public road, highway, sidewalk or other area described in and subject to California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 or 7901.1, as interpreted by applicable case law, and owned, licensed, leased or otherwise under the control of the city. RF: radio frequency. Rules and Guidelines: The policies, rules, guidelines, regulations and procedures adopted from time to time by the City Council to administer and implement this section. Section 6409(a): Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, codified as 47 U.S.C. Section 1455(a) (the “Spectrum Act”), as may be amended. Small wireless facility(ies): a facility that meets each of the following conditions: (1) The facility— (i) is mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including its antennas as defined in this section; or (ii) is mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or (iii) does not extend existing structures on which it is located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater; (2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in this section), is no more than three cubic feet in volume; (3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; (4) The facility does not require antenna structure registration under Part 17 of Subchapter A of Chapter 1 of Title 47 C.F.R., or its successor regulations; (5) The facility is not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 C.F.R. Section 800.16(x), or its successor regulation; and (6) The facility does not result in human exposure to radio frequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1307(b), or its successor regulation. Stealth facility: a telecommunications facility that is designed to blend into the surrounding environment, typically one that is architecturally or aesthetically camouflaged or otherwise integrated into a structure. Also referred to as a concealed antenna. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U 8 Structure: a pole, tower, base station, or other building, whether or not it has an existing antenna facility, that is used or to be used for the provision of wireless communications service (whether on its own or comingled with other types of services). Telephone corporation: any person, company, firm or entity that qualifies as a “telephone corporation” pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 234 as amended from time to time. Temporary wireless communications facilities: portable wireless facilities intended or used to provide wireless communications services on a temporary or emergency basis, such as a large-scale special event in which more users than usual gather in a confined location or when a disaster disables permanent wireless facilities. Temporary wireless communications facilities include, without limitation, cells-on-wheels (“COWs”), sites-on-wheels (“SOWs”), cells-on-light- trucks (“COLTs”) or other similarly portable wireless facilities not permanently affixed to the site on which it is located. Tower: any ground or roof mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof taller than 15 feet, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar apparatus above grade. Whip antenna: an antenna consisting of a single, slender, rod-like element, which is supported only at or near its base. They are typically less than 6 inches in diameter and measure up to 18 feet in height. Also referred to as omnidirectional, stick or pipe antennas. Wireless communications facility(ies) (WCF or WCFs): public, commercial and private electromagnetic and photoelectrical transmission, broadcast, repeater and receiving stations for radio, television, telegraph, telephone, data network, and wireless telecommunications, including commercial earth stations for satellite-based communications, whether such service is provided on a stand-alone basis or commingled with other wireless communications services. Includes antennas, commercial satellite dish antennas, and equipment buildings. Does not include telephone, telegraph and cable television transmission facilities utilizing hard-wired or direct cable connections. Wireless communications collocation facility: the same as a “wireless telecommunications colocation facility” is defined in Government Code Section 65850.6, as may be amended, which defines a “wireless telecommunications colocation facility” as a wireless telecommunications facility that includes colocation facilities; a “colocation facility” as the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas, and related equipment, on, or immediately adjacent to, a wireless telecommunications colocation facility; a “wireless telecommunications facility” as equipment and network components such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations, and emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services. Wireless Communications Facility Permit (WCFP): a permit issued by the City pursuant to this chapter, and including the following categories: 1.Small Wireless Facility Permit (SMFP): a permit issued by the Director pursuant to the requirements of Section 6.10.070 of this chapter for (a) the deployment of a new small wireless facility, or (b) the replacement of, collocation on, or modification of an existing small wireless facility. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U 9 2.Eligible Facility Permit (EFP): a permit issued for an eligible facility as defined in and subject to the requirements of Section 6.10.075 of this chapter. 3.Maintenance Encroachment Permit: an encroachment permit issued by the Director pursuant to Section 6.10.070 of this chapter to carry out minor modifications, minor emergency maintenance or repairs, or other routine maintenance or repairs to an existing WCF. Wireless communications services: the provision of services using a wireless communications facility, and shall include, but not limited to, the following services: personal wireless services as defined in the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C) or its successor statute, cellular service, personal communication service, and/or data radio telecommunications.” SECTION 2.The City Council of the City of Seal Beach hereby amends Subsection B of Section 6.10.065 (Telecommunications Services Provided by Telephone Corporations) of Chapter 6.10 (Cable, Video and Telecommunications) of Title 6 (Franchises) to read as follows: [new language is highlighted] “6.10.065 Telecommunications Service Provided by Telephone Corporations. A. The city council finds and determines as follows: 1. The Communications Act preempts and declares invalid all state rules that restrict entry or limit competition in both local and long-distance telephone service. 2. The California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) is primarily responsible for the implementation of local telephone competition, and it issues certificates of public convenience and necessity to new entrants that are qualified to provide competitive local telephone exchange services and related communications service, whether using their own facilities or the facilities or services provided by other authorized telephone corporations. 3. Public Utilities Code Section 234(a) defines a “telephone corporation” as “every corporation or person owning, controlling, operating, or managing any telephone line for compensation within this state.” 4. Public Utilities Code Section 616 provides that a telephone corporation “may condemn any property necessary for the construction and maintenance of its telephone line.” 5. Public Utilities Code Section 2902 authorizes municipal corporations to retain their powers of control to supervise and regulate the relationships between a public utility and the general public in matters affecting the health, convenience, and safety of the general public, including matters such as the use and repair of public streets by any public utility and the location of the poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility on, under, or above any public streets. 6. Public Utilities Code Section 7901 authorizes telephone and telegraph corporations to construct telephone or telegraph lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this state, and to erect poles, posts, piers or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U 10 7. Public Utilities Code Section 7901.1 confirms the right of municipalities to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed, which control must be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner. Nothing in Section 7901.1 adds to or subtracts from any existing authority that municipalities have with respect to the imposition of fees. 8. Government Code Section 50030 provides that any permit fee imposed by a city for the placement, installation, repair, or upgrading of communications facilities, such as lines, poles, or antennas, by a telephone corporation that has obtained all required authorizations from the CPUC and the FCC to provide communications services, must not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged, and must not be levied for general revenue purposes. B. In recognition of and in compliance with the statutory authorizations and requirements set forth above, the following regulatory provisions are applicable to a telephone corporation that desires to provide communications service by means of facilities that are proposed to be constructed, installed or otherwise deployed within public rights-of-way: 1. The telephone corporation must apply for and obtain, as may be applicable, a Wireless Communications Facility Permit in accordance with Section 6.10.070 or Section 6.10.075 of this chapter and any other ministerial permit required by this code. 2. In addition to the information required by this code in connection with an application for a ministerial permit or a Wireless Communications Facility Permit, a telephone corporation must submit to the City the following supplemental information: a. A copy of the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the CPUC to the applicant, and a copy of the CPUC decision that authorizes the applicant to provide the communications service for which the facilities are proposed to be constructed in the public rights-of-way. Any applicant that, prior to 1996, provided communications service under administratively equivalent documentation issued by the CPUC may submit copies of that documentation in lieu of a certificate of public convenience and necessity. b. If the applicant has obtained from the CPUC a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a “competitive local carrier,” the following additional requirements are applicable: (1) As required by Decision No. 95-12-057 of the CPUC, the applicant must establish that it has timely filed with the city a quarterly report that describes the type of construction and the location of each construction project proposed to be undertaken in the city during the calendar quarter in which the application is filed, so that the city can coordinate multiple projects, as may be necessary. (2) If the applicant's proposed construction project will extend beyond the utility rights-of-way into undisturbed areas or other rights-of-way, the applicant must establish that it has filed a petition with the CPUC to amend its certificate of public convenience and necessity and that the proposed construction project has been subjected to a full-scale environmental analysis by the CPUC, as required by Decision No. 95-12-057 of the CPUC. (3) The applicant must inform the city whether its proposed construction project will be subject to any of the mitigation measures specified in the Negative Urgency Ordinance 1676-U 11 Declaration [“Competitive Local Carriers (CLCs) Projects for Local Exchange Communication Service throughout California"] or to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan adopted in connection with Decision No. 95-12-057 of the CPUC. The city's issuance of a ministerial permit, and/or Wireless Communications Facility Permit will be conditioned upon the applicant's compliance with applicable mitigation measures and monitoring requirements imposed by the CPUC upon telephone corporations that are designated as "competitive local carriers. C. The city reserves all rights that it now possesses or may later acquire with respect to the regulation of any cable or communications service that is provided, or proposed to be provided, by a telephone corporation. These reserved rights may relate, without limitation, to the imposition of reasonable conditions in addition to or different from those set forth in this section, the exaction of a fee or other form of consideration or compensation for use of public rights-of- way, and related matters; provided, however, that such regulatory rights and authority must be consistent with federal and state law that is applicable to cable or communications services provided by telephone corporations.” SECTION 3.Section 6.10.070 (Use of Public Rights-of-Way) of Chapter 6.10 (Cable, Video and Communications) of Title 6 (Franchises) is hereby deleted in its entirety. SECTION 4.A new Section 6.10.070 (Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way) is hereby added to Chapter 6.10 (Cable, Video and Communications) of Title 6 (Franchises) as set forth in Exhibit “A” to this Ordinance, which is hereby incorporated as though set forth in full herein. SECTION 5.A new Section 6.10.075 (Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way -- Eligible Facilities Requests) is hereby added to Chapter 6.10 (Cable, Video and Communications) of Title 6 (Franchises) as set forth in Exhibit “B” to this Ordinance, which is hereby incorporated as though set forth in full herein. SECTION 6.The City recognizes its responsibilities under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, codified as 47 U.S.C. Section 1455(a) (the “Spectrum Act”), as may be amended, and all implementing federal regulations, FCC rulings and orders, and state law, regulations and orders (collectively “Governing Laws”), and believes that it is acting consistent with the current state of the Governing Laws in ensuring that irreversible development activity does not occur that would harm the public health, safety, or welfare. The City does not intend that this Ordinance prohibit or result in an effective prohibition of wireless telecommunications services in the public rights-of-way; but rather includes appropriate reasonable time, place and manner regulations to ensure that the installation, augmentation and relocation of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way are conducted in such a manner so as to lawfully balance the legal rights of applicants under the Governing Laws while, at the same time, ensuring that the deployment of telecommunications services will not incommode the public use of the City’s rights-of-way, and will protect to the full extent feasible against the safety and land use concerns described herein, while treating all entities in an equivalent manner. SECTION 7. Conflicting Code Provisions Superseded. The provisions of this Ordinance shall govern and supersede any conflicting provisions of the Seal Beach Municipal Code with respect to the permitting and regulation of wireless communications facilities and eligible facilities in the public right-of-way. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U 12 SECTION 8. CEQA Findings. The proposed Ordinance does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Moreover, even if the proposed Ordinance comprises a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Adoption of this Ordinance will also enact only minor changes in land use regulations, and it can be seen with certainty that its adoption will not have a significant effect on the environment because it will not allow for the development of any new or expanded wireless telecommunication facilities anywhere other than where they were previously allowed under existing federal, state and local regulations. It is therefore not subject to the environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, minor alterations to land use SECTION 9. Savings Clause. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal or amendment by this Ordinance of any ordinance or part or portion of any ordinance previously in effect in the City, or within the territory comprising the City, shall in any manner affect the prosecution for the violation of any ordinance, which violation was committed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, nor be construed as a waiver of any license, fee or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation of such ordinances. SECTION 10. Severability. If any sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentence, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. SECTION 11. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance to be published within 15 days after its passage, in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code. SECTION 12. Effective Date. This ordinance is adopted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Seal Beach City Charter Section 412 and Government Code Section 36937(b), and shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January , 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Urgency Ordinance 1676-U 13 and do hereby further certify that Urgency Ordinance 1676-U has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution 2836. Thomas Moore, Mayor ATTEST: Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance is the original copy of Ordinance 1676-U on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January, 2019. Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 1 EXHIBIT “A” CITY OF SEAL BEACH URGENCY ORDINANCE 1676-U NEW SECTION 6.10.070 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY “6.10.070 Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way. A. Purpose and Intent. 1. The purpose of this section is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards and procedures to regulate the location, placement, installation, height, appearance, and operation of wireless telecommunications antennas and related facilities (“wireless communications facilities” or WCFs) in the PROW, consistent with City laws, applicable state and federal requirements, and changing technology. The regulations are intended to provide for the appropriate development of wireless communications facilities within the PROW to meet the needs of residents, business-owners, and visitors while protecting public health and safety and preventing visual blight and degradation of the community’s aesthetic character and scenic vistas. 2. The procedures set forth in this section are intended to permit wireless communications facilities in the PROW that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, aesthetics or public safety. The procedures prescribed by this section are tailored to the type of wireless communication facility that is sought. Collocation of facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. 3. This section is not intended to, nor shall it be interpreted or applied to: a. Prohibit or effectively prohibit any wireless service provider’s ability to provide wireless communications services; b. Prohibit or effectively prohibit any entity’s ability to provide any interstate or intrastate wireless communications service, subject to any competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory rules, regulations or other legal requirements for rights-of-way management; c. Unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; d. Deny any request for authorization to place, construct or modify WCFs on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such WCFs comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions; e. Prohibit any collocation or modification that the City may not deny under federal or California State law; or f. Otherwise authorize the City to preempt any applicable federal or state law. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 2 4. Due to rapidly changing technology and regulatory requirements, and to further implement this section, the City Council may adopt written policies, rules, regulations and/or guidelines (collectively “Rules and Guidelines”) by resolution governing WCFs in the PROW, which may include but are not limited to, requirements related to applications, notices, review procedures, development and design standards, conditions, and operation and maintenance requirements. The Director may adopt policies, procedures and forms consistent with this section and any Council-adopted Rules and Guidelines, which shall be posted on the City’s website and maintained at the Department for review, inspection and copying by applicants and other interested members of the public. The City Council and the Director may update their rules, policies, procedures and forms in their discretion to adjust for new technologies, federal and/or state regulations, and/or to improve and adjust the City’s implementing regulatory procedures and requirements, and compliance therewith is a condition of approval in every wireless communications facility permit. B. Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following words and phrases have the meanings set forth below. Words and phrases not specifically defined in this section will be given their meaning ascribed to them in Section 6.10.010 or as otherwise provided in Section 6409(a), the Communications Act, or any applicable federal or state law or regulation. Administrative review: ministerial review of an application by the City relating to the review and issuance of a for a wireless communications facility permit (WCFP), including review by the Director of Public Works to determine whether the issuance of a WCFP is in conformity with the applicable provisions of this section. Application: any written submission to the City for the installation, construction or other deployment of a WCFP and related ministerial permits to obtain final approval of the deployment of a WCF at a specified location. Day: a calendar day, except as otherwise provided in this section. Rules and Guidelines: The policies, rules, guidelines, regulations and procedures adopted from time to time by resolution of the City Council to administer and implement this section. C. Applicability. 1. This section applies to the siting, construction or modification of any and all WCFs located or proposed to be located within the PROW as follows: a. All WCFs for which applications were not approved prior to the effective date of this section shall be subject to and comply with all provisions of this section. b. All WCFs for which applications were approved and permits issued by the City prior to the effective date of this section shall not be required to obtain a new or amended WCFP until such time as this section so requires. If a WCF was lawfully constructed or installed within the PROW in accordance with applicable local, state or federal regulations prior to the effective date of this section but does not comply with the current standards, regulations and/or Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 3 requirements of this section, such WCF shall be deemed a legal nonconforming facility and shall also be subject to the provisions of Section 6.10.070.Y. c. Any WCF proposed to be installed, modified or otherwise deployed on any existing utility structure (e.g., Southern California Edison or Southern California Gas Company) in the PROW, except as otherwise required by state or federal pole attachments rules or any other provision of federal and/or state law, subject to submittal of documentation establishing the applicable exemption; and provided further that such WCF shall comply with all other standards set forth in this chapter and the rules and guidelines, and shall obtain any related ministerial permit(s) (encroachment permit, excavation permit, or building permit) required in order to access and/or use the PROW. d. Any WCF proposed to be installed, modified or replaced on any City infrastructure located within the PROW, including but not limited to, any City-owned, leased or licensed pole, tower, base station, cabinet, structure, building, or facility of any kind. The City and an applicant may enter into a license, lease or other agreement in a form acceptable to the City, which includes, but is not limited to, terms relating to rent, inspection, operations and maintenance requirements, defense and indemnification, insurance requirements, waiver of monetary damages against the City, removal, restoration and clean-up requirements, and requirement for payment of any possessory interest taxes. Any such agreement shall not substitute for any permit required by this section or any other provision of this code. e. All WCFs, notwithstanding the date approved, shall be subject immediately to the provisions of this section governing operation and maintenance standards (Section 6.10.070.O), radio frequency emissions and other monitoring requirements (Section 6.10.070.P), the prohibition of dangerous conditions or obstructions (Section 6.10.070.Q), cessation of use and abandonment (Section 6.10.070.S), revocation or modification; removal (Section 6.10.070.T), effect on other ordinances (Section 6.10.070.V), and state or federal law (Section 6.10.070.W), and the rules and guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council. In the event a condition of approval conflicts with a provision of this section, the condition of approval shall control until the permit is amended or revoked. 2. Exemptions. This section does not apply to the following WCFs: a. A WCF that qualifies as an amateur station as defined by the FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 97, of the FCC’s Rules, or its successor regulation. b. Any antenna facility that is subject to the FCC Over-The-Air-Receiving Devices rule, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000, or its successor regulation, including, but not limited to, direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter in diameter, TV antennas used to receive television broadcast signals and wireless cable antennas. c. Portable radios and devices including, but not limited to, hand-held, vehicular, or other portable receivers, transmitters or transceivers, cellular phones, CB radios, emergency services radio, and other similar portable devices as determined by the Director. d. Any WCF owned, leased and/or operated by the City or any other governmental agency. e. Emergency medical care provider-owned and operated WCFs. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 4 f. Mobile services providing public information coverage of news events of a temporary nature. g. Any other WCF exempted from this code by federal law or state law, subject to submittal of documentation establishing the applicable exemption. h. Any WCF proposed to be installed, placed, modified or replaced on any City-owned or controlled infrastructure located outside the PROW, including but not limited to, any City-owned, leased or licensed street lights, traffic light poles, wires, fiber-optic strands, conduit, and any other City-owned or controlled poles, towers, base stations, cabinets, structures, buildings, or facility of any kind located outside the PROW. Such WCFs shall require a license, lease or other agreement in the form and terms required by the City from time to time, which shall include, but not be limited to, terms relating to permit requirements, rent, inspection, operations and maintenance requirements, defense and indemnification, insurance requirements, waiver of monetary damages against the City, removal, restoration and clean-up requirements, and requirement for payment of any possessory interest taxes; and any and all other permits required by this code. Any such agreement shall be in addition to, and shall not substitute for, any permit required by any provision of this code. i. Any WCF proposed to be installed, construed, modified, or replaced on any private property. (See Chapter 11.4.070) j. Request for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a). Any requests for approval to collocate, replace or remove transmission equipment at an existing wireless tower or base station submitted pursuant to Section 6409(a) will require an Eligible Facility Permit under Section 6.10.075 of this chapter. D. General Small Wireless Facility Permit Requirements. 1. Permit required. A SWF shall not be constructed, installed, modified, or replaced in the PROW except upon approval of a SWFP in accordance with the requirements of this section, or an EFP in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.10.075, and all related ministerial permits. 2. Conflicting provisions. An application for a SWFP shall be processed in compliance with this section and the Rules and Guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council, and any supplemental rules, regulations, procedures and forms adopted by the Director. Ministerial permits shall meet all requirements of this section and all other applicable provisions of this code, the Rules and Guidelines, and any such Director-adopted rules, regulations, policies and forms.. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this section and any other provision of this code, the Rules and Guidelines, and/or the Director- adopted provisions, the provisions of this section shall govern and control. 3. Permit type. Table 6.10.070.D identifies the type of permit required for each WCF and the approval authority. TABLE 6.10.070.D Public Rights-of-Way Wireless Communications Facilities Required Permit Matrix Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 5 TYPE OF FACILITY TYPE OF PERMIT APPROVAL AUTHORITY Small Wireless Facility (as defined in Section 6.10.010) Small Wireless Facility Permit (SWFP)1 Public Works Director or designee2 Eligible Facility (as defined in Section 6.10.010 and 6.10.075.B) Eligible Facility Permit (EFP)3 Public Works Director or designee2 Maintenance and repairs, including minor modifications and emergency maintenance and repairs4 Maintenance Encroachment Permit5 Public Works Director or designee Encroachment or excavation within or on public rights-of-way Encroachment Permit, Excavation Permit and/or Building Permit5 Public Works Director or designee 1 For small wireless facility requests and permit procedures, see Section 6.10.070.D.4. 2 Subject to public notice and review by the Director. See Section 6.10.070.F. 3 For eligible facility requests and procedures, see Section 6.10.075 of this chapter. 4 For definition of maintenance and repairs, and minor modifications, see Section 6.10.070.D.6. 5 For encroachment permits, see SBMC Sections 7.35.010.B.6 and 9.50.025; for excavation permits, see SBMC Chapter 9.15; and for building permits, see SBMC Chapter 9.60. 4. Small Wireless Facility Permit (SWFP). An SWFP, subject to the City’s determination of compliance with the applicable requirements of this section and the Rules and Guidelines may be issued by the Director or his or her designee following public notice and review under any of the following circumstances: a. The application is for installation of a new small wireless facility within the PROW, or the replacement of, or collocations on or modifications to an existing small wireless facility, within the PROW, that meets all of the following criteria: (i) The proposal complies with all applicable provisions in this section without need for an exception pursuant to Section 6.10.070.J; and (ii) The proposal is not located in any prohibited location identified in Section 6.10.070.G.4 or Section 6.10.070.J.5; or b. The application is for a subsequent collocation to be located on an existing legally established small wireless communications collocation facility within the PROW provided that all of the following conditions are met: (i) The existing collocation facility was approved after January 1, 2007 by discretionary permit; and (ii) The existing collocation facility was approved subject to an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration; and (iii) The existing collocation facility otherwise complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 65850.6(b), for wireless communication collocation facilities or its successor provision, for addition of a collocation facility to a wireless communication collocation facility, including, but not limited to, compliance with all performance Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 6 and maintenance requirements, regulations and standards in this section and the conditions of approval in the wireless communications collocation facility permit; (iv) Provided, however, only those collocations that were specifically considered when the relevant environmental document was prepared are permitted uses; (v) The collocated facility does not increase the height or location of the existing permitted tower/structure, or otherwise change the bulk, size, or other physical attributes of the existing permitted small wireless facility; and (vi) Before collocation, the applicant seeking collocation shall obtain all other applicable non-discretionary permit(s), as required pursuant to this code. c. The application shall meet the requirements of Section 6.10.070.E and the Rules and Guidelines. No public hearing shall be required. The Director shall review the application, pertinent information and documentation and public comments in accordance with Section 6.10.070.F. An application for a SWFP shall be approved if the Director makes all of the findings required by Section 6.10.070.I of this chapter. The Director’s decision shall be issued in writing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 6.10.070.F and the Rules and Guidelines. The Director may impose additional conditions on the permit relating to time, place and manner pursuant to Section 6.10.070.H. 5. Maintenance Encroachment Permit. Minor modifications to an existing SWF, including replacement with the in-kind, number size or with smaller or less visible equipment, that (a) meet the standards set forth in this section, (b) will have little or no change in the visual appearance of the SWF, and (c) do not increase the RF output of the SWF, are considered to be routine maintenance and repairs, and may be approved by an encroachment permit and without any public notice or public hearing, subject to compliance with all other requirements of this chapter and the Rules and Guidelines. Maintenance and repairs include but are not limited to those minor modifications that result from an emergency. The upgrade or any other replacement of existing facilities and all new antennas, structures, and other facilities, including but not limited to those resulting from an emergency, shall comply with the SWFP or EFP requirements of this chapter and the Rules and Guidelines. 6. Power generators. An exception approved by the Director pursuant to Section 6.10.070.H shall be required for any application for installation of a new small wireless facility within the PROW that includes a power generator, or the replacement of, or collocations on or modifications to an existing small wireless facility within the PROW that includes a power generator. 7. Eligible facilities. Unless specifically exempt by federal or state law, any application for the installation or modification of a WCF that constitutes an “eligible facilities request” within the meaning of Section 6409(a) shall require the approval of an Eligible Facility Permit (EFP) by the Director in accordance with Section 6.10.075 of this chapter and the rules and guidelines prior to deployment of the eligible facility. 8. Other permits required. In addition to any permit that may be required under this section, the applicant must obtain all other required prior permits or other approvals from other City departments, or state or federal agencies. Any SWFP granted under this section shall also Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 7 be subject to the conditions and/or requirements of all such other required City, state or federal prior permits or other approvals . 9. Eligible applicants. Only applicants who have been granted the right to enter the PROW pursuant to state or federal law, or who have entered into a franchise or license agreement with the City permitting them to use the PROW, shall be eligible to construct, install, modify or otherwise deploy a SWF in the PROW. 10. Speculative equipment or facilities prohibited. The City finds that the practice of “pre-approving” wireless communications equipment or other improvements that the applicant does not presently intend to install but may wish to install at some undetermined future time does not serve the public's best interest. The City shall not approve any equipment or other improvements in connection with a SWFP when the applicant does not actually and presently intend to install such equipment or construct such improvements. 11. Prohibited facilities. Any SWF that does not comply with the most current regulatory and operational standards and regulations (including, but not limited to RF emission standards) adopted by the FCC is prohibited. E. Application Requirements. An application for a SWF shall be filed and reviewed in accordance with the following provisions and the Rules and Guidelines, except as otherwise provided for eligible facilities in Section 6.10.075 (Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way: Eligible Facilities). 1. Complete application required. The applicant shall submit a SWFP application in writing to the Public Works Department on a City-approved form as prescribed by the Director, and shall submit all information, materials and documentation required by this section and the Rules and Guidelines and as otherwise determined to be necessary by the Director to effectuate the purpose and intent of this section. The Director may waive certain submittal requirements or require additional information based on specific project factors. Unless an exemption or waiver applies, all applications shall include all of the forms, information, materials and documentation required by the City. An application shall not be deemed complete by the City unless the completed City application form and all required information, materials and documentation have been submitted to the City. An application which does not include all required forms, information, materials and documentation required by this section and the Rules and Guidelines, shall be deemed incomplete, and a notice of incomplete application shall be provided to the applicant in accordance with Section 6.10.070.E.6. 2. Application fees. Concurrent with submittal of the application, the applicant shall pay an application fee and processing fee, a deposit for an independent expert review as set forth in this section, and a deposit for review by the City Attorney’s office, in a payment format accepted by the City Finance Department and in amounts set by resolution of the City Council. The amounts of such fees shall be fair and reasonable compensation for the applicant’s use of the PROW, and shall be competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory. Fees shall not exceed any maximum fees set by federal or state law except to the extent that such fees are (a) a reasonable approximation of costs, (b) those costs themselves are reasonable, and (c) are non- discriminatory. Failure to pay the fees in full at the time of application submittal shall result in the City deeming the application incomplete. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 8 3. Voluntary Pre-submittal Conference. Prior to application submittal, the applicant may schedule and attend a voluntary pre-submittal conference with the Public Works Department and Community Development Department staff for all proposed SWFs in the PROW, including all new or replacement WCFs, and all proposed collocations or modifications to any existing WCF. The purpose of the pre-submittal conference is to provide informal feedback on the proposed classification, review procedure, location, design and application materials, to identify potential concerns and to streamline the formal application review process after submittal. Participation in a voluntary pre-submittal conference shall not commence the shot clock (timeline for review) requirements under Section 6.10.070.E.6 of this chapter. 4. Appointments. The Director may require that an application shall be submitted only at a pre-arranged appointment in accordance with the Rules and Guidelines. The Director has the discretion to set the frequency and number of appointments that will be granted each day. The requirement for an appointment shall be published on the Department’s website. 5. Independent expert. The Director is authorized to retain on behalf of the City an independent, qualified consultant to review any application for a SWFP to review the technical aspects of the application, including but not limited to: the accuracy, adequacy, and completeness of submissions; compliance with applicable radio frequency emission standards; whether any requested exception is necessary; technical demonstration of the facility designs or configurations, technical feasibility; coverage analysis; the validity of conclusions reached or claims made by applicant; and other factors deemed appropriate by the Director to effectuate the purposes of this section. The cost of this review shall be paid by the applicant through a deposit pursuant to an adopted fee schedule resolution. 6. Shot Clocks: Timeline for review and action. The timeline for review of and action on a SWFP application shall begin to run when the application is submitted in writing to the Department but may be reset or tolled by mutual agreement or upon the City’s issuance of a notice of incomplete application to the applicant pursuant to Subsection E.7 of this Section. Applications shall be processed in conformance with the time periods and procedures established by applicable state and federal law, and FCC regulations and orders. The following provisions shall apply: a. Small Wireless Facilities Request – For review of an application for a SWFP, the City shall act upon the application in accordance with the following timing requirements. (i) 60 days -- For an application to collocate a Small Wireless Facility using an existing structure, the City will act upon the application within sixty (60) days from the Department’s receipt of the written application packet, unless the time period is re-set or tolled by mutual agreement or pursuant to Section 6.10.070.E.7. (ii) 90 days -- For an application to deploy a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure, the City will act upon the application within ninety (90) days from the Department’s receipt of the written application packet, unless the time period is re-set or tolled by mutual written agreement or pursuant to Section 6.10.070.E.7. b. Eligible Facilities Request -- For an eligible facilities request, the City will act on the application within sixty (60) days of the Department’s receipt of the written application Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 9 packet, unless the time period is tolled by mutual written agreement or pursuant to Section 6.10.075.E.6 of this chapter. c. Batching. An applicant may submit a single application for authorization of multiple deployments of WCFs pursuant to this section. An application containing multiple deployments shall comply with the following timing requirements. (i) The deadline for the City to act upon the application shall be that for a single deployment within that category, (ii) 90 days: If a single application seeks authorization for multiple deployments of small wireless facilities, the components of which are a mix of deployments that fall within Section 6.10.070.E.6.a.i and deployments that fall within Section 6.10.070.E.6.a.ii, then the City shall act upon the application as a whole within 90 days, unless tolled or reset by mutual written agreement or pursuant to Section 6.10.070.E.7. 7. Resetting or Tolling of Shot Clock; Incomplete Application Notices. Unless a written agreement between the City and the applicant provides otherwise, in the event that Department staff determines that a permit application is incomplete because it does not contain all the information, materials and/or other documentation required by this section, Department staff may issue a notice of incomplete application to the applicant, and the shot clocks set forth above shall be re-set or tolled as set forth in this subsection. a. First Incomplete Notice -- Small Wireless Facility Resetting of Shot Clock. Department staff shall determine whether an application for a SWF is complete or incomplete within ten (10) days of the City's receipt of the initial application and shall notify the applicant in writing if the application is materially incomplete. The notice of incomplete application shall identify the specific missing information, materials and/or documents, and the ordinance, rule, statute or regulation creating the obligation to submit such information, materials and/or documents. The applicable shot clock date calculation set forth in Section 6.10.070.E.6.a.i or 6.10.070.E.6.a.ii shall re-start at zero on the date that the applicant submits all the information, materials and documents identified in the notice of incomplete application to render the application complete. b. Subsequent Incomplete Notices. For resubmitted applications following the initial notice of incomplete application under Section 6.10.070.E.7.a, Department staff will notify the applicant within ten (10) days of the City's receipt of the resubmitted application whether the supplemental submission is complete or incomplete, If the supplemental submission was incomplete, the notice shall specifically identify the missing information, materials, and/or documents that must be submitted based on the Department’s initial incomplete notice. In the case of any such subsequent notices of incomplete application, the applicable timeframe for review set forth in Section 6.10.070.E.6.a or Section 6.10.070.E.6.b shall be tolled from the day after the date the City issues the second or subsequent notice of incomplete application to the applicant until the applicant submits all the information, materials and documents identified by the City to render the application complete. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 10 c. One Submittal. The applicant's response and submission of supplemental materials and information in response to a notice of incomplete application must be given to the City in one submittal packet. d. Determination of shot clock date. (i) The shot clock date for a SWFP application is determined by counting forward, beginning on the day after the date when the application was submitted, by the number of days of the shot clock period identified pursuant to Section 6.10.070.E.6.a or 6.10.070.E.6.b. and including any pre-application period asserted by the City; provided, that if the date calculated in this manner is a holiday, the shot clock date is the next business day after such date. (ii) For purposes of this Subparagraph (d), the term “holiday” means any of the following: Saturday, Sunday, any holiday recognized by the City; and any other day recognized as a holiday by the FCC pursuant to any applicable federal regulations, orders or rulings of the FCC for the subject SWFP. (iii) For purposes of this Subparagraph (e), the term ““business day” means any day that is not a holiday, as defined in Subparagraph (iii). 8. Withdrawal; extensions of time. To promote efficient review and timely decisions, any application deemed incomplete must be resubmitted within one-hundred eighty (180) days after issuance of any notification of incompleteness, or the application shall be deemed automatically withdrawn. Following the applicant's request, the Director may in his or her discretion grant a one-time extension in processing time to resubmit, not to exceed 150 days. If the application is deemed automatically withdrawn (and any applicable extension period, if granted, has expired), a new application (including, fees, plans, exhibits, and other materials) shall be required in order to commence processing of the project. No refunds will be provided for withdrawn applications. 9. Leases, Licenses and Agreements for City Infrastructure or Property in the PROW. The City and an applicant may mutually agree to enter into a lease, license or other agreement for the applicant’s installation, modification or other deployment of a SWF on any City-owned infrastructure or other City property within the PROW. The proposed agreement may include multiple SWFs, as mutually agreed upon. The agreement shall be in addition to, and not a substitute, for any permit required by any provision of this code. An WCFP shall be required for all proposed facilities that are to be covered by an agreement between the City and the applicant. The agreement shall be fully executed by the City and applicant prior to the applicant’s submittal of any SWFP application under this section or any other provision of this code. In addition, all ministerial permits shall be obtained as a condition of the installation, construction or other deployment of any proposed SWF within the PROW. The shot clock provisions set forth in Section 6.10.070.E shall not apply during any negotiations for any such lease, license or other agreement. The shot clock provisions set forth in Section 6.10.070.E shall commence upon the date of submittal of an application for a SWFP for specific small wireless facility(ies) following the effective date of the lease, license or other agreement. F. Notice and Decision. Procedures for public notice, approval authority review of and action on WCFP applications are set forth in this subsection and in the Rules and Guidelines. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 11 1. Public notice of application. Upon submittal of a complete SWFP application to the City, the applicant shall send the City-approved public notice of the application to all businesses and residents within a 150-foot radius of the proposed SWF in accordance with the Rules and Guidelines. Concurrently with service on the businesses and residents, the applicant shall also send a copy of the approved public notice to the Department along with proof of service of the public notice on all residents and businesses as required by this subsection. 2. Public comment. Within ten (10) days from service of the notice, any interested person may submit comments on the proposed SWF to the City by U.S. Mail or through the City’s website. Any timely public comments received will be considered during the Director’s review of the application. 3. Director decision on SWFP applications. a. Director review, decision and notice. Upon receipt of a complete application for a SWFP pursuant to this section, the Director or his/her designee shall carry out administrative review of the application and all pertinent information, materials, documentation and public comments. The Director may approve, or conditionally approve an application for a SWFP only after the Director makes all of the findings required in Section 6.10.070.I. The Director may impose conditions in accordance with Section 6.10.070.H. Within five days after the Director approves or conditionally approves an application under this section, the Director shall issue a written determination letter, and shall serve a copy of the determination letter on the applicant at the address shown in the application and shall cause the determination letter to be published on the City’s website. b. Conditional approvals. Subject to any applicable limitations in federal or state law, and in addition to the standard conditions of approval required by Section 6.10.070.H, nothing in this section is intended to limit the City’s authority to conditionally approve an application for a SWFP to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare in accordance with this section and the rules and guidelines. c. Final decision. The Director’s decision on an application for a SWFP shall be final and conclusive and not be appealable to the City Council. G. Design, Aesthetic and Development Standards. In order to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, protect public safety and natural, cultural, and scenic resources, preserve and enhance the character of residential neighborhoods and promote attractive nonresidential areas, in addition to all other applicable requirements of this code, all SWFs in the PROW shall be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the following standards set forth in this subsection and in the Rules and Guidelines, unless the Director approves an exception subject to the findings required by Subsection J: Exceptions. 1. General requirements. All SWFs that are located within the PROW shall be designed and maintained as to minimize visual clutter, and reduce noise and other impacts on and conflicts with the surrounding community in accordance with the code and Rules and Guidelines. 2. Traffic safety. All SWFs shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on traffic safety, and shall comply with the most recent edition of the Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 12 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and any other traffic control rules, regulations or ordinances of the City. 3. Space occupied. Each SWF shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible. 4. Location. a. The preferred location for a SWF shall be on existing infrastructure such as utility poles or street lights. The infrastructure selected shall be located at alleys, streets and/or near property line prolongations. If the SWF is not able to be placed on existing infrastructure, the applicant shall provide a map of existing infrastructure in the service area and describe why each such site was not technically feasible, in addition to all other application requirements of this section. b. No SWF shall be located within six (6) feet of the living area of any residential dwelling unit. As used herein, the term “living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including but not limited to bedrooms, windows, basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. The 6-foot distance shall be measured from the dwelling unit’s outer wall located nearest to the proposed SWF. c. No SWF shall be located within the PROW or any poles, infrastructure, buildings or other structures of any kind in the PROW, in any of the following locations or sites: (i) On the Seal Beach Pier, or any decorative lighting or poles on the Seal Beach Pier; (ii) On any decorative lighting or poles on Main Street from and including Pacific Coast Highway to the Seal Beach Pier; or (iii) On Electric Avenue between Marina to Ocean (including but not limited to within the parkway, greenbelt, bike path or any other PROW within Electric Avenue), except in the following locations: (aa) On the north side of the PROW adjacent to the westbound lanes of Electric Avenue; or (bb) On the south side of the PROW adjacent to the eastbound lanes of Electric Avenue. The permissible locations for SWFs on the PROW along Electric Avenue are shown on the Site Diagram contained in Table 6.10.070.G.4.c. as follows: TABLE 6.10.070.G.4.c Electric Avenue -- Permissible Locations for WCFs Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 13 (iv) On any decorative lighting or decorative poles located within any other PROW in the City. d. Each component part of a SWF shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, inconvenience to the public’s use of the PROW, or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists, or interference with any path of travel or other disability access requirements imposed under federal or state law. e. A SWF shall not be located within any portion of the PROW in a manner that interferes with access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public health and safety facility. f. Any SWFs mounted to a communications tower, above-ground accessory equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall have and maintain a minimum setback of 18 inches from the front of a curb. g. To conceal the non-antenna equipment, applicants shall install all non- antenna equipment (including but not limited to all cables) underground to the extent technically feasible. If such non-antenna equipment is proposed in within an underground utility district and the type of non-antenna equipment has been exempted by the City Council from undergrounding pursuant to Section 9.55.015.B.6 of Chapter 9.55 of the code, the non-antenna equipment shall comply with the requirements of this section if the Director finds that such undergrounding is technically feasible and undergrounding is required for building, traffic, emergency, disability access, or other safety requirements. Additional expense to install and maintain an underground equipment enclosure does not exempt an applicant from this requirement, except where the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that this requirement will effectively prohibit the provision of wireless communications services. 5. Concealment or Stealth Elements. Stealth or concealment elements may include, but are not limited to: a. Radio frequency transparent screening; b. Approved, specific colors; Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 14 c. Minimizing the size of the site; d. Integrating the installation into existing utility infrastructure; e. Installing new infrastructure that matches existing infrastructure in the area surrounding the proposed site. The new infrastructure is then dedicated to the city and the installation is integrated into the new infrastructure; and f. Controlling the installation location pursuant to Subsection G.4 of this section. 6. Collocation. The applicant and owner of any site on which a SWF is located shall cooperate and exercise good faith in collocating SWFs on the same support structures or site. Good faith shall include sharing technical information to evaluate the feasibility of collocation, and may include negotiations for erection of a replacement support structure to accommodate collocation. A competitive conflict to collocation or financial burden caused by sharing information normally will not be considered as an excuse to the duty of good faith. a. All SWFs shall make available unused space for collocation of other WCFs, including space for these entities providing similar, competing services. Collocation is not required if the host facility can demonstrate that the addition of the new service or facilities would impair existing service or cause the host to go offline for a significant period of time. In the event a dispute arises as to whether a permittee has exercised good faith in accommodating other users, the Director may require the applicant to obtain a third-party technical study at applicant’s expense. The Director may review any information submitted by applicant and permittee(s) in determining whether good faith has been exercised. b. All collocated and multiple-user SWFs shall be designed to promote facility and site sharing. Communication towers and necessary appurtenances, including but not limited to parking areas, access roads, utilities and equipment buildings, shall be shared by site users whenever possible. c. No collocation may be required where it can be shown that the shared use would or does result in significant interference in the broadcast or reception capabilities of the existing WCFs or failure of the existing facilities to meet federal standards for emissions. d. When antennas are co-located, the Director may limit the number of antennas with related equipment to be located at any one site by any provider to prevent negative visual impacts. e. Failure to comply with collocation requirements when feasible or cooperate in good faith as provided for in this section is grounds for denial of a permit request or revocation of an existing permit. 7. Radio frequency standards; noise. a. SWFs shall comply with federal standards for radio frequency (RF) emissions and interference. No SWF or combination of facilities shall at any time produce power densities that exceed the FCC’s limits for electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters or operate in a manner that will degrade or interfere with existing Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 15 communications systems as stipulated by federal law. Failure to meet federal standards may result in termination or modification of the permit. b. SWFs and any related equipment, including backup generators and air conditioning units, shall not generate continuous noise in excess of 40 decibels (dBa) measured at the property line of any adjacent residential property, and shall not generate continuous noise in excess of 50 dBa during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 40 dBa during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. measured at the property line of any nonresidential adjacent property. Backup generators shall only be operated during power outages and for testing and maintenance purposes. Testing and maintenance shall only take place on weekdays between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 8. Additional standards. Consistent with federal and state laws and regulations, the City Council may further establish design and development standards pursuant to rules and guidelines, including but not limited to, relating to antennas, new, existing and replacement poles, wind loads, obstructions, supporting structures, screening, accessory equipment, landscaping, signage, lighting, security and fire prevention. 9. Modification. To the extent authorized by state and federal laws and regulations, at the time of modification of a SWF, existing equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts, including, but not limited to undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. H. Standard Conditions of Approval. All SWFP approvals, whether approved by the approval authority or deemed approved by the operation of law, shall be automatically subject to the conditions in this subsection, in addition to any conditions imposed by the approval authority pursuant to this section and the rules and guidelines. The approval authority shall have discretion to modify or amend these conditions on a case-by-case basis as may be necessary or appropriate under the circumstances to protect public health and safety or allow for the proper operation of the approved eligible facility consistent with the goals of this section. 1. Permit term. A SWFP shall be valid for a period of ten (10) years, unless it is revoked sooner in accordance with this section or pursuant to any other provision of federal or state law that authorizes the City to issue a SWFP with a shorter term, or such SWFP is extended pursuant to Section 6.10.070.R. At the end of the term, the SWFP shall automatically expire. Any other permits or approvals issued in connection with any collocation, modification or other change to the SWF, which includes without limitation any permits or other approvals deemed-granted or deemed-approved under federal or state law, will not extend the ten-year term limit unless expressly provided otherwise in such permit or approval or required under federal or state law. 2. Strict compliance with approved plans. Any application filed by the permittee for a ministerial permit to construct or install the SWF approved by a SWFP must incorporate the SWFP approval, all conditions associated with the SWFP approval and the approved photo simulations into the project plans (the “approved plans”). The permittee must construct, install and operate the WCF in strict compliance with the approved plans. Any alterations, modifications or other changes to the approved plans, whether requested by the permittee or required by other departments or public agencies with jurisdiction over the SWF, must be submitted in a written request subject to the Director’s prior review and approval. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 16 3. Build-out period. The SWFP approval will automatically expire one year from the SWFP approval or deemed-granted date unless the permittee obtains all other permits and approvals required to install, construct and/or operate the approved SWF under this code, and any other permits or approvals required by any federal, state or other local public agencies with jurisdiction over the subject property, the eligible facility or its use. The Director may grant one written extension to a date certain when the permittee shows good cause to extend the limitations period in a written request for an extension submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the automatic expiration date in this condition. 4. Maintenance obligations – vandalism. The permittee shall keep the site, which includes without limitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, fences and landscape features, in a neat, clean and safe condition in accordance with the approved plans and all conditions in the SWFP. The permittee shall keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all times. The permittee, at no cost to the city, shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other vandalism at the site within 48 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti or other vandalism occurred. Each year after the permittee installs the SWF, the permittee shall submit a written report to the Director, in a form acceptable to the Director, that documents the then-current site condition. 5. Property maintenance. The permittee shall ensure that all equipment and other improvements to be constructed and/or installed in connection with the approved plans are maintained in a manner that is not detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare and that the aesthetic appearance is continuously preserved, and substantially the same as shown in the approved plans at all times relevant to the SWFP. The permittee further acknowledges that failure to maintain compliance with this condition may result in a code enforcement action. 6. Compliance with laws. The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law (“Governing Laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the SWF and any use or activities in connection with the use authorized in the WCFP, which includes without limitation any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all Governing Laws. In the event that the City fails to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance with any applicable provision in the Seal Beach Municipal Code, any permit, any permit condition or any Governing Laws, the applicant or permittee will not be relieved from its obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable provisions in the Code, any permit, any permit condition or any Governing Laws. 7. Adverse impacts on other properties. The permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to avoid any and all undue or unnecessary adverse impacts on nearby properties that may arise from the permittee’s or its authorized personnel’s construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal and/or other activities at the site. Impacts of radio frequency emissions on the environment, to the extent that such emissions are compliant with all Governing Laws, are not “adverse impacts” for the purposes of this condition. The permittee shall not perform or cause others to perform any construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal or other work that involves heavy equipment or machines except during normal construction hours authorized by the Code. The restricted work hours in this condition will not prohibit any work required to prevent an actual, immediate harm Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 17 to property or persons, or any work during an emergency declared by the City. The Director or the Director’s designee may issue a stop work order for any activities that violate this condition. 8. Inspections – emergencies. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City’s officers, officials, staff or other designee may enter onto the site and inspect the improvements and equipment upon reasonable prior notice to the permittee; provided, however, that the City’s officers, officials, staff or other designee may, but will not be obligated to, enter onto the site area without prior notice to support, repair, disable or remove any improvements or equipment in emergencies or when such improvements or equipment threatens actual, imminent harm to property or persons. The permittee will be permitted to supervise the City’s officers, officials, staff or other designee while any such inspection or emergency access occurs to the extent not inconsistent with City requirements. 9. Permittee’s contact information. The permittee shall furnish the Director with accurate and up-to-date contact information for a person responsible for the SWF, which includes without limitation such person’s full name, title, direct telephone number, facsimile number, mailing address and email address. The permittee shall keep such contact information up-to-date at all times and immediately provide the Director with updated contact information in the event that either the responsible person or such person’s contact information changes. 10. Insurance. The permittee shall obtain, pay for and maintain, in full force and effect until the SWF approved by the permit is removed in its entirety from the PROW, an insurance policy or policies of public liability insurance which shall be in the form and substance satisfactory to the City, and shall be maintained until the term of the permit ended and the WCF is removed from the PROW. The insurance shall comply with the minimum limits and coverages and provisions set forth in the rules and guidelines, and as otherwise established from time to time by the City, and which fully protect the City from claims and suits for bodily injury, death, and property damage. 11. Indemnification. a. The permittee shall agree in writing to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, boards, commissions, agents, consultants, employees, volunteers and independent contractors serving as City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”), from and against any and all claims, actions, or proceeding against the Indemnitees or any of them, to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the Director or City Council concerning the permit and the construction, operation, maintenance and/or repair of the SWF. Such indemnification shall include damages, judgments, settlements, penalties, fines, defensive costs or expenses, including, but not limited to, interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind related to or arising from such claim, action, or proceeding. The permittee shall also agree not to sue or seek any money or damages from the City in connection with the grant of the permit and also agree to abide by the City’s ordinances and other laws. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit City from participating in a defense of any claim, action or proceeding. The City shall have the option of coordinating the defense, including, but not limited to, choosing counsel for the defense at the permittee’s expense. b. Additionally, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the permittee, and every permittee and person in a shared permit, jointly and severally, shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, boards, commissions, Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 18 agents, consultants, employees and volunteers harmless from and against all claims, suits, demands, actions, losses, liabilities, judgments, settlements, costs (including, but not limited to, attorney's fees, interest and expert witness fees), or damages claimed by third parties against the City for any injury claim, and for property damage sustained by any person, arising out of, resulting from, or are in any way related to the SWF, or to any work done by or use of the PROW by the permittee, owner or operator of the SWF, or their agents, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, boards, commissions, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers and independent contractors serving as City officials. 12. Performance security. Prior to issuance of any SWFP, the permittee shall pay for and provide a performance bond or other form of security that complies with the following minimum requirements. a. The security shall be in effect until the SWF is fully and completely removed and the site reasonably returned to its original condition, to cover the removal costs of the WCF in the event that use of the SWF is abandoned or the approval is otherwise terminated. b. The security shall be in a format and amount approved by the Director and City Attorney’s office. The amount of security shall be as determined by the Director to be necessary to ensure proper completion of the applicant’s removal obligations. In establishing the amount of the security, the Director shall take into consideration information provided by the applicant regarding the cost of removal. The amount of the security instrument shall be calculated by the applicant as part of its application in an amount rationally related to the obligations covered by the security instrument. The permittee shall be required to submit the approved security instrument to the Director prior to issuance of any SWFP for the proposed facility. c. Security shall always be imposed if the SWF is located in a PROW adjacent to any residentially zoned property or residential uses. 13. Acceptance of conditions. The SWFP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City “Acceptance of Conditions” form, in a form approved by the City Attorney’s office, has been signed and notarized by the applicant/permittee before being returned to the Director within ten (10) days after the determination letter has been served on the applicant and published on the City’s website in accordance with Section 6.10.070.G.3.a. The permit shall be void and of no force or effect unless such written agreement is received by the City within said ten-day period. I. Findings on Small Wireless Facility Permit Applications. No permit shall be granted for a SWFP unless all of the following findings are made by the Director: 1. General Findings. The Director may approve or approve with conditions any SWFP required under this section only after making all of the following findings: a. All notices required for the proposed deployment have been given by the applicant. b. The applicant has provided substantial written evidence supporting the applicant’s claim that it has the right to enter and use the PROW pursuant to state or federal Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 19 law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise or other agreement with the City permitting them to enter and use the PROW. c. The applicant has demonstrated that the SWF complies with all applicable design, aesthetic and development standards and will not interfere with access to or the use of the PROW, existing subterranean infrastructure, or the City’s plans for modification or use of such PROW location and infrastructure. d. The applicant has demonstrated that the SWF will not cause any interference with emergency operations, as evidenced by competent evidence. e. The proposed SWF’s impacts have been mitigated through the use of stealth and concealment elements in accordance with the requirements of this section and the rules and guidelines. f. The proposed SWF complies with all federal RF emissions standards and all other requirements of any federal and/or state agency. g. The proposed SWF conforms with all applicable provisions of this section and federal and state law. h. The findings required by this Subsection shall be in addition to any other findings required for approval of a ministerial permit under this code. 2. Additional findings for SWFs not collocated. To approve a wireless telecommunications antenna that is not collocated with other existing or proposed WCFs or a new or replacement ground-mounted antenna, monopole, or lattice tower, the Director shall be required to also find that collocation or siting on an existing structure is not feasible because of technical, aesthetic, or legal consideration including that such siting: a. Would have more significant adverse effects on views or other environmental considerations; b. Would impair the quality of service to the existing WCF; or c. Would require existing WCFs at the same location to go off-line for a significant period of time. J. Exceptions; Director Findings. 1. General requirements. An exception from the strict locational, physical, or design, or development requirements of Section 6.10.070.G, or as provided in the Rules and Guidelines, may be granted by the Director in his/her discretion, when it is shown to the Director’s satisfaction, based on substantial evidence, any of the following: a. Because of special, unique circumstances applicable to the proposed location and/or the proposed WCF, the strict application of the requirements of the section would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other permittees in the vicinity operating a similar WCF; or b. Denial of the SWF as proposed would violate federal law, state law, or both; or Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 20 c. A provision of this section, as applied to applicant, would deprive applicant of its rights under federal law, state law, or both. 2. Application requirements. An applicant may only request an exception at the time of applying for a SWFP. The request must include both the specific provision(s) of this section from which the exception is sought and the basis of the request. Any request for an exception after the City has deemed an application complete shall be treated as a new application. 3. Burden. The applicant shall have the burden of establishing the basis for any requested exception. 4. Scope; Conditions. The Director shall limit its exception to the extent to which the applicant demonstrates such an exception is necessary to reasonably achieve its reasonable technical service objectives. In addition to the standard conditions of approval pursuant to Section 6.10.070.H, the Director may adopt other conditions of approval as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other wireless providers seeking to locate any WCF in the area where such property is situated and that are reasonably necessary to promote the purposes in this section and protect the public health, safety and welfare. 5 Prohibited locations; no exception. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, SWFs are prohibited in any of the following locations, and no exception shall be granted by the Director: a. Any location or site within a PROW for which approval cannot be obtained from the NWS. b. Any location or site within a PROW for which approval cannot be obtained by any other federal or state agency with jurisdiction over the proposed SWF. K. Reserved. L. Nonexclusive Grant. No permit or approval granted under this section shall confer any exclusive right, privilege, license or franchise to occupy or use the PROW of the city for any purpose whatsoever. Further, no approval shall be construed as any warranty of title. M. Business License. A SWFP issued pursuant to this section shall not be a substitute for any business license otherwise required under this code. N. Temporary Small Wireless Facilities 1. Emergency deployment. In the event of a declared federal, state, or local emergency, or when otherwise warranted by conditions that the Director deems to constitute an emergency, the Director may approve the installation and operation of a temporary small wireless facility, subject to such reasonable conditions that the Director deems necessary. 2. Exclusions; removal. A temporary small wireless facility shall not be permitted for maintenance activities or while awaiting an expected entitlement or pending plan review, and the allowance of a temporary small wireless facility during an emergency shall not be considered to establish a permanent use of such a facility after the emergency has ended, as Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 21 declared by the City Manager or other appropriate federal, state, or local official. Any temporary small wireless facilities placed pursuant to this Subsection N must be removed within five days after the date the emergency is lifted. Any person or entity that places temporary small wireless facilities pursuant to this Subsection must send a written notice that identifies the site location and person responsible for its operation to the Director as soon as reasonably practicable. O. Operation and Maintenance Standards. All SWFs must comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standards and other standards set forth in the rules and guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council. 1. Each SWF shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of approval. Each owner or operator of a SWF shall routinely inspect each site to ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in this section. 2. No SWF shall be operated and maintained in any manner that causes any interference with any emergency operations of the City and any other public agency. 3. Each SWF shall be operated and maintained in compliance with all local, federal and state laws and regulations. P. Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions and Other Monitoring Requirements. 1. The permittee, owner and operator of a SWF shall submit within ninety days of beginning operations under a new or amended permit, and every five years from the date the SWF began operations, a technically sufficient report (“monitoring report”) that demonstrates all of the following: a. The SWF is in compliance with all applicable federal regulations, including the FCC’s RF emissions standards as certified by a qualified radio frequency emissions engineer; and b. The SWF is in compliance with all provisions of this section and the City’s conditions of approval. Q. No Dangerous Condition or Obstructions Allowed. No person shall install, use or maintain any SWF which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any PROW, when such installation, use or maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such SWF unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location. R. Permit Extension. 1. Time of application. A permittee may apply for extensions of its SWFP in increments of no more than ten years and no sooner than 180 days (six months) prior to expiration of the permit. Any request for an extension that is filed less than 180 days (six months) prior to expiration shall require a new permit in accordance with the application and procedural requirements of the then-current requirements of this code. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 22 2. Application requirements. In addition to all other requirements of this section and the Rules and Guidelines, the permittee’s application for extension shall include proof that the permittee continues to have the legal authority to occupy and use the PROW for the purpose set forth in its SWFP, that the SWF site as it exists at the time of the extension application is in full compliance with all applicable City permits issued for the site, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit and supporting documentation that the SWF is in compliance with all applicable FCC and NWS and other governmental regulations. At the Director’s discretion, additional studies and information may be required of the applicant. The application shall be accompanied by the fee for renewal, as set by the City Council from time to time. Grounds for non-renewal of the SWFP shall include, but are not limited to, the permittee’s failure to submit the affidavit or proof of legal authority to occupy or use the PROW. The burden is on the permittee to demonstrate that the SWF complies with all requirements for an extension. 3. Director decision. If a SWFP has not expired at the time a timely application is made for an extension, the Director may administratively extend the term of the SWFP for subsequent ten-year terms upon verification of continued compliance with the findings and conditions of approval under which the application was originally approved, all provisions set forth in Subsection R.2. above, and any other applicable provisions of this code that are in effect at the time the permit extension is granted. The Director’s decision shall be issued in the form of a written determination letter in accordance with Section 6.10.070.F.3. The Director’s decision on an application for a SWFP shall be final and conclusive and not be appealable to the City Council. S. Cessation of Use or Abandonment. 1. A SWF or wireless communications collocation facility is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided herein if it ceases to provide wireless communications services for ninety (90) or more consecutive days. If there are two or more users of a single facility, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the facility. 2. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including an unpermitted site) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the operator of the SWF shall provide written notice to the Director of any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more. 3. Failure to inform the Director of cessation or discontinuation of operations of any existing SWF as required by this Subsection shall constitute a violation of any approvals and be grounds for enforcement pursuant to Subsection T. T. Revocation or Modification; Removal. 1. Revocation or modification of SWFP. The Director may modify or revoke any SWFP if the operation or maintenance of the SWF violates any of the permit’s terms or conditions, this section or any other ordinance or law in accordance with the following procedures. a. When the Director has reason to believe that grounds exist for the modification or revocation of a SWF, he/she shall give written notice by certified mail thereof to Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 23 the permittee setting forth a statement of the facts and grounds. The permittee shall have not less than ten (10) days to submit a written response and supporting documentation to the Director prior to the Director’s decision. The Director’s decision shall be issued in writing, and shall be posted on the City’s website in accordance with the procedures set out in Section 6.10.070.F.3.a. b. The Director may revoke or modify the SWFP if he/she makes any of the following findings: (i) The SWFP has expired as provided for in Subsection R: Permit Expiration. (ii) The SWF has been abandoned as provided in Subsection S: Cessation of Use or Abandonment. (iii) The permittee has failed to comply with one or more of the conditions of approval, this section or any other provision of this code. (iv) The SWF has been substantially changed in character or substantially expanded beyond the approval set forth in the permit. c. If the Director determines that modification of the SWFP is warranted, he/she may impose any revised or new conditions that he/she deems appropriate based on his/her other findings. d. Decisions of the Director to modify or revoke a SWF shall be subject to the administrative review procedure of Chapter 1.20 of this code. The City Manager shall be the hearing officer for purposes of such procedure and may not delegate such responsibility. The City Manager’s administrative review decision shall be final and shall not be subject to City Council review pursuant to Chapter 1.20 of this code. 2. Permittee’s removal obligation. Upon the expiration date of the SWFP, including any extensions, earlier termination or revocation of the SWFP or abandonment of the SWF, the SWFP shall become null and void, and the permittee, owner or operator shall completely remove its SWF or wireless communications collocation facility. Removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City. The SWF or wireless communications collocation facility shall be removed from the property within 30 days, at no cost or expense to the City. If the SWF or wireless communications collocation facility is located on another SWF or other private property, the private property owner shall also be independently responsible for the expense of timely removal and restoration. 3. Failure to remove. Failure of the permittee, owner, or operator to promptly remove its SWF wireless communications collocation facility and restore the property within 30 days after expiration, earlier termination, or revocation of the SWFP, or abandonment of the SWF or wireless communications collocation facility, shall be a violation of this code, and be grounds for: a. Prosecution; Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 24 b. Calling of any bond or other assurance required by this section or conditions of approval of permit; c. Removal of the SWF or wireless communications collocation facility by the City in accordance with the procedures established under this code for abatement of a public nuisance at the owner’s expense; and/or d. Any other remedies permitted under this code. 4. Summary removal. In the event the Director determines that the condition or placement of a SWF or wireless communications collocation facility located in the PROW constitutes a dangerous condition, obstruction of the PROW, or an imminent threat to public safety, or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate corrective action (collectively, “exigent circumstances”), the Director may cause the SWF or wireless communications collocation facility to be removed summarily and immediately without advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall be served upon the person who owns the SWF or wireless communications collocation facility within five business days of removal and all property removed shall be preserved for the owner’s pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be identified following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property within 60 days, the SWF or wireless communications collocation facility shall be treated as abandoned property. 5. Removal of facilities by City. In the event the City removes a SWF or wireless communications collocation facility in accordance with nuisance abatement procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any liability to the City for any damage to such WCF or wireless communications collocation facility that may result from reasonable efforts of removal. In addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance abatement, the City may collect such costs from the performance bond posted and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the performance bond, collect those excess costs in accordance with this code. Unless otherwise provided herein, the City has no obligation to store such SWF or wireless communications collocation facility. Neither the permittee nor the owner nor operator shall have any claim if the City destroys any such SWF or wireless communications collocation facility not timely removed by the permittee, owner, or operator after notice, or removed by the City due to exigent circumstances. 6. Non-exclusive remedies. Each and every remedy available for the enforcement of this section shall be non-exclusive and it is within the discretion of the authorized inspector or enforcing attorney to seek cumulative remedies set forth in this code, except that multiple monetary fines or penalties shall not be available for any single violation of this section. U. Deemed Granted. In the event that a SWFP application is deemed granted by rule of federal or state law, all conditions, development and design standards, and operations and maintenance requirements imposed by this section and any rules and guidelines are still applicable and required for the installation. V. Effect on Other Ordinances; Conflicting Code Provisions Superseded. 1. Compliance with the provisions of this section shall not relieve a person from complying with any other applicable provision of this code. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 25 2. The provisions of this section shall govern and supersede any conflicting provisions of the code with respect to the permitting and regulation of wireless communications facilities in the public right-of-way. W. State or Federal Law. 1. In the event it is determined by the City Attorney that state or federal law prohibits discretionary permitting requirements for certain SWFs, such requirement shall be deemed severable and all remaining regulations shall remain in full force and effect. Such a determination by the City Attorney shall be in writing with citations to legal authority and shall be a public record. For those WCFs, in lieu of a SWFP, a ministerial wireless facilities permit shall be required prior to installation or modification of a SWF, and all provisions of this section shall be applicable to any such facility with the exception that the required permit shall be reviewed and administered as a ministerial permit by the Director rather than as a discretionary permit. Any conditions of approval set forth in this section or the rules and guidelines, or deemed necessary by the Director, shall be imposed and administered as reasonable time, place and manner rules. 2. If subsequent to the issuance of the City Attorney’s written determination pursuant to Subsection 6.10.070.W.1, above, the City Attorney determines that the law has changed and that discretionary permitting is permissible, the City Attorney shall issue such determination in writing with citations to legal authority and all discretionary permitting requirements shall be reinstated. The City Attorney’s written determination shall be a public record. 3. All SWFs shall be built in compliance with all federal and state laws including but not limited to the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). 4. Changes in law. All SWFs shall meet the current standards and regulations of the FCC, the CPUC and any other agency of the federal or State government with the authority to regulate wireless communications providers and/or WCFs. If such standards and/or regulations are changed, the permittee and/or wireless communications provider shall bring its SWF into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within ninety (90) days of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a more stringent compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling federal or state agency. Failure to bring SWFs into compliance with any revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the immediate removal of such facilities at the permittee and/or wireless communications provider's expense. X. Nonconforming Small Wireless Communications Facilities. 1. A legal nonconforming SWF is a facility that was lawfully constructed, installed, or otherwise deployed in the PROW prior to the effective date of this section in compliance with all applicable City, state and federal laws and regulations, and which facility does not conform to the requirements of this section. 2. Legal nonconforming SWFs shall comply at all times with the City, state and federal laws, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time the application was deemed complete, and any applicable federal or state laws as they may be amended or enacted from time to time, and shall at all times comply with the conditions of approval. Any legal Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit A - Page 26 nonconforming facility which fails to comply with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations or the conditions of approval may be required to conform to the provisions of this section. 3. Modifications to legal nonconforming SWFs may be permitted under the following circumstances. a. Ordinary maintenance may be performed on a legal nonconforming facility. b. Modifications may be made to an eligible facility, to the extent expressly required by Section 6409(a). 4. Any nonconforming SWF that was not lawfully installed, constructed or otherwise deployed in the PROW in violation of any applicable ordinances, laws or regulations in effect at the time of its deployment is an illegal use and shall be subject to abatement as a public nuisance in accordance with the code and/or any other applicable federal and/or state laws, and the owner thereof shall subject to all civil and criminal remedies provided by the code and law. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 27 EXHIBIT “B” CITY OF SEAL BEACH URGENCY ORDINANCE 1676-U NEW SECTION 6.10.075 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY -- ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUESTS “6.10.075 Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way -- Eligible Facilities Requests. A. Purpose and Intent. 1. Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, codified as 47 U.S.C. Section 1455(a) (“Section 6409(a)”), generally requires that state and local governments “may not deny, and shall approve” requests to collocate, remove or replace transmission equipment at an existing tower or base station. Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) regulations interpret this statute and establish procedural rules for local review, which generally preempt certain subjective land-use regulations, limit permit application content requirements and provide the applicant with a potential “deemed- granted” remedy when the state or local government fails to approve or deny the request within sixty (60) days after submittal (accounting for any tolling periods). Moreover, whereas Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, codified as 47 U.S.C. Section 332, applies to only “personal wireless service facilities” (e.g., cellular telephone towers and equipment), Section 6409(a) applies to all “wireless” facilities licensed or authorized by the FCC (e.g., cellular, Wi-Fi, satellite, microwave backhaul, etc.). 2. The City Council finds that the overlap between wireless deployments covered under Section 6409 and other wireless deployments, combined with the different substantive and procedural rules applicable to such deployments, creates a potential for confusion that harms the public interest in both efficient wireless facilities deployment and carefully planned community development in accordance with local values. The City Council further finds that a separate permit application and review process specifically designed for compliance with Section 6409(a) contained in a section devoted to Section 6409(a) will mitigate such potential confusion, streamline local review and preserve the city’s land-use authority to maximum extent possible. 3. This Section establishes reasonable and uniform standards and procedures in a manner that protects and promotes the public health, safety and welfare, consistent with and subject to federal and California State law, for wireless facilities collocations and modifications pursuant to Section 6409(a), and related FCC regulations codified in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100 et seq. or any successor regulation. This section is not intended to, nor shall it be interpreted or applied to: a. Prohibit or effectively prohibit any wireless service provider’s ability to provide wireless communications services; b. Prohibit or effectively prohibit any entity’s ability to provide any interstate or intrastate wireless communications service, subject to any competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory rules, regulations or other legal requirements for rights-of-way management; Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 28 c. Unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; d. Deny any request for authorization to place, construct or modify WCFs on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such WCFs comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions; e. Prohibit any collocation or modification that the City may not deny under federal or California State law; or f. Otherwise authorize the City to preempt any applicable federal or state law. 4. Due to rapidly changing technology and regulatory requirements, and to further implement this section, the City Council may adopt written policies, rules, regulations and guidelines by resolution to further implement and administer this section, which may include but are not limited to, provisions addressing applications and the application review process, notices, location, development and design standards, conditions, and operations and maintenance requirements for eligible facilities. The Director may adopt policies, procedures and forms consistent with this section and any Council-adopted Rules and Guidelines, which such Director-adopted provisions shall be posted on the City’s website and maintained at the Department for review, inspection and copying by applicants and other interested members of the public. The City Council and the Director may update their rules, policies, procedures and forms in their discretion to adjust for new technologies, federal and/or state regulations, and/or to improve and adjust the City’s implementing regulatory procedures and requirements, and compliance therewith is a condition of approval in every eligible facility permit. B. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases have the meanings set forth below. Words and phrases not specifically defined in this section will be given their meaning ascribed to them in Section 6.10.070 of this chapter or as otherwise provided in Section 6409(a), the Communications Act or any applicable federal or state law or regulation. Application: a written submission to the City for the installation, construction or other deployment of an eligible facility and other related ministerial permits to obtain final approval of the deployment of an eligible facility at a specified location. Base station: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(1), or any successor regulation, which defines that term as a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(9), or any successor regulation, or any equipment associated with a tower. The term includes, but is not limited to, equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. The term includes, but is not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including distributed antenna systems and small-cell networks). The term includes any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the state or local government under 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100, or any successor regulation, supports or houses equipment Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 29 described in 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.6100(b)(1)(i), or any successor regulation, and (ii) that has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support. The term does not include any structure that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the state or local government under this section, does not support or house equipment described in 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.6100(b)(1)(i) and (ii), or any successor regulation. Collocation: For purposes of an eligible facilities request, means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(2), or any successor regulation , which defines that term as the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes, or as otherwise defined by federal law with respect to eligible facilities. As an illustration and not a limitation, the FCC’s definition effectively means “to add” and does not necessarily refer to more than one wireless facility installed at a single site. Day: a calendar day, except as otherwise provided in this section. Eligible Facility Permit (EFP): a permit for an eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a) that meets the criteria set forth in this section. Eligible facilities request: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(3), or any successor regulation, which defines that term as any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, involving: (1) collocation of new transmission equipment; (2) removal of transmission equipment; or (3) replacement of transmission equipment. Eligible support structure: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(4), or any successor regulation, which defines that term as any tower or base station as defined in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(1) or (9), or any successor regulation; provided, that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the state or local government under this definition. Existing: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(4), or any successor regulation, which provides that a constructed tower or base station is existing for purposes of the FCC’s Section 6409(a) regulations if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local regulatory review process; provided, that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition. Rules and Guidelines: The rules, guidelines, regulations and procedures adopted from time to time by resolution of the City Council to administer and implement this section. Site: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(6), or any successor regulation, which provides that for towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 30 Substantial change: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(7), or any successor regulation, which defines that term differently based on the type of eligible support structure (tower or base station) and location (in or outside the PROW). For clarity, this definition organizes the FCC’s criteria and thresholds for determining if a collocation or modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of a wireless tower or base station based on the type and location. 1. For towers outside the PROW, a substantial change occurs when: a. The proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height of the tower by more than 10% or the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet (whichever is greater); or b. The proposed collocation or modification adds an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than 20 feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance (whichever is greater); or c. The proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of more than the standard number of equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four; or d. The proposed collocation or modification involves excavation outside the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the wireless tower, including any access or utility easements currently related to the site. 2. For towers in the PROW and for all base stations, a substantial change occurs when: a. The proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height of the tower more than 10% or 10 feet (whichever is greater); or b. The proposed collocation or modification involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the tower or base station by more than six feet; or c. The proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new ground-mounted equipment cabinets when there are no pre-existing ground-mounted equipment cabinets associated with the structure; or d. The proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new ground-mounted equipment cabinets that are more than 10% larger in height or overall volume than any other existing ground-mounted equipment cabinets; or e. The proposed collocation or modification involves excavation outside the area in proximity to the structure and other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. 3. In addition, for all towers and base stations wherever located, a substantial change occurs when: Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 31 a. The proposed collocation or modification would defeat the existing concealment elements of the eligible support structure (wireless tower or base station) as reasonably determined by the Director; or b. The proposed collocation or modification violates a prior condition of approval; provided, however, that the collocation need not comply with any prior condition of approval related to height, width, equipment cabinets or excavation that is inconsistent with the thresholds for a substantial change described in this Section. 4. For purposes of this definition, changes in height should be measured from the original support structure in cases where deployments are or will be separated horizontally, such as on buildings' rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height should be measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act. Tower: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(9), or any successor regulation, which defines that term as any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul, and the associated site. Examples include, but are not limited to, monopoles, monotrees and lattice towers. Transmission equipment: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(8), or any successor regulation, which defines that term as equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications service, including, but not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply. The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. C. Applicability. This section applies to all requests for approval to collocate, replace or remove transmission equipment at an existing wireless tower or base station submitted pursuant to Section 6409(a). Even if the proposed project would otherwise require a SWFP under Section 6.10.070 of this chapter, and/or a ministerial permit, eligible facility requests submitted for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a) must be first reviewed under this section. If the approval authority finds that the project qualifies for approval under Section 6409(a), then no SWFP will be required. However, the applicant may voluntarily elect to seek a SWFP under Section 6.10.070 either in lieu of an EFP approval or after the approval authority finds that an application does not qualify for an EFP approval pursuant to Section 6409(a). D. Approvals Required. 1. Eligible Facility Permit (EFP) approval. Any request to collocate, replace or remove transmission equipment at an existing wireless tower or base station shall require approval of an EFP subject to the Director’s approval, conditional approval or denial without prejudice pursuant to the standards and procedures contained in this section and the rules and guidelines. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 32 2. Other permits and regulatory approvals. No collocation or modification approved pursuant to this section may occur unless the applicant also obtains all other permits and regulatory approvals as may be required by any other federal, state or local government agencies, which include without limitation any ministerial permits and/or regulatory approvals issued by other departments or divisions within the City. Furthermore, any EFP approval granted under this section shall remain subject to any and all lawful conditions and/or legal requirements associated with any other permits or regulatory approvals for the existing wireless tower or base station. E. Application Requirements. An application for a EFP shall be filed and reviewed in accordance with the following provisions and the rules and guidelines. 1. Complete application required. The applicant shall submit an EFP application in writing to the Public Works Department on a City-approved form as prescribed by the Director, and shall contain all required notices, information, materials and documentation required by this section and the Rules and Guidelines, or as otherwise determined to be necessary by the Director to effectuate the purpose and intent of this section. The Director may waive certain submittal requirements or require additional information based on specific project factors. Unless an exemption or waiver applies, all applications shall include the completed form and all information, materials, and documentation required by the City. An application which does not include all of the required forms, information, materials and documentation shall be deemed incomplete, and a notice of incomplete application shall be provided to the applicant in accordance with Subsection E.6. of this section. a. Public notice. In addition to all other requirements of this section and the rules and guidelines, the application shall include a notice that complies with the City-approved text and format, and contains all of the following information: (i) A general explanation of the proposed collocation or modification; (ii) The applicant’s identification and contact information as provided on the application submitted to the City; (iii) Contact information for the approval authority; and (iv) A statement substantially similar to the following: “Federal Communications Commission regulations may deem this application granted by the operation of law unless the City approves or denies the application within sixty (60) days from the filing date, or the City and applicant reach a mutual tolling agreement.” 2. Application fees. Concurrent with submittal of the application, the applicant shall pay an application fee and processing fee, a deposit for an independent expert review as set forth in this section, and a deposit for review by the City Attorney’s office, in a payment format accepted by the City Finance Department and in amounts set by resolution of the City Council. Failure to pay the fees in full at the time of application submittal shall result in the City deeming the application incomplete. Fees shall be set by resolution of the City Council, and shall be determined in accordance with Section 6.10.070.E.3 of this chapter. 3. Voluntary pre-submittal conference. Prior to application submittal, the applicant may schedule and attend a voluntary pre-submittal conference with the Public Works Department and Community Development Department staff for all proposed eligible facilities in Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 33 the PROW. The purpose of the voluntary pre-submittal conference is to provide informal feedback on the proposed classification of the facility as an eligible facility under Section 6409(a), review procedure, location, design and application materials, to identify potential concerns and to streamline the formal application review process after submittal. Participation in a voluntary pre-submittal conference shall not trigger the shot clocks specified in Section 6.10.075.E.6. 4. Appointments. The Director may require that an application shall be submitted only at a pre-arranged appointment in accordance with the Rules and Guidelines. The Director has the discretion to set the frequency and number of appointments that will be granted each day. The requirement for an appointment shall be published on the Department’s website. 5. Independent expert. The Director is authorized to retain on behalf of the City an independent, qualified consultant to review any application for an EFP to review the technical aspects of the application, including but not limited to: the accuracy, adequacy, and completeness of submissions; compliance with applicable radio frequency emission standards; whether any requested exception is necessary, technical demonstration of the facility designs or configurations; technical feasibility; coverage analysis; the validity of conclusions reached or claims made by applicant or other factors as deemed appropriate by the Director to determine whether the proposed facility qualifies as an eligible facility under Section 6409(a). The cost of this review shall be paid by the applicant through a deposit pursuant to an adopted fee schedule resolution. 6. Shot Clock; timeline for review and action. The timeline for review of and action on an EFP application shall begin to run when the application is submitted in writing to the Department but may be tolled by mutual agreement or upon the City’s issuance of a notice of incomplete application to the applicant pursuant to Subsection E.7 of this Section. Applications shall be processed in conformance with the time periods and procedures established by applicable state and federal law, and FCC regulations and orders. The following provisions shall apply: a. 60 days – Within sixty (60) days of the date on which an applicant submits a written request seeking approval of an eligible facilities request under this section, the City will approve the application unless the City determines that the application is not covered by this section or the 60-day deadline is tolled pursuant to mutual agreement or Subsection (b). b. Tolling of Shot Clock. The 60-day timeframe for review of a proposed eligible facility shall begin to run when the application for the EFP is submitted in writing to the Department but may be tolled by mutual agreement or upon the City’s issuance of a notice of incomplete application to the applicant pursuant to this Subsection. (i) First Incomplete Notice. Within thirty (30) days of the City’s receipt of the initial application for an EFP, Department staff shall provide written notice to the applicant that the application is complete or incomplete. If the application is incomplete, the notice shall clearly and specifically delineate all missing information and documents. The 30- day shot clock date shall be tolled until the applicant makes a supplemental submission in response to the City’s notice of incompleteness. (ii) Subsequent Incomplete Notices. Within ten (10) days of each supplemental submission, the City shall deem the application complete or incomplete. If the Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 34 supplemental submission is incomplete, the notice shall clearly and specifically delineate all missing information and documents from the supplemental submission based on the information or documents identified in the first notice delineating missing information or documentation. The 10-day timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to this procedure. Second or subsequent notices of incompleteness may not specify missing documents or information that were not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness. (iii) One Submittal. The applicant's response and submission of supplemental materials and information in response to a notice of incomplete application must be given to the City in one submittal packet. F. Notice and Decision. Procedures for public notice, approval authority review of and action on EFP applications are set forth in this subsection and in the Rules and Guidelines. 1. Public notice of application. Upon submittal of a complete EFP application to the City, the applicant shall send the City-approved public notice of the application to all businesses and residents within a 150-foot radius of the proposed eligible facility in accordance with the rules and guidelines. Concurrently with service on the businesses and residents, the applicant shall also send a copy of the approved public notice to the Department along with proof of service of the public notice on all residents and businesses as required by this subsection. 2. Public comment. Within ten (10) days from service of the notice, any interested person may submit comments on the proposed eligible facility to the City by U.S. Mail or through the City’s website. Any timely public comments received will be considered during the Director’s review of the application. 3. Director decision on EFP applications. a. Director review, decision and notice. Upon receipt of a complete application for EFP pursuant to this section, the Director shall undertake administrative review of the application and all pertinent information, materials, documentation and public comments. The Director may approve, or conditionally approve an application for an EFP if the Director makes all of the findings required in Section 6.10.075.F.4. The Director may impose conditions in accordance with Section 6.10.075.F.6. Within five days after the Director approves or conditionally approves an application under this section, or expiration of the shot clock period set forth in Section 6.10.075.E.6, whichever occurs sooner, the Director shall issue a written determination letter, and shall serve a copy of the determination letter on the applicant at the address shown in the application and shall cause the determination letter to be published on the City’s website. 4. Required findings for EFP approval. The Director shall approve or conditionally approve an application for an EFP pursuant to Section 6409(a) and this section if the Director makes all of the following findings: a. The applicant has provided all forms, information, materials, and documentation for the proposed project required by this section; b. The proposed project is for the collocation, removal or replacement of transmission equipment on an existing wireless tower or base station; Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 35 c. The proposed project does not constitute a substantial change to the physical dimensions of the existing wireless tower or base station, as defined in Section 6.10.075.B; and d. The proposed project otherwise qualifies as an eligible facility under then- existing provisions of Section 6409(a). 5. Criteria for denial without prejudice. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this chapter, and consistent with all applicable federal laws and regulations, the Director may deny without prejudice an application for approval of an EFP when the Director finds that the proposed project: a. Does not satisfy the findings for approval as an eligible facility under Subsection E.3 of this Section; b. Involves the replacement of the entire support structure; c. Violates any legally enforceable standard or permit condition related to compliance with generally applicable disability access, building, structural, electrical and/or safety codes; d. Violates any legally enforceable standard or permit condition reasonably related to public health and safety then in effect; or e. Does not qualify for mandatory approval under Section 6409(a) for any lawful reason. 6. Conditional approvals. Subject to any applicable limitations in federal or state law, and in addition to the standard conditions of approval required by Section 6.10.075.F.6, nothing in this section is intended to limit the City’s authority to conditionally approve an application for an EFP under Section 6409(a) to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare in accordance with this section and the Rules and Guidelines, including but not limited to, building code standards and health and safety conditions, and such other reasonable time, place and manner conditions authorized under applicable federal and state laws and regulations. The standard conditions set forth in of Section 6.10.075.G shall apply to all eligible facilities. 7. Written decision. The Director’s decision shall be issued in writing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 6.10.075.F.3.a. and the Rules and Guidelines. The Director’s decision on an application for an EFP shall be final and conclusive and shall not be appealable to the City Council. 8. Deemed Approved. a. If the City fails to act on an EFP application within the 60-day review period referenced in Section 6.10.075.E.6.a. (subject to any tolling pursuant to written agreement or Section 6.10.075.E.6.b.), the applicant may provide the City written notice that the time period for acting has lapsed, and the City then has twenty (20) days after receipt of such notice within which to render its written decision on the application. To the extent required by Section 6409(a), upon the City’s failure to render a decision within that 20-day period, the application is then deemed approved by passage of time and operation of law. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 36 b. The applicant shall provide written notice to the City at least seven days prior to beginning construction or collocation pursuant to an EFP issued pursuant to a deemed approved application. c. An EFP deemed approved pursuant to Section 6409(a) shall comply with all applicable building code standards and traffic, health and safety requirements of the code deemed applicable by the Director. d. Effect of Changes to Federal Law. This subsection does not and shall not be construed to grant any rights beyond those granted by Section 6409(a) and its implementing federal regulations. In the event Section 6409(a) or applicable regulations are stayed, amended, revised or otherwise not in effect, no modifications to an eligible facility shall be processed or approved under this subsection E.9 or any other provision of this code. G. Standard Conditions of approval applicable to all applications. All EFP approvals, whether approved by the approval authority or deemed approved by the operation of law, shall be automatically subject to the conditions in this Subsection, in addition to any conditions imposed pursuant to Section 6.10.075.F and the rules and guidelines. The Director (or the City Council on appeal) shall have discretion to modify or amend these conditions on a case-by-case basis as may be necessary or appropriate under the circumstances to protect public health and safety or allow for the proper operation of the approved eligible facility consistent with the goals of this section. 1. Permit term. The City’s grant or grant by operation of law of an EFP constitutes a federally-mandated modification to the underlying permit, approval or other prior regulatory authorization for the subject tower or base station pursuant to Section 6409(a), for ten years, subject to the following provisions. The City’s grant or grant by operation of law of an EFP will not extend the term, if any, for any ministerial permit or other underlying prior regulatory permit, approval or other authorization. Accordingly, the term for an EFP approval shall be coterminous with the ministerial permit and other underlying permit, approval or other prior regulatory authorization for the subject tower or base station. This condition shall not be applied or interpreted in any way that would cause the term of the underlying permit for the modified facility to be less than ten years in total length, unless such underlying permit is abandoned or revoked pursuant to this code or any other provision of federal or state law. 2. Accelerated approval terms due to invalidation. In the event that any court of competent jurisdiction invalidates any portion of Section 6409(a) or any FCC rule that interprets Section 6409(a) such that federal law would not mandate approval for any eligible facilities request pursuant to Section 6409(a), such EFP approval shall automatically expire one year from the effective date of the judicial order, unless the decision would not authorize accelerated termination of any previously approved EFP or the Director grants an extension upon written request from the permittee that shows good cause for the extension, which includes without limitation extreme financial hardship. Notwithstanding anything in the previous sentence to the contrary, the Director may not grant a permanent exemption or indefinite extension. A permittee shall not be required to remove any equipment, components, structures and improvements approved under the invalidated EFP approval when it has submitted an application for either a SWFP under Section 6.10.070 for those WCFs before the one-year period ends. If the SWFP is denied, the permittee shall remove all its equipment, components, structures and improvements before the one-year period ends. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 37 3. No waiver of standing. The approval of an EFP (either by express approval or by operation of law) does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the City to challenge Section 6409(a), any FCC rules that interpret Section 6409(a) and/or any eligible facilities approval pursuant to Section 6409(a) (whether by the approval authority or by operation of law). 4. Strict compliance with approved plans. Any application filed by the permittee for a ministerial permit to construct or install the eligible facility approved by an EFP must incorporate the EFP approval, all conditions associated with the EFP approval and the approved photo simulations into the project plans (the “approved plans”). The permittee must construct, install and operate the eligible facility in strict compliance with the approved plans. Any alterations, modifications or other changes to the approved plans, whether requested by the permittee or required by other departments or public agencies with jurisdiction over the eligible facility, must be submitted in a written request subject to the Director’s prior review and approval, who may revoke the EFP approval if the Director finds that the requested alteration, modification or other change may cause a substantial change as that term is defined by Section 6409(a) or the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(7), as may be re-numbered or amended. 5. Build-out period. The EFP approval will automatically expire one year from the EFP approval or deemed-granted date unless the permittee obtains all other permits and approvals required to install, construct and/or operate the approved eligible facility, which include without limitation any City ministerial permit, and any other permits or approvals required by any federal, state or other local public agencies with jurisdiction over the subject property, the eligible facility or its use. The Director may grant one written extension to a date certain when the permittee shows good cause to extend the limitations period in a written request for an extension submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the automatic expiration date in this condition. 6. Maintenance obligations – vandalism. The permittee shall keep the site, which includes without limitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, fences and landscape features, in a neat, clean and safe condition in accordance with the approved plans and all conditions in the EFP approval. The permittee shall keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all times. The permittee, at no cost to the city, shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other vandalism at the site within 48 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti or other vandalism occurred. Each year after the permittee installs the wireless facility, the permittee shall submit a written report to the director, in a form acceptable to the director, that documents the then-current site condition. 7. Property maintenance. The permittee shall ensure that all equipment and other improvements to be constructed and/or installed in connection with the approved plans are maintained in a manner that is not detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare and that the aesthetic appearance is continuously preserved, and substantially the same as shown in the approved plans at all times relevant to the EFP. The permittee further acknowledges that failure to maintain compliance with this condition may result in a code enforcement action. 8. Compliance with laws. The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law (“laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the eligible facility or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized in the EFP approval. The permittee expressly Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 38 acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all laws. In the event that the City fails to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance with any applicable provision in the Code, any permit, any permit condition or any Governing Laws, the applicant or permittee will not be relieved from its obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable provisions in the Code, any permit, any permit condition or any Governing Laws. 9. Adverse impacts on other properties. The permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to avoid any and all undue or unnecessary adverse impacts on nearby properties that may arise from the permittee’s or its authorized personnel’s construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal and/or other activities at the site. Impacts of radio frequency emissions on the environment, to the extent that such emissions are compliant with all Governing Laws, are not “adverse impacts” for the purposes of this condition. The permittee shall not perform or cause others to perform any construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal or other work that involves heavy equipment or machines except during normal construction hours authorized by the Code. The restricted work hours in this condition will not prohibit any work required to prevent an actual, immediate harm to property or persons, or any work during an emergency declared by the city. The director or the director’s designee may issue a stop work order for any activities that violate this condition. 10. Inspections – emergencies. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City’s officers, officials, staff or other designee may enter onto the site and inspect the improvements and equipment upon reasonable prior notice to the permittee; provided, however, that the City’s officers, officials, staff or other designee may, but will not be obligated to, enter onto the site area without prior notice to support, repair, disable or remove any improvements or equipment in emergencies or when such improvements or equipment threatens actual, imminent harm to property or persons. The permittee will be permitted to supervise the City’s officers, officials, staff or other designee while any such inspection or emergency access occurs. 11. Permittee’s contact information. The permittee shall furnish the Department with accurate and up-to-date contact information for a person responsible for the eligible facility, which includes without limitation such person’s full name, title, direct telephone number, facsimile number, mailing address and email address. The permittee shall keep such contact information up-to-date at all times and immediately provide the Director with updated contact information in the event that either the responsible person or such person’s contact information changes. 12. Indemnification. a. The permittee, and if applicable, the property owner of the property upon which the eligible facility is installed in the PROW, shall agree in writing to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, boards, commissions, agents, consultants, employees, volunteers and independent contractors serving as City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”), from and against any and all claims, actions, or proceeding against the Indemnitees or any of them, to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the Director or City Council concerning the EFP and the construction, operation, maintenance and/or repair of the eligible facility. Such indemnification shall include damages, judgments, settlements, penalties, fines, defensive costs or expenses, including, but not limited to, interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind related to Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 39 or arising from such claim, action, or proceeding. The permittee, and if applicable, the property owner of the property upon which the eligible facility is installed in the PROW, shall also agree not to sue or seek any money or damages from the City in connection with the grant of the permit and also agree to abide by the City’s ordinances and other laws. The City shall promptly notify the permittee and property owner (if any) of any claim, action, or proceeding. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit City from participating in a defense of any claim, action or proceeding. The City shall have the option of coordinating the defense, including, but not limited to, choosing counsel for the defense at the permittee’s expense. b. Additionally, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the permittee, and every permittee and person in a shared permit, jointly and severally, shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, boards, commissions, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers harmless from and against all claims, suits, demands, actions, losses, liabilities, judgments, settlements, costs (including, but not limited to, attorney's fees, interest and expert witness fees), or damages claimed by third parties against the City for any injury claim, and for property damage sustained by any person, arising out of, resulting from, or are in any way related to the EFP, or to any work done by or use of the PROW by the permittee, owner or operator of the EFP, or their agents, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, boards, commissions, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers and independent contractors serving as City officials. 13. Performance Security. Prior to issuance of any ministerial permit, the permittee shall pay for and provide a performance bond or other form of security that complies with the following minimum requirements and the Rules and Guidelines. a. The security shall be in effect until the eligible facility is fully and completely removed and the site reasonably returned to its original condition, to cover the removal costs of the eligible facility in the event that its use is abandoned or the approval is otherwise terminated. b. The security shall be in a format and amount approved by the Director and City Attorney’s office. The amount of security shall be as determined by the Director to be necessary to ensure proper completion of the removal of the eligible facility. In establishing the amount of the security, the Director shall take into consideration information provided by the applicant regarding the cost of removal. The amount of the security instrument shall be calculated by the applicant as part of its application in an amount rationally related to the obligations covered by the security instrument. The permittee shall be required to submit the approved security instrument to the Director prior to issuance of any ministerial for the proposed eligible facility. c. Security shall always be imposed if the eligible facility is located in a PROW adjacent to any residentially zoned property or residential uses. 14. Insurance. The permittee shall obtain, pay for and maintain, in full force and effect until the eligible facility approved by the permit is removed in its entirety from the PROW, an insurance policy or policies of public liability insurance which shall be in the form and substance satisfactory to the City in accordance with the Rules and Guidelines, and shall be maintained until the term of the permit ended and the eligible facility is removed from the PROW. The insurance shall comply with the minimum limits and coverages and provisions set Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 40 forth in the Rules and Guidelines, and as otherwise established from time to time by the City, and which fully protect the City from claims and suits for bodily injury, death, and property damage. 15. Acceptance of conditions. The EFP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City “Acceptance of Conditions” form, in a form approved by the City Attorney’s office, has been signed and notarized by the applicant/permittee before being returned to the Director; within ten (10) days after the determination letter has been served on the applicant and published on the City’s website in accordance with Section 6.10.070.G.3.a. The permit shall be void and of no force or effect unless such written agreement is received by the City within said ten-day period. H. Operation and Maintenance Standards. The permittee shall comply with all operations and maintenance standards set forth in Section 6.10.070.0 of this chapter and the Rules and Guidelines. I. Additional Requirements. All eligible facilities (including eligible facilities granted by the City and eligible facilities requests granted by operation of law) shall comply with and be subject to all of the following provisions of Section 6.10.070 of this chapter. 1. Section 6.10.070.G(b), (c) and (d) (locational restrictions). 2. Section 6.10.070.J: Exceptions; Director’s Findings. 3. Section 6.10.070.L: Nonexclusive Grant. 4. Section 6.10.070.M: Business License 5. Section 6.10.070.P: Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions and Other Monitoring Requirements 6. Section 6.10.070.Q: No Dangerous Condition or Obstructions Allowed. 7. Section 6.10.070.R: Permit Extension. 8. Section 6.10.070.S: Cessation of Use or Abandonment. 9. Section 6.10.070.T: Revocation or Modification; Removal. 10. Section 6.10.070.V: Effect on Other Ordinances. 11. Section 6.10.070.W: State or Federal Law. 12. Section 6.10.070.X: Nonconforming Wireless Communications Facilities. J. Effect on Other Ordinances; Conflicting Code Provisions Superseded. 1. Compliance with the provisions of this section shall not relieve a person from complying with any other applicable provision of this code. Urgency Ordinance 1676-U Exhibit B - Page 41 2. The provisions of this section shall govern and supersede any conflicting provisions of the code with respect to the permitting and regulation of eligible facilities in the public right-of-way. Ordinance 1677 1 ORDINANCE 1677 AN ORDINANCE OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 6.10 OF TITLE 6 OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND SECTION 6.10.010 AND SECTION 6.10.065, REPEAL SECTION 6.10.070, AND ADD NEW SECTIONS 6.10.070 AND 6.10.075 REGULATING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES AND ELIGIBLE FACILITIES IN THE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1.On January 28, 2019, the City Council considered the adoption of this Ordinance at a duly noticed public meeting, and on the basis of the record thereof finds the following facts to be true: A. On September 27, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) adopted its Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 83 FR 51867-01 (adopted September 26, 2018 and released September 27, 2018) [hereinafter “Report and Order”] relating to placement of small wireless facilities in public rights-of-way. The Report and Order took effect on January 14, 2019, and unless stayed by court or legislative action, or by further action by the FCC, states and local governments must comply with its terms. B. The Report and Order purports to give providers of wireless services rights to utilize public rights of way and to attach so-called “small wireless facilities” to public infrastructure within the public rights-of-way, including infrastructure of the City of Seal Beach, subject to payment of “presumed reasonable”, non-recurring and recurring fees. The ability of local agencies to regulate use of their rights-of-way is substantially limited under the Report and Order. C. Notwithstanding the limitations imposed on local regulation of small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way by the Report and Order, local agencies retain the ability to regulate the aesthetics of small wireless facilities, including location, compatibility with surrounding facilities, spacing, and overall size of the facility, provided the aesthetic requirements are: (i) “reasonable”, i.e., “technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm or unsightly or out-of-character deployments”; (ii) “objective”, i.e., they “incorporate clearly-defined and ascertainable standards, applied in a principled manner”; are (iii) published in advance. Regulations that do not satisfy the foregoing requirements are likely to be subject to invalidation, as are any other regulations that “materially inhibit wireless service”, (e.g., overly restrictive spacing requirements.) The Report and Order require that states and local governments adopt aesthetic standards no later than April 15, 2019. D. Local agencies also retain the ability to regulate small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way in order to more fully protect the public health and safety, ensure continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers. E. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the City's Municipal Code to provide uniform and comprehensive standards, regulations and permit requirements for the installation of wireless telecommunications facilities in the City's public rights-of-way. Ordinance 1677 2 F. The wireless telecommunications industry has expressed interest in submitting applications for the installation of “small cell” wireless telecommunications facilities in the City’s public rights-of-way. Other southern California cities have already received applications for small cells to be located within the public rights-of-way. G. Installation of small cell and other wireless telecommunications facilities within the public rights-of-way which poses treat to the public health, safety and welfare, including land use conflicts and incompatibilities including excessive height of poles and towers; creation of visual and aesthetic blights and potential safety concerns arising from excessive size, heights, noise, or lack of camouflaging of wireless telecommunications facilities including the associated pedestals, meters, equipment and power generators; creation of unnecessary visual and aesthetic blight by failing to utilize alternative technologies or capitalizing on collocation opportunities which may negatively impact the unique quality and character of the City; cause substantial disturbance to right-of-way through the installation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities; create traffic and pedestrian safety hazards due to the unsafe location of wireless telecommunications facilities and impairment of accessible paths of travel; and, negatively impact City street trees where proximity conflicts may require unnecessary trimming of branches or require removal of roots due to related undergrounding of equipment or connection lines. H. The Seal Beach Municipal Code currently regulates wireless telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way through the requirement for a conditional use permit (CUP) process in the Zoning Code (Title 11), requirements for encroachment/excavation permits and overall policies directed at telephone corporations in the public right-of-way. The existing standards have not been updated to reflect current telecommunications trends or necessary federal and state legal requirements. Further the primary focus of the current regulations is wireless telecommunications facilities located on private property, and the existing Code provisions were not specifically designed to address the unique legal and/or practical issues that arise in connection with wireless telecommunications facilities deployed in the public right-of- way. I. In addition to the Ruling and Order, state and federal law have changed substantially since the City last adopted regulations for wireless telecommunications facilities in the City. Such changes include modifications to “shot clocks” whereby the City must approve or deny installations within a certain period of time. State and federal laws require local governments to act on permit applications for eligible facilities within a prescribed time period and may automatically deem an application approved when a failure to act occurs. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii); 47 CFR §§ 1.6100 et seq.; Cal. Gov't Code § 65964.1. The FCC may require a decision on certain wireless telecommunications facility applications and/or eligible facility applications in as few as 60 days. See 447 C.F.R. § 1.6100(c)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 1.61003(c)(1)(i); see also Ruling and Order, 83 FR 51867-01, 51885-51886; In the Matter of Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd. 12865 (Oct. 17, 2014) [hereinafter “2014 Report and Order”]; In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review, Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. 13994 (Nov. 18, 2009) [hereinafter “2009 Declaratory Ruling”]. Pursuant to FCC regulations, the City cannot adopt a moratorium ordinance to toll the time period for review for certain type of facilities, even when needed to allow the City to maintain the status quo while it reviews and revises its policies for compliance with changes in state or federal law. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(c)(3); Ruling and Order, 83 FR 51886; 2014 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd. at 219, 265. Ordinance 1677 3 J. The public rights-of-way in the City of Seal Beach is a uniquely valuable public resource, closely linked with the City’s natural beauty including the beach and coastline, and significant number of residential communities. The public right-of-way encompassed by Electric Avenue is historically significant as critical to development of a commuter electric railway line between Los Angeles and Newport Beach in the early Twentieth Century, and the Pier is historically significant as an example of as early development of coastal amusement along coastal areas, including the original pier site known as “Anaheim Landing", which is now registered as a California Historical Landmark. The reasonably regulated and orderly deployment of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way is desirable, and unregulated or disorderly deployment represents an ever-increasing and true threat to the health, welfare and safety of the community. The regulations of wireless telecommunications installations in the public right-of-way are also necessary to protect and preserve the aesthetics in the community, as well as the values of properties within the City, and to ensure that all wireless telecommunications facilities are installed using the least intrusive means possible. K. It is the intent of the City Council in adopting this Ordinance to supersede regulations of the City that conflict with the Report and Order, and to establish consistent regulations governing deployment of small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way, in order to more fully protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The City Council declares that it adopts this Ordinance with the understanding that the City expressly reserves all rights to re- enact and/or establish new regulations consistent with State and federal law as it existed prior to adoption of the Report and Order in the event the Report and Order is invalidated, modified, or limited in any way. L. The City recognizes its responsibilities under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and state law, and believes that it is acting consistent with the current state of the law in ensuring that irreversible development activity does not occur that would harm the public health, safety, or welfare. The City does not intend that this Ordinance prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting telecommunications service; rather, but includes appropriate regulations to ensure that the installation, augmentation and relocation of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way are conducted in such a manner as to lawfully balance the legal rights of applicants under the Federal Telecommunications Act and the California Public Utilities Code while, at the same time, protect to the full extent feasible against the safety and land use concerns described herein. M. On January 28, 2019, the City Council of the City of Seal Beach conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Municipal Code amendments contained herein as required by law and received testimony from City staff and all interested parties regarding the proposed amendments. N. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred. SECTION 2.The City Council of the City of Seal Beach hereby amends Section 6.10.010 (Definitions) of Chapter 6.10 (Cable, Video and Telecommunications) of Title 6 (Franchises) to include the following definitions: “Action or to act: the approval authority’s grant of an application for a small wireless facility, eligible facility, or other wireless communications facility, or issuance of a written decision denying an application, pursuant to Section 6.10.070 or 6.10.075 of this chapter. Ordinance 1677 4 Antenna: any system of poles, panels, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of electromagnetic waves or radio frequency signals, including devices with active elements extending in any direction, and directional parasitic arrays with elements attached to a generally horizontal boom which may be mounted on a vertical support structure. Amateur radio antenna: any antenna used for transmitting and receiving radio signals in conjunction with an amateur radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Antenna equipment: equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna, and, when collocated on a structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as such antenna. Antenna facility: an antenna and associated antenna equipment. Applicant: any natural person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or other entity (or combination of entities), and the agents, employees, and contractors of such person or entity that seeks City permits or other authorizations under this chapter. Approval authority: the Director of Public Works designated to review and issue a decision on a proposed permit or other authorization under this chapter. Authorization: any approval that the approval authority must issue under applicable law prior to the installation, construction or other deployment of a small wireless facility, eligible facility, or any other wireless communications facility under Section 6.10.070 or Section 6.10.075 of this chapter, including, but not limited to, encroachment permit, excavation permit, zoning approval and/or building permit. Building or roof mounted: an antenna mounted on the side or top of a building or another structure (e.g., water tank, billboard, church steeple, freestanding sign, etc.), where the entire weight of the antenna is supported by the building, through the use of an approved framework or other structural system which is attached to one or more structural members of the roof or walls of the building. C.F.R: the Code of Federal Regulations. Collocation (also known as “colocation” or “co-location”): (1) For a small wireless facility subject to Section 6.10.070 of this chapter, “collocation” means: (a) mounting or installing an antenna facility on a pre-existing structure, and/or (b) modifying a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing an antenna facility on that structure. (2) For an eligible facility subject to Section 6.10.075 of this chapter, “collocation” has the meaning set forth in Section 6.10.075.B of this chapter. (3) For any other wireless communication facility subject to Section 6.10.070 of this chapter, “collocation” means the location of 2 or more wireless, hard wire, or cable communication facilities on a single support structure or otherwise sharing a common location. Ordinance 1677 5 Collocation shall also include the location of communication facilities with other facilities (e.g., water tanks, light standards, and other utility facilities and structures). Competitive Local Carrier (CLC): a telecommunications company that competes with local telephone companies in providing local exchange service, as defined and regulated by the CPUC pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1001 as amended. CPUC: the California Public Utilities Commission. Decorative lighting : any light fixture that incorporates ornamental design features while also meeting the specific spread and lumen requirements dictated by the location and purpose. Design features may include post top and pendant bulbs, posts, bases, cross-arms, bollards and signage. Height, density and placement relative to nearby architectural features are also relevant to the design and purpose. Some examples in the City of Seal Beach include the Electric Avenue greenbelt, Seal Beach Pier and Main Street Business District. Deployment: the installation, placement, construction, or modification of a small wireless facility, eligible facility or other wireless communications facility. Director: the Public Works Director of the City of Seal Beach. Dish antenna: a dish-like antenna used to link communication sites together by wireless transmissions of voice or data. Also called microwave dish antenna. Distributed antenna system (DAS): a network of one or more antenna and fiber optic nodes connecting to a common base station or “hub.” Electromagnetic field: the local electric and magnetic fields caused by voltage and the flow of electricity that envelop the space surrounding an electrical conductor. Eligible facility: as defined in Section 6409(a). See Section 6.10.075 of this chapter. Equipment cabinet: a cabinet or structure used to house equipment associated with a wireless, hard wire, or cable communication facility. FAA: the Federal Aviation Administration. Ground mounted: any freestanding antenna, the entire weight of which is supported by an approved freestanding platform, framework, or other structural system which is attached to the ground by a foundation. JFTB Los Alamitos: the Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos, California, also known as the Los Alamitos Army Airfield. Ministerial permit: – an excavation permit, encroachment permit, or building permit and any required ministerial permit application form and supporting documents required by the City. Monopole: a single freestanding pole, post, or similar structure, used to support equipment associated with a single communication facility. NEPA: the National Environmental Policy Act. Ordinance 1677 6 NHPA: the National Historical Preservation Act. Naval Weapons Station (NWS): the Naval Weapon Station, Seal Beach, California. Panel: an antenna or array of antennas that are flat and rectangular and are designed to concentrate a radio signal in a particular area. Also referred to as a directional antenna. Permittee: includes the applicant and all successors in interest to the Wireless Communications Facility Permit (WFCP) issued by the City pursuant to Section 6.10.070 or 6.10.075 of this chapter, and any related ministerial permit approved by the City. Person: an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, association, trust, or other entity or organization, including a governmental entity. Pole: a single shaft of wood, steel, concrete or other material capable of supporting the equipment mounted thereon in a safe and adequate manner and as required by provisions of this code. Public right-of-way (PROW): any public road, highway, sidewalk or other area described in and subject to California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 or 7901.1, as interpreted by applicable case law, and owned, licensed, leased or otherwise under the control of the city. RF: radio frequency. Rules and Guidelines: The policies, rules, guidelines, regulations and procedures adopted from time to time by the City Council to administer and implement this section. Section 6409(a): Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, codified as 47 U.S.C. Section 1455(a) (the “Spectrum Act”), as may be amended. Small wireless facility(ies): a facility that meets each of the following conditions: (1) The facility— (i) is mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including its antennas as defined in this section; or (ii) is mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or (iii) does not extend existing structures on which it is located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater; (2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in this section), is no more than three cubic feet in volume; (3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; Ordinance 1677 7 (4) The facility does not require antenna structure registration under Part 17 of Subchapter A of Chapter 1 of Title 47 C.F.R., or its successor regulations; (5) The facility is not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 C.F.R. Section 800.16(x), or its successor regulation; and (6) The facility does not result in human exposure to radio frequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1307(b), or its successor regulation. Stealth facility: a telecommunications facility that is designed to blend into the surrounding environment, typically one that is architecturally or aesthetically camouflaged or otherwise integrated into a structure. Also referred to as a concealed antenna. Structure: a pole, tower, base station, or other building, whether or not it has an existing antenna facility, that is used or to be used for the provision of wireless communications service (whether on its own or comingled with other types of services). Telephone corporation: any person, company, firm or entity that qualifies as a “telephone corporation” pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 234 as amended from time to time. Temporary wireless communications facilities: portable wireless facilities intended or used to provide wireless communications services on a temporary or emergency basis, such as a large-scale special event in which more users than usual gather in a confined location or when a disaster disables permanent wireless facilities. Temporary wireless communications facilities include, without limitation, cells-on-wheels (“COWs”), sites-on-wheels (“SOWs”), cells-on-light- trucks (“COLTs”) or other similarly portable wireless facilities not permanently affixed to the site on which it is located. Tower: any ground or roof mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof taller than 15 feet, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar apparatus above grade. Whip antenna: an antenna consisting of a single, slender, rod-like element, which is supported only at or near its base. They are typically less than 6 inches in diameter and measure up to 18 feet in height. Also referred to as omnidirectional, stick or pipe antennas. Wireless communications facility(ies) (WCF or WCFs): public, commercial and private electromagnetic and photoelectrical transmission, broadcast, repeater and receiving stations for radio, television, telegraph, telephone, data network, and wireless telecommunications, including commercial earth stations for satellite-based communications, whether such service is provided on a stand-alone basis or commingled with other wireless communications services. Includes antennas, commercial satellite dish antennas, and equipment buildings. Does not include telephone, telegraph and cable television transmission facilities utilizing hard-wired or direct cable connections. Wireless communications collocation facility: the same as a “wireless telecommunications colocation facility” is defined in Government Code Section 65850.6, as may be amended, which defines a “wireless telecommunications colocation facility” as a wireless telecommunications facility that includes colocation facilities; a “colocation facility” as the placement or installation of Ordinance 1677 8 wireless facilities, including antennas, and related equipment, on, or immediately adjacent to, a wireless telecommunications colocation facility; a “wireless telecommunications facility” as equipment and network components such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations, and emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services. Wireless Communications Facility Permit (WCFP): a permit issued by the City pursuant to this chapter, and including the following categories: 1.Small Wireless Facility Permit (SMFP): a permit issued by the Director pursuant to the requirements of Section 6.10.070 of this chapter for (a) the deployment of a new small wireless facility, or (b) the replacement of, collocation on, or modification of an existing small wireless facility. 2.Eligible Facility Permit (EFP): a permit issued for an eligible facility as defined in and subject to the requirements of Section 6.10.075 of this chapter. 3.Maintenance Encroachment Permit: an encroachment permit issued by the Director pursuant to Section 6.10.070 of this chapter to carry out minor modifications, minor emergency maintenance or repairs, or other routine maintenance or repairs to an existing WCF. Wireless communications services: the provision of services using a wireless communications facility, and shall include, but not limited to, the following services: personal wireless services as defined in the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C) or its successor statute, cellular service, personal communication service, and/or data radio telecommunications.” SECTION 2.The City Council of the City of Seal Beach hereby amends Subsection B of Section 6.10.065 (Telecommunications Services Provided by Telephone Corporations) of Chapter 6.10 (Cable, Video and Telecommunications) of Title 6 (Franchises) to read as follows: [new language is highlighted] “6.10.065 Telecommunications Service Provided by Telephone Corporations. A. The city council finds and determines as follows: 1. The Communications Act preempts and declares invalid all state rules that restrict entry or limit competition in both local and long-distance telephone service. 2. The California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) is primarily responsible for the implementation of local telephone competition, and it issues certificates of public convenience and necessity to new entrants that are qualified to provide competitive local telephone exchange services and related communications service, whether using their own facilities or the facilities or services provided by other authorized telephone corporations. 3. Public Utilities Code Section 234(a) defines a “telephone corporation” as “every corporation or person owning, controlling, operating, or managing any telephone line for compensation within this state.” 4. Public Utilities Code Section 616 provides that a telephone corporation “may condemn any property necessary for the construction and maintenance of its telephone line.” Ordinance 1677 9 5. Public Utilities Code Section 2902 authorizes municipal corporations to retain their powers of control to supervise and regulate the relationships between a public utility and the general public in matters affecting the health, convenience, and safety of the general public, including matters such as the use and repair of public streets by any public utility and the location of the poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility on, under, or above any public streets. 6. Public Utilities Code Section 7901 authorizes telephone and telegraph corporations to construct telephone or telegraph lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this state, and to erect poles, posts, piers or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters. 7. Public Utilities Code Section 7901.1 confirms the right of municipalities to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed, which control must be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner. Nothing in Section 7901.1 adds to or subtracts from any existing authority that municipalities have with respect to the imposition of fees. 8. Government Code Section 50030 provides that any permit fee imposed by a city for the placement, installation, repair, or upgrading of communications facilities, such as lines, poles, or antennas, by a telephone corporation that has obtained all required authorizations from the CPUC and the FCC to provide communications services, must not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged, and must not be levied for general revenue purposes. B. In recognition of and in compliance with the statutory authorizations and requirements set forth above, the following regulatory provisions are applicable to a telephone corporation that desires to provide communications service by means of facilities that are proposed to be constructed, installed or otherwise deployed within public rights-of-way: 1. The telephone corporation must apply for and obtain, as may be applicable, a Wireless Communications Facility Permit in accordance with Section 6.10.070 or Section 6.10.075 of this chapter and any other ministerial permit required by this code. 2. In addition to the information required by this code in connection with an application for a ministerial permit or a Wireless Communications Facility Permit, a telephone corporation must submit to the City the following supplemental information: a. A copy of the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the CPUC to the applicant, and a copy of the CPUC decision that authorizes the applicant to provide the communications service for which the facilities are proposed to be constructed in the public rights-of-way. Any applicant that, prior to 1996, provided communications service under administratively equivalent documentation issued by the CPUC may submit copies of that documentation in lieu of a certificate of public convenience and necessity. b. If the applicant has obtained from the CPUC a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a “competitive local carrier,” the following additional requirements are applicable: Ordinance 1677 10 (1) As required by Decision No. 95-12-057 of the CPUC, the applicant must establish that it has timely filed with the city a quarterly report that describes the type of construction and the location of each construction project proposed to be undertaken in the city during the calendar quarter in which the application is filed, so that the city can coordinate multiple projects, as may be necessary. (2) If the applicant's proposed construction project will extend beyond the utility rights-of-way into undisturbed areas or other rights-of-way, the applicant must establish that it has filed a petition with the CPUC to amend its certificate of public convenience and necessity and that the proposed construction project has been subjected to a full-scale environmental analysis by the CPUC, as required by Decision No. 95-12-057 of the CPUC. (3) The applicant must inform the city whether its proposed construction project will be subject to any of the mitigation measures specified in the Negative Declaration [“Competitive Local Carriers (CLCs) Projects for Local Exchange Communication Service throughout California"] or to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan adopted in connection with Decision No. 95-12-057 of the CPUC. The city's issuance of a ministerial permit, and/or Wireless Communications Facility Permit will be conditioned upon the applicant's compliance with applicable mitigation measures and monitoring requirements imposed by the CPUC upon telephone corporations that are designated as "competitive local carriers. C. The city reserves all rights that it now possesses or may later acquire with respect to the regulation of any cable or communications service that is provided, or proposed to be provided, by a telephone corporation. These reserved rights may relate, without limitation, to the imposition of reasonable conditions in addition to or different from those set forth in this section, the exaction of a fee or other form of consideration or compensation for use of public rights-of- way, and related matters; provided, however, that such regulatory rights and authority must be consistent with federal and state law that is applicable to cable or communications services provided by telephone corporations.” SECTION 3.Section 6.10.070 (Use of Public Rights-of-Way) of Chapter 6.10 (Cable, Video and Communications) of Title 6 (Franchises) is hereby deleted in its entirety. SECTION 4.A new Section 6.10.070 (Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way) is hereby added to Chapter 6.10 (Cable, Video and Communications) of Title 6 (Franchises) as set forth in Exhibit “A” to this Ordinance, which is hereby incorporated as though set forth in full herein. SECTION 5.A new Section 6.10.075 (Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way -- Eligible Facilities Requests) is hereby added to Chapter 6.10 (Cable, Video and Communications) of Title 6 (Franchises) as set forth in Exhibit “B” to this Ordinance, which is hereby incorporated as though set forth in full herein. SECTION 6.The City recognizes its responsibilities under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, codified as 47 U.S.C. Section 1455(a) (the “Spectrum Act”), as may be amended, and all implementing federal regulations, FCC rulings and orders, and state law, regulations and orders (collectively “Governing Laws”), and believes that it is acting consistent with the current state of the Governing Laws in ensuring that irreversible development activity does not occur that would harm the public health, safety, or welfare. The City does not intend that this Ordinance prohibit or result in an effective prohibition Ordinance 1677 11 of wireless telecommunications services in the public rights-of-way; but rather includes appropriate reasonable time, place and manner regulations to ensure that the installation, augmentation and relocation of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way are conducted in such a manner so as to lawfully balance the legal rights of applicants under the Governing Laws while, at the same time, ensuring that the deployment of telecommunications services will not incommode the public use of the City’s rights-of-way, and will protect to the full extent feasible against the safety and land use concerns described herein, while treating all entities in an equivalent manner. SECTION 7. Conflicting Code Provisions Superseded. The provisions of this Ordinance shall govern and supersede any conflicting provisions of the Seal Beach Municipal Code with respect to the permitting and regulation of wireless communications facilities and eligible facilities in the public right-of-way. SECTION 8. CEQA Findings. The proposed Ordinance does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Moreover, even if the proposed Ordinance comprises a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Adoption of this Ordinance will also enact only minor changes in land use regulations, and it can be seen with certainty that its adoption will not have a significant effect on the environment because it will not allow for the development of any new or expanded wireless telecommunication facilities anywhere other than where they were previously allowed under existing federal, state and local regulations. It is therefore not subject to the environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, minor alterations to land use SECTION 9. Savings Clause. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal or amendment by this Ordinance of any ordinance or part or portion of any ordinance previously in effect in the City, or within the territory comprising the City, shall in any manner affect the prosecution for the violation of any ordinance, which violation was committed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, nor be construed as a waiver of any license, fee or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation of such ordinances. SECTION 10. Severability. If any sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentence, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. SECTION 11. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance to be published within 15 days after its passage, in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code. SECTION 12. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect on the 31st day after its passage. Ordinance 1677 12 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January , 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members and do hereby further certify that Ordinance XXXX has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution 2836. Thomas Moore, Mayor ATTEST: Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance is the original copy of Ordinance 1677 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the ___ day of ________, 2019. Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 1 EXHIBIT “A” CITY OF SEAL BEACH ORDINANCE 1677 NEW SECTION 6.10.070 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY “6.10.070 Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way. A. Purpose and Intent. 1. The purpose of this section is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards and procedures to regulate the location, placement, installation, height, appearance, and operation of wireless telecommunications antennas and related facilities (“wireless communications facilities” or WCFs) in the PROW, consistent with City laws, applicable state and federal requirements, and changing technology. The regulations are intended to provide for the appropriate development of wireless communications facilities within the PROW to meet the needs of residents, business-owners, and visitors while protecting public health and safety and preventing visual blight and degradation of the community’s aesthetic character and scenic vistas. 2. The procedures set forth in this section are intended to permit wireless communications facilities in the PROW that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, aesthetics or public safety. The procedures prescribed by this section are tailored to the type of wireless communication facility that is sought. Collocation of facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. 3. This section is not intended to, nor shall it be interpreted or applied to: a. Prohibit or effectively prohibit any wireless service provider’s ability to provide wireless communications services; b. Prohibit or effectively prohibit any entity’s ability to provide any interstate or intrastate wireless communications service, subject to any competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory rules, regulations or other legal requirements for rights-of-way management; c. Unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; d. Deny any request for authorization to place, construct or modify WCFs on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such WCFs comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions; e. Prohibit any collocation or modification that the City may not deny under federal or California State law; or f. Otherwise authorize the City to preempt any applicable federal or state law. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 2 4. Due to rapidly changing technology and regulatory requirements, and to further implement this section, the City Council may adopt written policies, rules, regulations and/or guidelines (collectively “Rules and Guidelines”) by resolution governing WCFs in the PROW, which may include but are not limited to, requirements related to applications, notices, review procedures, development and design standards, conditions, and operation and maintenance requirements. The Director may adopt policies, procedures and forms consistent with this section and any Council-adopted Rules and Guidelines, which shall be posted on the City’s website and maintained at the Department for review, inspection and copying by applicants and other interested members of the public. The City Council and the Director may update their rules, policies, procedures and forms in their discretion to adjust for new technologies, federal and/or state regulations, and/or to improve and adjust the City’s implementing regulatory procedures and requirements, and compliance therewith is a condition of approval in every wireless communications facility permit. B. Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following words and phrases have the meanings set forth below. Words and phrases not specifically defined in this section will be given their meaning ascribed to them in Section 6.10.010 or as otherwise provided in Section 6409(a), the Communications Act, or any applicable federal or state law or regulation. Administrative review: ministerial review of an application by the City relating to the review and issuance of a for a wireless communications facility permit (WCFP), including review by the Director of Public Works to determine whether the issuance of a WCFP is in conformity with the applicable provisions of this section. Application: any written submission to the City for the installation, construction or other deployment of a WCFP and related ministerial permits to obtain final approval of the deployment of a WCF at a specified location. Day: a calendar day, except as otherwise provided in this section. Rules and Guidelines: The policies, rules, guidelines, regulations and procedures adopted from time to time by resolution of the City Council to administer and implement this section. C. Applicability. 1. This section applies to the siting, construction or modification of any and all WCFs located or proposed to be located within the PROW as follows: a. All WCFs for which applications were not approved prior to the effective date of this section shall be subject to and comply with all provisions of this section. b. All WCFs for which applications were approved and permits issued by the City prior to the effective date of this section shall not be required to obtain a new or amended WCFP until such time as this section so requires. If a WCF was lawfully constructed or installed within the PROW in accordance with applicable local, state or federal regulations prior to the effective date of this section but does not comply with the current standards, regulations and/or Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 3 requirements of this section, such WCF shall be deemed a legal nonconforming facility and shall also be subject to the provisions of Section 6.10.070.Y. c. Any WCF proposed to be installed, modified or otherwise deployed on any existing utility structure (e.g., Southern California Edison or Southern California Gas Company) in the PROW, except as otherwise required by state or federal pole attachments rules or any other provision of federal and/or state law, subject to submittal of documentation establishing the applicable exemption; and provided further that such WCF shall comply with all other standards set forth in this chapter and the rules and guidelines, and shall obtain any related ministerial permit(s) (encroachment permit, excavation permit, or building permit) required in order to access and/or use the PROW. d. Any WCF proposed to be installed, modified or replaced on any City infrastructure located within the PROW, including but not limited to, any City-owned, leased or licensed pole, tower, base station, cabinet, structure, building, or facility of any kind. The City and an applicant may enter into a license, lease or other agreement in a form acceptable to the City, which includes, but is not limited to, terms relating to rent, inspection, operations and maintenance requirements, defense and indemnification, insurance requirements, waiver of monetary damages against the City, removal, restoration and clean-up requirements, and requirement for payment of any possessory interest taxes. Any such agreement shall not substitute for any permit required by this section or any other provision of this code. e. All WCFs, notwithstanding the date approved, shall be subject immediately to the provisions of this section governing operation and maintenance standards (Section 6.10.070.O), radio frequency emissions and other monitoring requirements (Section 6.10.070.P), the prohibition of dangerous conditions or obstructions (Section 6.10.070.Q), cessation of use and abandonment (Section 6.10.070.S), revocation or modification; removal (Section 6.10.070.T), effect on other ordinances (Section 6.10.070.V), and state or federal law (Section 6.10.070.W), and the rules and guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council. In the event a condition of approval conflicts with a provision of this section, the condition of approval shall control until the permit is amended or revoked. 2. Exemptions. This section does not apply to the following WCFs: a. A WCF that qualifies as an amateur station as defined by the FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 97, of the FCC’s Rules, or its successor regulation. b. Any antenna facility that is subject to the FCC Over-The-Air-Receiving Devices rule, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000, or its successor regulation, including, but not limited to, direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter in diameter, TV antennas used to receive television broadcast signals and wireless cable antennas. c. Portable radios and devices including, but not limited to, hand-held, vehicular, or other portable receivers, transmitters or transceivers, cellular phones, CB radios, emergency services radio, and other similar portable devices as determined by the Director. d. Any WCF owned, leased and/or operated by the City or any other governmental agency. e. Emergency medical care provider-owned and operated WCFs. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 4 f. Mobile services providing public information coverage of news events of a temporary nature. g. Any other WCF exempted from this code by federal law or state law, subject to submittal of documentation establishing the applicable exemption. h. Any WCF proposed to be installed, placed, modified or replaced on any City-owned or controlled infrastructure located outside the PROW, including but not limited to, any City-owned, leased or licensed street lights, traffic light poles, wires, fiber-optic strands, conduit, and any other City-owned or controlled poles, towers, base stations, cabinets, structures, buildings, or facility of any kind located outside the PROW. Such WCFs shall require a license, lease or other agreement in the form and terms required by the City from time to time, which shall include, but not be limited to, terms relating to permit requirements, rent, inspection, operations and maintenance requirements, defense and indemnification, insurance requirements, waiver of monetary damages against the City, removal, restoration and clean-up requirements, and requirement for payment of any possessory interest taxes; and any and all other permits required by this code. Any such agreement shall be in addition to, and shall not substitute for, any permit required by any provision of this code. i. Any WCF proposed to be installed, construed, modified, or replaced on any private property. (See Chapter 11.4.070) j. Request for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a). Any requests for approval to collocate, replace or remove transmission equipment at an existing wireless tower or base station submitted pursuant to Section 6409(a) will require an Eligible Facility Permit under Section 6.10.075 of this chapter. D. General Small Wireless Facility Permit Requirements. 1. Permit required. A SWF shall not be constructed, installed, modified, or replaced in the PROW except upon approval of a SWFP in accordance with the requirements of this section, or an EFP in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.10.075, and all related ministerial permits. 2. Conflicting provisions. An application for a SWFP shall be processed in compliance with this section and the Rules and Guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council, and any supplemental rules, regulations, procedures and forms adopted by the Director. Ministerial permits shall meet all requirements of this section and all other applicable provisions of this code, the Rules and Guidelines, and any such Director-adopted rules, regulations, policies and forms.. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this section and any other provision of this code, the Rules and Guidelines, and/or the Director- adopted provisions, the provisions of this section shall govern and control. 3. Permit type. Table identifies the type of permit required for each WCF and the approval authority. TABLE 6.10.070.D Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 5 Public Rights-of-Way Wireless Communications Facilities Required Permit Matrix TYPE OF FACILITY TYPE OF PERMIT APPROVAL AUTHORITY Small Wireless Facility (as defined in Section 6.10.010) Small Wireless Facility Permit (SWFP)1 Public Works Director or designee2 Eligible Facility (as defined in Section 6.10.010 and 6.10.075.B) Eligible Facility Permit (EFP)3 Public Works Director or designee2 Maintenance and repairs, including minor modifications and emergency maintenance and repairs4 Maintenance Encroachment Permit5 Public Works Director or designee Encroachment or excavation within or on public rights-of-way Encroachment Permit, Excavation Permit and/or Building Permit5 Public Works Director or designee 1 For small wireless facility requests and permit procedures, see Section 6.10.070.D.4. 2 Subject to public notice and review by the Director. See Section 6.10.070.F. 3 For eligible facility requests and procedures, see Section 6.10.075 of this chapter. 4 For definition of maintenance and repairs, and minor modifications, see Section 6.10.070.D.6. 5 For encroachment permits, see SBMC Sections 7.35.010.B.6 and 9.50.025; for excavation permits, see SBMC Chapter 9.15; and for building permits, see SBMC Chapter 9.60. 4. Small Wireless Facility Permit (SWFP). An SWFP, subject to the City’s determination of compliance with the applicable requirements of this section and the Rules and Guidelines may be issued by the Director or his or her designee following public notice and review under any of the following circumstances: a. The application is for installation of a new small wireless facility within the PROW, or the replacement of, or collocations on or modifications to an existing small wireless facility, within the PROW, that meets all of the following criteria: (i) The proposal complies with all applicable provisions in this section without need for an exception pursuant to Section 6.10.070.J; and (ii) The proposal is not located in any prohibited location identified in Section 6.10.070.G.4 or Section 6.10.070.J.5; or b. The application is for a subsequent collocation to be located on an existing legally established small wireless communications collocation facility within the PROW provided that all of the following conditions are met: (i) The existing collocation facility was approved after January 1, 2007 by discretionary permit; and (ii) The existing collocation facility was approved subject to an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration; and Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 6 (iii) The existing collocation facility otherwise complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 65850.6(b), for wireless communication collocation facilities or its successor provision, for addition of a collocation facility to a wireless communication collocation facility, including, but not limited to, compliance with all performance and maintenance requirements, regulations and standards in this section and the conditions of approval in the wireless communications collocation facility permit; (iv) Provided, however, only those collocations that were specifically considered when the relevant environmental document was prepared are permitted uses; (v) The collocated facility does not increase the height or location of the existing permitted tower/structure, or otherwise change the bulk, size, or other physical attributes of the existing permitted small wireless facility; and (vi) Before collocation, the applicant seeking collocation shall obtain all other applicable non-discretionary permit(s), as required pursuant to this code. c. The application shall meet the requirements of Section 6.10.070.E and the Rules and Guidelines. No public hearing shall be required. The Director shall review the application, pertinent information and documentation and public comments in accordance with Section 6.10.070.F. An application for a SWFP shall be approved if the Director makes all of the findings required by Section 6.10.070.I of this chapter. The Director’s decision shall be issued in writing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 6.10.070.F and the Rules and Guidelines. The Director may impose additional conditions on the permit relating to time, place and manner pursuant to Section 6.10.070.H. 5. Maintenance Encroachment Permit. Minor modifications to an existing SWF, including replacement with the in-kind, number size or with smaller or less visible equipment, that (a) meet the standards set forth in this section, (b) will have little or no change in the visual appearance of the SWF, and (c) do not increase the RF output of the SWF, are considered to be routine maintenance and repairs, and may be approved by an encroachment permit and without any public notice or public hearing, subject to compliance with all other requirements of this chapter and the Rules and Guidelines. Maintenance and repairs include but are not limited to those minor modifications that result from an emergency. The upgrade or any other replacement of existing facilities and all new antennas, structures, and other facilities, including but not limited to those resulting from an emergency, shall comply with the SWFP or EFP requirements of this chapter and the Rules and Guidelines. 6. Power generators. An exception approved by the Director pursuant to Section 6.10.070.H shall be required for any application for installation of a new small wireless facility within the PROW that includes a power generator, or the replacement of, or collocations on or modifications to an existing small wireless facility within the PROW that includes a power generator. 7. Eligible facilities. Unless specifically exempt by federal or state law, any application for the installation or modification of a WCF that constitutes an “eligible facilities request” within the meaning of Section 6409(a) shall require the approval of an Eligible Facility Permit (EFP) by the Director in accordance with Section 6.10.075 of this chapter and the rules and guidelines prior to deployment of the eligible facility. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 7 8. Other permits required. In addition to any permit that may be required under this section, the applicant must obtain all other required prior permits or other approvals from other City departments, or state or federal agencies. Any SWFP granted under this section shall also be subject to the conditions and/or requirements of all such other required City, state or federal prior permits or other approvals . 9. Eligible applicants. Only applicants who have been granted the right to enter the PROW pursuant to state or federal law, or who have entered into a franchise or license agreement with the City permitting them to use the PROW, shall be eligible to construct, install, modify or otherwise deploy a SWF in the PROW. 10. Speculative equipment or facilities prohibited. The City finds that the practice of “pre-approving” wireless communications equipment or other improvements that the applicant does not presently intend to install but may wish to install at some undetermined future time does not serve the public's best interest. The City shall not approve any equipment or other improvements in connection with a SWFP when the applicant does not actually and presently intend to install such equipment or construct such improvements. 11. Prohibited facilities. Any SWF that does not comply with the most current regulatory and operational standards and regulations (including, but not limited to RF emission standards) adopted by the FCC is prohibited. E. Application Requirements. An application for a SWF shall be filed and reviewed in accordance with the following provisions and the Rules and Guidelines, except as otherwise provided for eligible facilities in Section 6.10.075 (Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way: Eligible Facilities). 1. Complete application required. The applicant shall submit a SWFP application in writing to the Public Works Department on a City-approved form as prescribed by the Director, and shall submit all information, materials and documentation required by this section and the Rules and Guidelines and as otherwise determined to be necessary by the Director to effectuate the purpose and intent of this section. The Director may waive certain submittal requirements or require additional information based on specific project factors. Unless an exemption or waiver applies, all applications shall include all of the forms, information, materials and documentation required by the City. An application shall not be deemed complete by the City unless the completed City application form and all required information, materials and documentation have been submitted to the City. An application which does not include all required forms, information, materials and documentation required by this section and the Rules and Guidelines, shall be deemed incomplete, and a notice of incomplete application shall be provided to the applicant in accordance with Section 6.10.070.E.6. 2. Application fees. Concurrent with submittal of the application, the applicant shall pay an application fee and processing fee, a deposit for an independent expert review as set forth in this section, and a deposit for review by the City Attorney’s office, in a payment format accepted by the City Finance Department and in amounts set by resolution of the City Council. The amounts of such fees shall be fair and reasonable compensation for the applicant’s use of the PROW, and shall be competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory. Fees shall not exceed any maximum fees set by federal or state law except to the extent that such fees are (a) a reasonable approximation of costs, (b) those costs themselves are reasonable, and (c) are non- Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 8 discriminatory. Failure to pay the fees in full at the time of application submittal shall result in the City deeming the application incomplete. 3. Voluntary Pre-submittal Conference. Prior to application submittal, the applicant may schedule and attend a voluntary pre-submittal conference with the Public Works Department and Community Development Department staff for all proposed SWFs in the PROW, including all new or replacement WCFs, and all proposed collocations or modifications to any existing WCF. The purpose of the pre-submittal conference is to provide informal feedback on the proposed classification, review procedure, location, design and application materials, to identify potential concerns and to streamline the formal application review process after submittal. Participation in a voluntary pre-submittal conference shall not commence the shot clock (timeline for review) requirements under Section 6.10.070.E.6 of this chapter. 4. Appointments. The Director may require that an application shall be submitted only at a pre-arranged appointment in accordance with the Rules and Guidelines. The Director has the discretion to set the frequency and number of appointments that will be granted each day. The requirement for an appointment shall be published on the Department’s website. 5. Independent expert. The Director is authorized to retain on behalf of the City an independent, qualified consultant to review any application for a SWFP to review the technical aspects of the application, including but not limited to: the accuracy, adequacy, and completeness of submissions; compliance with applicable radio frequency emission standards; whether any requested exception is necessary; technical demonstration of the facility designs or configurations, technical feasibility; coverage analysis; the validity of conclusions reached or claims made by applicant; and other factors deemed appropriate by the Director to effectuate the purposes of this section. The cost of this review shall be paid by the applicant through a deposit pursuant to an adopted fee schedule resolution. 6. Shot Clocks: Timeline for review and action. The timeline for review of and action on a SWFP application shall begin to run when the application is submitted in writing to the Department but may be reset or tolled by mutual agreement or upon the City’s issuance of a notice of incomplete application to the applicant pursuant to Subsection E.7 of this Section. Applications shall be processed in conformance with the time periods and procedures established by applicable state and federal law, and FCC regulations and orders. The following provisions shall apply: a. Small Wireless Facilities Request – For review of an application for a SWFP, the City shall act upon the application in accordance with the following timing requirements. (i) 60 days -- For an application to collocate a Small Wireless Facility using an existing structure, the City will act upon the application within sixty (60) days from the Department’s receipt of the written application packet, unless the time period is re-set or tolled by mutual agreement or pursuant to Section 6.10.070.E.7. (ii) 90 days -- For an application to deploy a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure, the City will act upon the application within ninety (90) days from the Department’s receipt of the written application packet, unless the time period is re-set or tolled by mutual written agreement or pursuant to Section 6.10.070.E.7. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 9 b. Eligible Facilities Request -- For an eligible facilities request, the City will act on the application within sixty (60) days of the Department’s receipt of the written application packet, unless the time period is tolled by mutual written agreement or pursuant to Section 6.10.075.E.6 of this chapter. c. Batching. An applicant may submit a single application for authorization of multiple deployments of WCFs pursuant to this section. An application containing multiple deployments shall comply with the following timing requirements. (i) The deadline for the City to act upon the application shall be that for a single deployment within that category, (ii) 90 days: If a single application seeks authorization for multiple deployments of small wireless facilities, the components of which are a mix of deployments that fall within Section 6.10.070.E.6.a.i and deployments that fall within Section 6.10.070.E.6.a.ii, then the City shall act upon the application as a whole within 90 days, unless tolled or reset by mutual written agreement or pursuant to Section 6.10.070.E.7. 7. Resetting or Tolling of Shot Clock; Incomplete Application Notices. Unless a written agreement between the City and the applicant provides otherwise, in the event that Department staff determines that a permit application is incomplete because it does not contain all the information, materials and/or other documentation required by this section, Department staff may issue a notice of incomplete application to the applicant, and the shot clocks set forth above shall be re-set or tolled as set forth in this subsection. a. First Incomplete Notice -- Small Wireless Facility Resetting of Shot Clock. Department staff shall determine whether an application for a SWF is complete or incomplete within ten (10) days of the City's receipt of the initial application and shall notify the applicant in writing if the application is materially incomplete. The notice of incomplete application shall identify the specific missing information, materials and/or documents, and the ordinance, rule, statute or regulation creating the obligation to submit such information, materials and/or documents. The applicable shot clock date calculation set forth in Section 6.10.070.E.6.a.i or 6.10.070.E.6.a.ii shall re-start at zero on the date that the applicant submits all the information, materials and documents identified in the notice of incomplete application to render the application complete. b. Subsequent Incomplete Notices. For resubmitted applications following the initial notice of incomplete application under Section 6.10.070.E.7.a, Department staff will notify the applicant within ten (10) days of the City's receipt of the resubmitted application whether the supplemental submission is complete or incomplete, If the supplemental submission was incomplete, the notice shall specifically identify the missing information, materials, and/or documents that must be submitted based on the Department’s initial incomplete notice. In the case of any such subsequent notices of incomplete application, the applicable timeframe for review set forth in Section 6.10.070.E.6.a or Section 6.10.070.E.6.b shall be tolled from the day after the date the City issues the second or subsequent notice of incomplete application to the applicant until the applicant submits all the information, materials and documents identified by the City to render the application complete. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 10 c. One Submittal. The applicant's response and submission of supplemental materials and information in response to a notice of incomplete application must be given to the City in one submittal packet. d. Determination of shot clock date. (i) The shot clock date for a SWFP application is determined by counting forward, beginning on the day after the date when the application was submitted, by the number of days of the shot clock period identified pursuant to Section 6.10.070.E.6.a or 6.10.070.E.6.b. and including any pre-application period asserted by the City; provided, that if the date calculated in this manner is a holiday, the shot clock date is the next business day after such date. (ii) For purposes of this Subparagraph (d), the term “holiday” means any of the following: Saturday, Sunday, any holiday recognized by the City; and any other day recognized as a holiday by the FCC pursuant to any applicable federal regulations, orders or rulings of the FCC for the subject SWFP. (iii) For purposes of this Subparagraph (e), the term ““business day” means any day that is not a holiday, as defined in Subparagraph (iii). 8. Withdrawal; extensions of time. To promote efficient review and timely decisions, any application deemed incomplete must be resubmitted within one-hundred eighty (180) days after issuance of any notification of incompleteness, or the application shall be deemed automatically withdrawn. Following the applicant's request, the Director may in his or her discretion grant a one-time extension in processing time to resubmit, not to exceed 150 days. If the application is deemed automatically withdrawn (and any applicable extension period, if granted, has expired), a new application (including, fees, plans, exhibits, and other materials) shall be required in order to commence processing of the project. No refunds will be provided for withdrawn applications. 9. Leases, Licenses and Agreements for City Infrastructure or Property in the PROW. The City and an applicant may mutually agree to enter into a lease, license or other agreement for the applicant’s installation, modification or other deployment of a SWF on any City-owned infrastructure or other City property within the PROW. The proposed agreement may include multiple SWFs, as mutually agreed upon. The agreement shall be in addition to, and not a substitute, for any permit required by any provision of this code. An WCFP shall be required for all proposed facilities that are to be covered by an agreement between the City and the applicant. The agreement shall be fully executed by the City and applicant prior to the applicant’s submittal of any SWFP application under this section or any other provision of this code. In addition, all ministerial permits shall be obtained as a condition of the installation, construction or other deployment of any proposed SWF within the PROW. The shot clock provisions set forth in Section 6.10.070.E shall not apply during any negotiations for any such lease, license or other agreement. The shot clock provisions set forth in Section 6.10.070.E shall commence upon the date of submittal of an application for a SWFP for specific small wireless facility(ies) following the effective date of the lease, license or other agreement. F. Notice and Decision. Procedures for public notice, approval authority review of and action on WCFP applications are set forth in this subsection and in the Rules and Guidelines. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 11 1. Public notice of application. Upon submittal of a complete SWFP application to the City, the applicant shall send the City-approved public notice of the application to all businesses and residents within a 150-foot radius of the proposed SWF in accordance with the Rules and Guidelines. Concurrently with service on the businesses and residents, the applicant shall also send a copy of the approved public notice to the Department along with proof of service of the public notice on all residents and businesses as required by this subsection. 2. Public comment. Within ten (10) days from service of the notice, any interested person may submit comments on the proposed SWF to the City by U.S. Mail or through the City’s website. Any timely public comments received will be considered during the Director’s review of the application. 3. Director decision on SWFP applications. a. Director review, decision and notice. Upon receipt of a complete application for a SWFP pursuant to this section, the Director or his/her designee shall carry out administrative review of the application and all pertinent information, materials, documentation and public comments. The Director may approve, or conditionally approve an application for a SWFP only after the Director makes all of the findings required in Section 6.10.070.I. The Director may impose conditions in accordance with Section 6.10.070.H. Within five days after the Director approves or conditionally approves an application under this section, the Director shall issue a written determination letter, and shall serve a copy of the determination letter on the applicant at the address shown in the application and shall cause the determination letter to be published on the City’s website. b. Conditional approvals. Subject to any applicable limitations in federal or state law, and in addition to the standard conditions of approval required by Section 6.10.070.H, nothing in this section is intended to limit the City’s authority to conditionally approve an application for a SWFP to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare in accordance with this section and the rules and guidelines. c. Final decision. The Director’s decision on an application for a SWFP shall be final and conclusive and not be appealable to the City Council. G. Design, Aesthetic and Development Standards. In order to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, protect public safety and natural, cultural, and scenic resources, preserve and enhance the character of residential neighborhoods and promote attractive nonresidential areas, in addition to all other applicable requirements of this code, all SWFs in the PROW shall be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the following standards set forth in this subsection and in the Rules and Guidelines, unless the Director approves an exception subject to the findings required by Subsection J: Exceptions. 1. General requirements. All SWFs that are located within the PROW shall be designed and maintained as to minimize visual clutter, and reduce noise and other impacts on and conflicts with the surrounding community in accordance with the code and Rules and Guidelines. 2. Traffic safety. All SWFs shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on traffic safety, and shall comply with the most recent edition of the Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 12 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and any other traffic control rules, regulations or ordinances of the City. 3. Space occupied. Each SWF shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible. 4. Location. a. The preferred location for a SWF shall be on existing infrastructure such as utility poles or street lights. The infrastructure selected shall be located at alleys, streets and/or near property line prolongations. If the SWF is not able to be placed on existing infrastructure, the applicant shall provide a map of existing infrastructure in the service area and describe why each such site was not technically feasible, in addition to all other application requirements of this section. b. No SWF shall be located within six (6) feet of the living area of any residential dwelling unit. As used herein, the term “living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including but not limited to bedrooms, windows, basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. The 6-foot distance shall be measured from the dwelling unit’s outer wall located nearest to the proposed SWF. c. No SWF shall be located within the PROW or any poles, infrastructure, buildings or other structures of any kind in the PROW, in any of the following locations or sites: (i) On the Seal Beach Pier, or any decorative lighting or poles on the Seal Beach Pier; (ii) On any decorative lighting or poles on Main Street from and including Pacific Coast Highway to the Seal Beach Pier; or (iii) On Electric Avenue between Marina to Ocean (including but not limited to within the parkway, greenbelt, bike path or any other PROW within Electric Avenue), except in the following locations: (aa) On the north side of the PROW adjacent to the westbound lanes of Electric Avenue; or (bb) On the south side of the PROW adjacent to the eastbound lanes of Electric Avenue. The permissible locations for SWFs on the PROW along Electric Avenue are shown on the Site Diagram contained in Table 6.10.070.G.4.c. as follows: TABLE 6.10.070.G.4.c Electric Avenue -- Permissible Locations for WCFs Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 13 (iv) On any decorative lighting or decorative poles located within any other PROW in the City. d. Each component part of a SWF shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, inconvenience to the public’s use of the PROW, or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists, or interference with any path of travel or other disability access requirements imposed under federal or state law. e. A SWF shall not be located within any portion of the PROW in a manner that interferes with access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public health and safety facility. f. Any SWFs mounted to a communications tower, above-ground accessory equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall have and maintain a minimum setback of 18 inches from the front of a curb. g. To conceal the non-antenna equipment, applicants shall install all non- antenna equipment (including but not limited to all cables) underground to the extent technically feasible. If such non-antenna equipment is proposed in within an underground utility district and the type of non-antenna equipment has been exempted by the City Council from undergrounding pursuant to Section 9.55.015.B.6 of Chapter 9.55 of the code, the non-antenna equipment shall comply with the requirements of this section if the Director finds that such undergrounding is technically feasible and undergrounding is required for building, traffic, emergency, disability access, or other safety requirements. Additional expense to install and maintain an underground equipment enclosure does not exempt an applicant from this requirement, except where the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that this requirement will effectively prohibit the provision of wireless communications services. 5. Concealment or Stealth Elements. Stealth or concealment elements may include, but are not limited to: a. Radio frequency transparent screening; b. Approved, specific colors; Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 14 c. Minimizing the size of the site; d. Integrating the installation into existing utility infrastructure; e. Installing new infrastructure that matches existing infrastructure in the area surrounding the proposed site. The new infrastructure is then dedicated to the city and the installation is integrated into the new infrastructure; and f. Controlling the installation location pursuant to Subsection G.4 of this section. 6. Collocation. The applicant and owner of any site on which a SWF is located shall cooperate and exercise good faith in collocating SWFs on the same support structures or site. Good faith shall include sharing technical information to evaluate the feasibility of collocation, and may include negotiations for erection of a replacement support structure to accommodate collocation. A competitive conflict to collocation or financial burden caused by sharing information normally will not be considered as an excuse to the duty of good faith. a. All SWFs shall make available unused space for collocation of other WCFs, including space for these entities providing similar, competing services. Collocation is not required if the host facility can demonstrate that the addition of the new service or facilities would impair existing service or cause the host to go offline for a significant period of time. In the event a dispute arises as to whether a permittee has exercised good faith in accommodating other users, the Director may require the applicant to obtain a third-party technical study at applicant’s expense. The Director may review any information submitted by applicant and permittee(s) in determining whether good faith has been exercised. b. All collocated and multiple-user SWFs shall be designed to promote facility and site sharing. Communication towers and necessary appurtenances, including but not limited to parking areas, access roads, utilities and equipment buildings, shall be shared by site users whenever possible. c. No collocation may be required where it can be shown that the shared use would or does result in significant interference in the broadcast or reception capabilities of the existing WCFs or failure of the existing facilities to meet federal standards for emissions. d. When antennas are co-located, the Director may limit the number of antennas with related equipment to be located at any one site by any provider to prevent negative visual impacts. e. Failure to comply with collocation requirements when feasible or cooperate in good faith as provided for in this section is grounds for denial of a permit request or revocation of an existing permit. 7. Radio frequency standards; noise. a. SWFs shall comply with federal standards for radio frequency (RF) emissions and interference. No SWF or combination of facilities shall at any time produce power densities that exceed the FCC’s limits for electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters or operate in a manner that will degrade or interfere with existing Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 15 communications systems as stipulated by federal law. Failure to meet federal standards may result in termination or modification of the permit. b. SWFs and any related equipment, including backup generators and air conditioning units, shall not generate continuous noise in excess of 40 decibels (dBa) measured at the property line of any adjacent residential property, and shall not generate continuous noise in excess of 50 dBa during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 40 dBa during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. measured at the property line of any nonresidential adjacent property. Backup generators shall only be operated during power outages and for testing and maintenance purposes. Testing and maintenance shall only take place on weekdays between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 8. Additional standards. Consistent with federal and state laws and regulations, the City Council may further establish design and development standards pursuant to rules and guidelines, including but not limited to, relating to antennas, new, existing and replacement poles, wind loads, obstructions, supporting structures, screening, accessory equipment, landscaping, signage, lighting, security and fire prevention. 9. Modification. To the extent authorized by state and federal laws and regulations, at the time of modification of a SWF, existing equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts, including, but not limited to undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. H. Standard Conditions of Approval. All SWFP approvals, whether approved by the approval authority or deemed approved by the operation of law, shall be automatically subject to the conditions in this subsection, in addition to any conditions imposed by the approval authority pursuant to this section and the rules and guidelines. The approval authority shall have discretion to modify or amend these conditions on a case-by-case basis as may be necessary or appropriate under the circumstances to protect public health and safety or allow for the proper operation of the approved eligible facility consistent with the goals of this section. 1. Permit term. A SWFP shall be valid for a period of ten (10) years, unless it is revoked sooner in accordance with this section or pursuant to any other provision of federal or state law that authorizes the City to issue a SWFP with a shorter term, or such SWFP is extended pursuant to Section 6.10.070.R. At the end of the term, the SWFP shall automatically expire. Any other permits or approvals issued in connection with any collocation, modification or other change to the SWF, which includes without limitation any permits or other approvals deemed-granted or deemed-approved under federal or state law, will not extend the ten-year term limit unless expressly provided otherwise in such permit or approval or required under federal or state law. 2. Strict compliance with approved plans. Any application filed by the permittee for a ministerial permit to construct or install the SWF approved by a SWFP must incorporate the SWFP approval, all conditions associated with the SWFP approval and the approved photo simulations into the project plans (the “approved plans”). The permittee must construct, install and operate the WCF in strict compliance with the approved plans. Any alterations, modifications or other changes to the approved plans, whether requested by the permittee or required by other departments or public agencies with jurisdiction over the SWF, must be submitted in a written request subject to the Director’s prior review and approval. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 16 3. Build-out period. The SWFP approval will automatically expire one year from the SWFP approval or deemed-granted date unless the permittee obtains all other permits and approvals required to install, construct and/or operate the approved SWF under this code, and any other permits or approvals required by any federal, state or other local public agencies with jurisdiction over the subject property, the eligible facility or its use. The Director may grant one written extension to a date certain when the permittee shows good cause to extend the limitations period in a written request for an extension submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the automatic expiration date in this condition. 4. Maintenance obligations – vandalism. The permittee shall keep the site, which includes without limitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, fences and landscape features, in a neat, clean and safe condition in accordance with the approved plans and all conditions in the SWFP. The permittee shall keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all times. The permittee, at no cost to the city, shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other vandalism at the site within 48 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti or other vandalism occurred. Each year after the permittee installs the SWF, the permittee shall submit a written report to the Director, in a form acceptable to the Director, that documents the then-current site condition. 5. Property maintenance. The permittee shall ensure that all equipment and other improvements to be constructed and/or installed in connection with the approved plans are maintained in a manner that is not detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare and that the aesthetic appearance is continuously preserved, and substantially the same as shown in the approved plans at all times relevant to the SWFP. The permittee further acknowledges that failure to maintain compliance with this condition may result in a code enforcement action. 6. Compliance with laws. The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law (“Governing Laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the SWF and any use or activities in connection with the use authorized in the WCFP, which includes without limitation any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all Governing Laws. In the event that the City fails to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance with any applicable provision in the Seal Beach Municipal Code, any permit, any permit condition or any Governing Laws, the applicant or permittee will not be relieved from its obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable provisions in the Code, any permit, any permit condition or any Governing Laws. 7. Adverse impacts on other properties. The permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to avoid any and all undue or unnecessary adverse impacts on nearby properties that may arise from the permittee’s or its authorized personnel’s construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal and/or other activities at the site. Impacts of radio frequency emissions on the environment, to the extent that such emissions are compliant with all Governing Laws, are not “adverse impacts” for the purposes of this condition. The permittee shall not perform or cause others to perform any construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal or other work that involves heavy equipment or machines except during normal construction hours authorized by the Code. The restricted work hours in this condition will not prohibit any work required to prevent an actual, immediate harm Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 17 to property or persons, or any work during an emergency declared by the City. The Director or the Director’s designee may issue a stop work order for any activities that violate this condition. 8. Inspections – emergencies. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City’s officers, officials, staff or other designee may enter onto the site and inspect the improvements and equipment upon reasonable prior notice to the permittee; provided, however, that the City’s officers, officials, staff or other designee may, but will not be obligated to, enter onto the site area without prior notice to support, repair, disable or remove any improvements or equipment in emergencies or when such improvements or equipment threatens actual, imminent harm to property or persons. The permittee will be permitted to supervise the City’s officers, officials, staff or other designee while any such inspection or emergency access occurs to the extent not inconsistent with City requirements. 9. Permittee’s contact information. The permittee shall furnish the Director with accurate and up-to-date contact information for a person responsible for the SWF, which includes without limitation such person’s full name, title, direct telephone number, facsimile number, mailing address and email address. The permittee shall keep such contact information up-to-date at all times and immediately provide the Director with updated contact information in the event that either the responsible person or such person’s contact information changes. 10. Insurance. The permittee shall obtain, pay for and maintain, in full force and effect until the SWF approved by the permit is removed in its entirety from the PROW, an insurance policy or policies of public liability insurance which shall be in the form and substance satisfactory to the City, and shall be maintained until the term of the permit ended and the WCF is removed from the PROW. The insurance shall comply with the minimum limits and coverages and provisions set forth in the rules and guidelines, and as otherwise established from time to time by the City, and which fully protect the City from claims and suits for bodily injury, death, and property damage. 11. Indemnification. a. The permittee shall agree in writing to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, boards, commissions, agents, consultants, employees, volunteers and independent contractors serving as City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”), from and against any and all claims, actions, or proceeding against the Indemnitees or any of them, to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the Director or City Council concerning the permit and the construction, operation, maintenance and/or repair of the SWF. Such indemnification shall include damages, judgments, settlements, penalties, fines, defensive costs or expenses, including, but not limited to, interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind related to or arising from such claim, action, or proceeding. The permittee shall also agree not to sue or seek any money or damages from the City in connection with the grant of the permit and also agree to abide by the City’s ordinances and other laws. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit City from participating in a defense of any claim, action or proceeding. The City shall have the option of coordinating the defense, including, but not limited to, choosing counsel for the defense at the permittee’s expense. b. Additionally, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the permittee, and every permittee and person in a shared permit, jointly and severally, shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, boards, commissions, Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 18 agents, consultants, employees and volunteers harmless from and against all claims, suits, demands, actions, losses, liabilities, judgments, settlements, costs (including, but not limited to, attorney's fees, interest and expert witness fees), or damages claimed by third parties against the City for any injury claim, and for property damage sustained by any person, arising out of, resulting from, or are in any way related to the SWF, or to any work done by or use of the PROW by the permittee, owner or operator of the SWF, or their agents, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, boards, commissions, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers and independent contractors serving as City officials. 12. Performance security. Prior to issuance of any SWFP, the permittee shall pay for and provide a performance bond or other form of security that complies with the following minimum requirements. a. The security shall be in effect until the SWF is fully and completely removed and the site reasonably returned to its original condition, to cover the removal costs of the WCF in the event that use of the SWF is abandoned or the approval is otherwise terminated. b. The security shall be in a format and amount approved by the Director and City Attorney’s office. The amount of security shall be as determined by the Director to be necessary to ensure proper completion of the applicant’s removal obligations. In establishing the amount of the security, the Director shall take into consideration information provided by the applicant regarding the cost of removal. The amount of the security instrument shall be calculated by the applicant as part of its application in an amount rationally related to the obligations covered by the security instrument. The permittee shall be required to submit the approved security instrument to the Director prior to issuance of any SWFP for the proposed facility. c. Security shall always be imposed if the SWF is located in a PROW adjacent to any residentially zoned property or residential uses. 13. Acceptance of conditions. The SWFP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City “Acceptance of Conditions” form, in a form approved by the City Attorney’s office, has been signed and notarized by the applicant/permittee before being returned to the Director within ten (10) days after the determination letter has been served on the applicant and published on the City’s website in accordance with Section 6.10.070.G.3.a. The permit shall be void and of no force or effect unless such written agreement is received by the City within said ten-day period. I. Findings on Small Wireless Facility Permit Applications. No permit shall be granted for a SWFP unless all of the following findings are made by the Director: 1. General Findings. The Director may approve or approve with conditions any SWFP required under this section only after making all of the following findings: a. All notices required for the proposed deployment have been given by the applicant. b. The applicant has provided substantial written evidence supporting the applicant’s claim that it has the right to enter and use the PROW pursuant to state or federal Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 19 law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise or other agreement with the City permitting them to enter and use the PROW. c. The applicant has demonstrated that the SWF complies with all applicable design, aesthetic and development standards and will not interfere with access to or the use of the PROW, existing subterranean infrastructure, or the City’s plans for modification or use of such PROW location and infrastructure. d. The applicant has demonstrated that the SWF will not cause any interference with emergency operations, as evidenced by competent evidence. e. The proposed SWF’s impacts have been mitigated through the use of stealth and concealment elements in accordance with the requirements of this section and the rules and guidelines. f. The proposed SWF complies with all federal RF emissions standards and all other requirements of any federal and/or state agency. g. The proposed SWF conforms with all applicable provisions of this section and federal and state law. h. The findings required by this Subsection shall be in addition to any other findings required for approval of a ministerial permit under this code. 2. Additional findings for SWFs not collocated. To approve a wireless telecommunications antenna that is not collocated with other existing or proposed WCFs or a new or replacement ground-mounted antenna, monopole, or lattice tower, the Director shall be required to also find that collocation or siting on an existing structure is not feasible because of technical, aesthetic, or legal consideration including that such siting: a. Would have more significant adverse effects on views or other environmental considerations; b. Would impair the quality of service to the existing WCF; or c. Would require existing WCFs at the same location to go off-line for a significant period of time. J. Exceptions; Director Findings. 1. General requirements. An exception from the strict locational, physical, or design, or development requirements of Section 6.10.070.G, or as provided in the Rules and Guidelines, may be granted by the Director in his/her discretion, when it is shown to the Director’s satisfaction, based on substantial evidence, any of the following: a. Because of special, unique circumstances applicable to the proposed location and/or the proposed WCF, the strict application of the requirements of the section would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other permittees in the vicinity operating a similar WCF; or b. Denial of the SWF as proposed would violate federal law, state law, or both; or Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 20 c. A provision of this section, as applied to applicant, would deprive applicant of its rights under federal law, state law, or both. 2. Application requirements. An applicant may only request an exception at the time of applying for a SWFP. The request must include both the specific provision(s) of this section from which the exception is sought and the basis of the request. Any request for an exception after the City has deemed an application complete shall be treated as a new application. 3. Burden. The applicant shall have the burden of establishing the basis for any requested exception. 4. Scope; Conditions. The Director shall limit its exception to the extent to which the applicant demonstrates such an exception is necessary to reasonably achieve its reasonable technical service objectives. In addition to the standard conditions of approval pursuant to Section 6.10.070.H, the Director may adopt other conditions of approval as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other wireless providers seeking to locate any WCF in the area where such property is situated and that are reasonably necessary to promote the purposes in this section and protect the public health, safety and welfare. 5 Prohibited locations; no exception. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, SWFs are prohibited in any of the following locations, and no exception shall be granted by the Director: a. Any location or site within a PROW for which approval cannot be obtained from the NWS. b. Any location or site within a PROW for which approval cannot be obtained by any other federal or state agency with jurisdiction over the proposed SWF. K. Reserved. L. Nonexclusive Grant. No permit or approval granted under this section shall confer any exclusive right, privilege, license or franchise to occupy or use the PROW of the city for any purpose whatsoever. Further, no approval shall be construed as any warranty of title. M. Business License. A SWFP issued pursuant to this section shall not be a substitute for any business license otherwise required under this code. N. Temporary Small Wireless Facilities 1. Emergency deployment. In the event of a declared federal, state, or local emergency, or when otherwise warranted by conditions that the Director deems to constitute an emergency, the Director may approve the installation and operation of a temporary small wireless facility, subject to such reasonable conditions that the Director deems necessary. 2. Exclusions; removal. A temporary small wireless facility shall not be permitted for maintenance activities or while awaiting an expected entitlement or pending plan review, and the allowance of a temporary small wireless facility during an emergency shall not be considered to establish a permanent use of such a facility after the emergency has ended, as Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 21 declared by the City Manager or other appropriate federal, state, or local official. Any temporary small wireless facilities placed pursuant to this Subsection N must be removed within five days after the date the emergency is lifted. Any person or entity that places temporary small wireless facilities pursuant to this Subsection must send a written notice that identifies the site location and person responsible for its operation to the Director as soon as reasonably practicable. O. Operation and Maintenance Standards. All SWFs must comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standards and other standards set forth in the rules and guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council. 1. Each SWF shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of approval. Each owner or operator of a SWF shall routinely inspect each site to ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in this section. 2. No SWF shall be operated and maintained in any manner that causes any interference with any emergency operations of the City and any other public agency. 3. Each SWF shall be operated and maintained in compliance with all local, federal and state laws and regulations. P. Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions and Other Monitoring Requirements. 1. The permittee, owner and operator of a SWF shall submit within ninety days of beginning operations under a new or amended permit, and every five years from the date the SWF began operations, a technically sufficient report (“monitoring report”) that demonstrates all of the following: a. The SWF is in compliance with all applicable federal regulations, including the FCC’s RF emissions standards as certified by a qualified radio frequency emissions engineer; and b. The SWF is in compliance with all provisions of this section and the City’s conditions of approval. Q. No Dangerous Condition or Obstructions Allowed. No person shall install, use or maintain any SWF which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any PROW, when such installation, use or maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such SWF unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location. R. Permit Extension. 1. Time of application. A permittee may apply for extensions of its SWFP in increments of no more than ten years and no sooner than 180 days (six months) prior to expiration of the permit. Any request for an extension that is filed less than 180 days (six months) prior to expiration shall require a new permit in accordance with the application and procedural requirements of the then-current requirements of this code. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 22 2. Application requirements. In addition to all other requirements of this section and the Rules and Guidelines, the permittee’s application for extension shall include proof that the permittee continues to have the legal authority to occupy and use the PROW for the purpose set forth in its SWFP, that the SWF site as it exists at the time of the extension application is in full compliance with all applicable City permits issued for the site, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit and supporting documentation that the SWF is in compliance with all applicable FCC and NWS and other governmental regulations. At the Director’s discretion, additional studies and information may be required of the applicant. The application shall be accompanied by the fee for renewal, as set by the City Council from time to time. Grounds for non-renewal of the SWFP shall include, but are not limited to, the permittee’s failure to submit the affidavit or proof of legal authority to occupy or use the PROW. The burden is on the permittee to demonstrate that the SWF complies with all requirements for an extension. 3. Director decision. If a SWFP has not expired at the time a timely application is made for an extension, the Director may administratively extend the term of the SWFP for subsequent ten-year terms upon verification of continued compliance with the findings and conditions of approval under which the application was originally approved, all provisions set forth in Subsection R.2. above, and any other applicable provisions of this code that are in effect at the time the permit extension is granted. The Director’s decision shall be issued in the form of a written determination letter in accordance with Section 6.10.070.F.3. The Director’s decision on an application for a SWFP shall be final and conclusive and not be appealable to the City Council. S. Cessation of Use or Abandonment. 1. A SWF or wireless communications collocation facility is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided herein if it ceases to provide wireless communications services for ninety (90) or more consecutive days. If there are two or more users of a single facility, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the facility. 2. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including an unpermitted site) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the operator of the SWF shall provide written notice to the Director of any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more. 3. Failure to inform the Director of cessation or discontinuation of operations of any existing SWF as required by this Subsection shall constitute a violation of any approvals and be grounds for enforcement pursuant to Subsection T. T. Revocation or Modification; Removal. 1. Revocation or modification of SWFP. The Director may modify or revoke any SWFP if the operation or maintenance of the SWF violates any of the permit’s terms or conditions, this section or any other ordinance or law in accordance with the following procedures. a. When the Director has reason to believe that grounds exist for the modification or revocation of a SWF, he/she shall give written notice by certified mail thereof to Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 23 the permittee setting forth a statement of the facts and grounds. The permittee shall have not less than ten (10) days to submit a written response and supporting documentation to the Director prior to the Director’s decision. The Director’s decision shall be issued in writing, and shall be posted on the City’s website in accordance with the procedures set out in Section 6.10.070.F.3.a. b. The Director may revoke or modify the SWFP if he/she makes any of the following findings: (i) The SWFP has expired as provided for in Subsection R: Permit Expiration. (ii) The SWF has been abandoned as provided in Subsection S: Cessation of Use or Abandonment. (iii) The permittee has failed to comply with one or more of the conditions of approval, this section or any other provision of this code. (iv) The SWF has been substantially changed in character or substantially expanded beyond the approval set forth in the permit. c. If the Director determines that modification of the SWFP is warranted, he/she may impose any revised or new conditions that he/she deems appropriate based on his/her other findings. d. Decisions of the Director to modify or revoke a SWF shall be subject to the administrative review procedure of Chapter 1.20 of this code. The City Manager shall be the hearing officer for purposes of such procedure and may not delegate such responsibility. The City Manager’s administrative review decision shall be final and shall not be subject to City Council review pursuant to Chapter 1.20 of this code. 2. Permittee’s removal obligation. Upon the expiration date of the SWFP, including any extensions, earlier termination or revocation of the SWFP or abandonment of the SWF, the SWFP shall become null and void, and the permittee, owner or operator shall completely remove its SWF or wireless communications collocation facility. Removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City. The SWF or wireless communications collocation facility shall be removed from the property within 30 days, at no cost or expense to the City. If the SWF or wireless communications collocation facility is located on another SWF or other private property, the private property owner shall also be independently responsible for the expense of timely removal and restoration. 3. Failure to remove. Failure of the permittee, owner, or operator to promptly remove its SWF wireless communications collocation facility and restore the property within 30 days after expiration, earlier termination, or revocation of the SWFP, or abandonment of the SWF or wireless communications collocation facility, shall be a violation of this code, and be grounds for: a. Prosecution; Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 24 b. Calling of any bond or other assurance required by this section or conditions of approval of permit; c. Removal of the SWF or wireless communications collocation facility by the City in accordance with the procedures established under this code for abatement of a public nuisance at the owner’s expense; and/or d. Any other remedies permitted under this code. 4. Summary removal. In the event the Director determines that the condition or placement of a SWF or wireless communications collocation facility located in the PROW constitutes a dangerous condition, obstruction of the PROW, or an imminent threat to public safety, or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate corrective action (collectively, “exigent circumstances”), the Director may cause the SWF or wireless communications collocation facility to be removed summarily and immediately without advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall be served upon the person who owns the SWF or wireless communications collocation facility within five business days of removal and all property removed shall be preserved for the owner’s pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be identified following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property within 60 days, the SWF or wireless communications collocation facility shall be treated as abandoned property. 5. Removal of facilities by City. In the event the City removes a SWF or wireless communications collocation facility in accordance with nuisance abatement procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any liability to the City for any damage to such WCF or wireless communications collocation facility that may result from reasonable efforts of removal. In addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance abatement, the City may collect such costs from the performance bond posted and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the performance bond, collect those excess costs in accordance with this code. Unless otherwise provided herein, the City has no obligation to store such SWF or wireless communications collocation facility. Neither the permittee nor the owner nor operator shall have any claim if the City destroys any such SWF or wireless communications collocation facility not timely removed by the permittee, owner, or operator after notice, or removed by the City due to exigent circumstances. 6. Non-exclusive remedies. Each and every remedy available for the enforcement of this section shall be non-exclusive and it is within the discretion of the authorized inspector or enforcing attorney to seek cumulative remedies set forth in this code, except that multiple monetary fines or penalties shall not be available for any single violation of this section. U. Deemed Granted. In the event that a SWFP application is deemed granted by rule of federal or state law, all conditions, development and design standards, and operations and maintenance requirements imposed by this section and any rules and guidelines are still applicable and required for the installation. V. Effect on Other Ordinances; Conflicting Code Provisions Superseded. 1. Compliance with the provisions of this section shall not relieve a person from complying with any other applicable provision of this code. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 25 2. The provisions of this section shall govern and supersede any conflicting provisions of the code with respect to the permitting and regulation of wireless communications facilities in the public right-of-way. W. State or Federal Law. 1. In the event it is determined by the City Attorney that state or federal law prohibits discretionary permitting requirements for certain SWFs, such requirement shall be deemed severable and all remaining regulations shall remain in full force and effect. Such a determination by the City Attorney shall be in writing with citations to legal authority and shall be a public record. For those WCFs, in lieu of a SWFP, a ministerial wireless facilities permit shall be required prior to installation or modification of a SWF, and all provisions of this section shall be applicable to any such facility with the exception that the required permit shall be reviewed and administered as a ministerial permit by the Director rather than as a discretionary permit. Any conditions of approval set forth in this section or the rules and guidelines, or deemed necessary by the Director, shall be imposed and administered as reasonable time, place and manner rules. 2. If subsequent to the issuance of the City Attorney’s written determination pursuant to Subsection 6.10.070.W.1, above, the City Attorney determines that the law has changed and that discretionary permitting is permissible, the City Attorney shall issue such determination in writing with citations to legal authority and all discretionary permitting requirements shall be reinstated. The City Attorney’s written determination shall be a public record. 3. All SWFs shall be built in compliance with all federal and state laws including but not limited to the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). 4. Changes in law. All SWFs shall meet the current standards and regulations of the FCC, the CPUC and any other agency of the federal or State government with the authority to regulate wireless communications providers and/or WCFs. If such standards and/or regulations are changed, the permittee and/or wireless communications provider shall bring its SWF into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within ninety (90) days of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a more stringent compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling federal or state agency. Failure to bring SWFs into compliance with any revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the immediate removal of such facilities at the permittee and/or wireless communications provider's expense. X. Nonconforming Small Wireless Communications Facilities. 1. A legal nonconforming SWF is a facility that was lawfully constructed, installed, or otherwise deployed in the PROW prior to the effective date of this section in compliance with all applicable City, state and federal laws and regulations, and which facility does not conform to the requirements of this section. 2. Legal nonconforming SWFs shall comply at all times with the City, state and federal laws, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time the application was deemed complete, and any applicable federal or state laws as they may be amended or enacted from time to time, and shall at all times comply with the conditions of approval. Any legal Ordinance 1677 Exhibit A - Page 26 nonconforming facility which fails to comply with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations or the conditions of approval may be required to conform to the provisions of this section. 3. Modifications to legal nonconforming SWFs may be permitted under the following circumstances. a. Ordinary maintenance may be performed on a legal nonconforming facility. b. Modifications may be made to an eligible facility, to the extent expressly required by Section 6409(a). 4. Any nonconforming SWF that was not lawfully installed, constructed or otherwise deployed in the PROW in violation of any applicable ordinances, laws or regulations in effect at the time of its deployment is an illegal use and shall be subject to abatement as a public nuisance in accordance with the code and/or any other applicable federal and/or state laws, and the owner thereof shall subject to all civil and criminal remedies provided by the code and law. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 27 CC 1-28-19 2259203 EXHIBIT “B” CITY OF SEAL BEACH ORDINANCE 1677 NEW SECTION 6.10.075 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY -- ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUESTS “6.10.075 Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way -- Eligible Facilities Requests. A. Purpose and Intent. 1. Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, codified as 47 U.S.C. Section 1455(a) (“Section 6409(a)”), generally requires that state and local governments “may not deny, and shall approve” requests to collocate, remove or replace transmission equipment at an existing tower or base station. Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) regulations interpret this statute and establish procedural rules for local review, which generally preempt certain subjective land-use regulations, limit permit application content requirements and provide the applicant with a potential “deemed- granted” remedy when the state or local government fails to approve or deny the request within sixty (60) days after submittal (accounting for any tolling periods). Moreover, whereas Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, codified as 47 U.S.C. Section 332, applies to only “personal wireless service facilities” (e.g., cellular telephone towers and equipment), Section 6409(a) applies to all “wireless” facilities licensed or authorized by the FCC (e.g., cellular, Wi-Fi, satellite, microwave backhaul, etc.). 2. The City Council finds that the overlap between wireless deployments covered under Section 6409 and other wireless deployments, combined with the different substantive and procedural rules applicable to such deployments, creates a potential for confusion that harms the public interest in both efficient wireless facilities deployment and carefully planned community development in accordance with local values. The City Council further finds that a separate permit application and review process specifically designed for compliance with Section 6409(a) contained in a section devoted to Section 6409(a) will mitigate such potential confusion, streamline local review and preserve the city’s land-use authority to maximum extent possible. 3. This Section establishes reasonable and uniform standards and procedures in a manner that protects and promotes the public health, safety and welfare, consistent with and subject to federal and California State law, for wireless facilities collocations and modifications pursuant to Section 6409(a), and related FCC regulations codified in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100 et seq. or any successor regulation. This section is not intended to, nor shall it be interpreted or applied to: a. Prohibit or effectively prohibit any wireless service provider’s ability to provide wireless communications services; b. Prohibit or effectively prohibit any entity’s ability to provide any interstate or intrastate wireless communications service, subject to any competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory rules, regulations or other legal requirements for rights-of-way management; Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 28 c. Unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; d. Deny any request for authorization to place, construct or modify WCFs on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such WCFs comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions; e. Prohibit any collocation or modification that the City may not deny under federal or California State law; or f. Otherwise authorize the City to preempt any applicable federal or state law. 4. Due to rapidly changing technology and regulatory requirements, and to further implement this section, the City Council may adopt written policies, rules, regulations and guidelines by resolution to further implement and administer this section, which may include but are not limited to, provisions addressing applications and the application review process, notices, location, development and design standards, conditions, and operations and maintenance requirements for eligible facilities. The Director may adopt policies, procedures and forms consistent with this section and any Council-adopted Rules and Guidelines, which such Director-adopted provisions shall be posted on the City’s website and maintained at the Department for review, inspection and copying by applicants and other interested members of the public. The City Council and the Director may update their rules, policies, procedures and forms in their discretion to adjust for new technologies, federal and/or state regulations, and/or to improve and adjust the City’s implementing regulatory procedures and requirements, and compliance therewith is a condition of approval in every eligible facility permit. B. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases have the meanings set forth below. Words and phrases not specifically defined in this section will be given their meaning ascribed to them in Section 6.10.070 of this chapter or as otherwise provided in Section 6409(a), the Communications Act or any applicable federal or state law or regulation. Application: a written submission to the City for the installation, construction or other deployment of an eligible facility and other related ministerial permits to obtain final approval of the deployment of an eligible facility at a specified location. Base station: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(1), or any successor regulation, which defines that term as a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(9), or any successor regulation, or any equipment associated with a tower. The term includes, but is not limited to, equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. The term includes, but is not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including distributed antenna systems and small-cell networks). The term includes any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the state or local government under 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100, or any successor regulation, supports or houses equipment Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 29 described in 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.6100(b)(1)(i), or any successor regulation, and (ii) that has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support. The term does not include any structure that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the state or local government under this section, does not support or house equipment described in 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.6100(b)(1)(i) and (ii), or any successor regulation. Collocation: For purposes of an eligible facilities request, means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(2), or any successor regulation , which defines that term as the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes, or as otherwise defined by federal law with respect to eligible facilities. As an illustration and not a limitation, the FCC’s definition effectively means “to add” and does not necessarily refer to more than one wireless facility installed at a single site. Day: a calendar day, except as otherwise provided in this section. Eligible Facility Permit (EFP): a permit for an eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a) that meets the criteria set forth in this section. Eligible facilities request: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(3), or any successor regulation, which defines that term as any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, involving: (1) collocation of new transmission equipment; (2) removal of transmission equipment; or (3) replacement of transmission equipment. Eligible support structure: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(4), or any successor regulation, which defines that term as any tower or base station as defined in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(1) or (9), or any successor regulation; provided, that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the state or local government under this definition. Existing: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(4), or any successor regulation, which provides that a constructed tower or base station is existing for purposes of the FCC’s Section 6409(a) regulations if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local regulatory review process; provided, that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition. Rules and Guidelines: The rules, guidelines, regulations and procedures adopted from time to time by resolution of the City Council to administer and implement this section. Site: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(6), or any successor regulation, which provides that for towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 30 Substantial change: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(7), or any successor regulation, which defines that term differently based on the type of eligible support structure (tower or base station) and location (in or outside the PROW). For clarity, this definition organizes the FCC’s criteria and thresholds for determining if a collocation or modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of a wireless tower or base station based on the type and location. 1. For towers outside the PROW, a substantial change occurs when: a. The proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height of the tower by more than 10% or the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet (whichever is greater); or b. The proposed collocation or modification adds an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than 20 feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance (whichever is greater); or c. The proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of more than the standard number of equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four; or d. The proposed collocation or modification involves excavation outside the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the wireless tower, including any access or utility easements currently related to the site. 2. For towers in the PROW and for all base stations, a substantial change occurs when: a. The proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height of the tower more than 10% or 10 feet (whichever is greater); or b. The proposed collocation or modification involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the tower or base station by more than six feet; or c. The proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new ground-mounted equipment cabinets when there are no pre-existing ground-mounted equipment cabinets associated with the structure; or d. The proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new ground-mounted equipment cabinets that are more than 10% larger in height or overall volume than any other existing ground-mounted equipment cabinets; or e. The proposed collocation or modification involves excavation outside the area in proximity to the structure and other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. 3. In addition, for all towers and base stations wherever located, a substantial change occurs when: Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 31 a. The proposed collocation or modification would defeat the existing concealment elements of the eligible support structure (wireless tower or base station) as reasonably determined by the Director; or b. The proposed collocation or modification violates a prior condition of approval; provided, however, that the collocation need not comply with any prior condition of approval related to height, width, equipment cabinets or excavation that is inconsistent with the thresholds for a substantial change described in this Section. 4. For purposes of this definition, changes in height should be measured from the original support structure in cases where deployments are or will be separated horizontally, such as on buildings' rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height should be measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act. Tower: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(9), or any successor regulation, which defines that term as any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul, and the associated site. Examples include, but are not limited to, monopoles, monotrees and lattice towers. Transmission equipment: the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(8), or any successor regulation, which defines that term as equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications service, including, but not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply. The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. C. Applicability. This section applies to all requests for approval to collocate, replace or remove transmission equipment at an existing wireless tower or base station submitted pursuant to Section 6409(a). Even if the proposed project would otherwise require a SWFP under Section 6.10.070 of this chapter, and/or a ministerial permit, eligible facility requests submitted for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a) must be first reviewed under this section. If the approval authority finds that the project qualifies for approval under Section 6409(a), then no SWFP will be required. However, the applicant may voluntarily elect to seek a SWFP under Section 6.10.070 either in lieu of an EFP approval or after the approval authority finds that an application does not qualify for an EFP approval pursuant to Section 6409(a). D. Approvals Required. 1. Eligible Facility Permit (EFP) approval. Any request to collocate, replace or remove transmission equipment at an existing wireless tower or base station shall require approval of an EFP subject to the Director’s approval, conditional approval or denial without prejudice pursuant to the standards and procedures contained in this section and the rules and guidelines. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 32 2. Other permits and regulatory approvals. No collocation or modification approved pursuant to this section may occur unless the applicant also obtains all other permits and regulatory approvals as may be required by any other federal, state or local government agencies, which include without limitation any ministerial permits and/or regulatory approvals issued by other departments or divisions within the City. Furthermore, any EFP approval granted under this section shall remain subject to any and all lawful conditions and/or legal requirements associated with any other permits or regulatory approvals for the existing wireless tower or base station. E. Application Requirements. An application for a EFP shall be filed and reviewed in accordance with the following provisions and the rules and guidelines. 1. Complete application required. The applicant shall submit an EFP application in writing to the Public Works Department on a City-approved form as prescribed by the Director, and shall contain all required notices, information, materials and documentation required by this section and the Rules and Guidelines, or as otherwise determined to be necessary by the Director to effectuate the purpose and intent of this section. The Director may waive certain submittal requirements or require additional information based on specific project factors. Unless an exemption or waiver applies, all applications shall include the completed form and all information, materials, and documentation required by the City. An application which does not include all of the required forms, information, materials and documentation shall be deemed incomplete, and a notice of incomplete application shall be provided to the applicant in accordance with Subsection E.6. of this section. a. Public notice. In addition to all other requirements of this section and the rules and guidelines, the application shall include a notice that complies with the City-approved text and format, and contains all of the following information: (i) A general explanation of the proposed collocation or modification; (ii) The applicant’s identification and contact information as provided on the application submitted to the City; (iii) Contact information for the approval authority; and (iv) A statement substantially similar to the following: “Federal Communications Commission regulations may deem this application granted by the operation of law unless the City approves or denies the application within sixty (60) days from the filing date, or the City and applicant reach a mutual tolling agreement.” 2. Application fees. Concurrent with submittal of the application, the applicant shall pay an application fee and processing fee, a deposit for an independent expert review as set forth in this section, and a deposit for review by the City Attorney’s office, in a payment format accepted by the City Finance Department and in amounts set by resolution of the City Council. Failure to pay the fees in full at the time of application submittal shall result in the City deeming the application incomplete. Fees shall be set by resolution of the City Council, and shall be determined in accordance with Section 6.10.070.E.3 of this chapter. 3. Voluntary pre-submittal conference. Prior to application submittal, the applicant may schedule and attend a voluntary pre-submittal conference with the Public Works Department and Community Development Department staff for all proposed eligible facilities in Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 33 the PROW. The purpose of the voluntary pre-submittal conference is to provide informal feedback on the proposed classification of the facility as an eligible facility under Section 6409(a), review procedure, location, design and application materials, to identify potential concerns and to streamline the formal application review process after submittal. Participation in a voluntary pre-submittal conference shall not trigger the shot clocks specified in Section 6.10.075.E.6. 4. Appointments. The Director may require that an application shall be submitted only at a pre-arranged appointment in accordance with the Rules and Guidelines. The Director has the discretion to set the frequency and number of appointments that will be granted each day. The requirement for an appointment shall be published on the Department’s website. 5. Independent expert. The Director is authorized to retain on behalf of the City an independent, qualified consultant to review any application for an EFP to review the technical aspects of the application, including but not limited to: the accuracy, adequacy, and completeness of submissions; compliance with applicable radio frequency emission standards; whether any requested exception is necessary, technical demonstration of the facility designs or configurations; technical feasibility; coverage analysis; the validity of conclusions reached or claims made by applicant or other factors as deemed appropriate by the Director to determine whether the proposed facility qualifies as an eligible facility under Section 6409(a). The cost of this review shall be paid by the applicant through a deposit pursuant to an adopted fee schedule resolution. 6. Shot Clock; timeline for review and action. The timeline for review of and action on an EFP application shall begin to run when the application is submitted in writing to the Department but may be tolled by mutual agreement or upon the City’s issuance of a notice of incomplete application to the applicant pursuant to Subsection E.7 of this Section. Applications shall be processed in conformance with the time periods and procedures established by applicable state and federal law, and FCC regulations and orders. The following provisions shall apply: a. 60 days – Within sixty (60) days of the date on which an applicant submits a written request seeking approval of an eligible facilities request under this section, the City will approve the application unless the City determines that the application is not covered by this section or the 60-day deadline is tolled pursuant to mutual agreement or Subsection (b). b. Tolling of Shot Clock. The 60-day timeframe for review of a proposed eligible facility shall begin to run when the application for the EFP is submitted in writing to the Department but may be tolled by mutual agreement or upon the City’s issuance of a notice of incomplete application to the applicant pursuant to this Subsection. (i) First Incomplete Notice. Within thirty (30) days of the City’s receipt of the initial application for an EFP, Department staff shall provide written notice to the applicant that the application is complete or incomplete. If the application is incomplete, the notice shall clearly and specifically delineate all missing information and documents. The 30- day shot clock date shall be tolled until the applicant makes a supplemental submission in response to the City’s notice of incompleteness. (ii) Subsequent Incomplete Notices. Within ten (10) days of each supplemental submission, the City shall deem the application complete or incomplete. If the Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 34 supplemental submission is incomplete, the notice shall clearly and specifically delineate all missing information and documents from the supplemental submission based on the information or documents identified in the first notice delineating missing information or documentation. The 10-day timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to this procedure. Second or subsequent notices of incompleteness may not specify missing documents or information that were not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness. (iii) One Submittal. The applicant's response and submission of supplemental materials and information in response to a notice of incomplete application must be given to the City in one submittal packet. F. Notice and Decision. Procedures for public notice, approval authority review of and action on EFP applications are set forth in this subsection and in the Rules and Guidelines. 1. Public notice of application. Upon submittal of a complete EFP application to the City, the applicant shall send the City-approved public notice of the application to all businesses and residents within a 150-foot radius of the proposed eligible facility in accordance with the rules and guidelines. Concurrently with service on the businesses and residents, the applicant shall also send a copy of the approved public notice to the Department along with proof of service of the public notice on all residents and businesses as required by this subsection. 2. Public comment. Within ten (10) days from service of the notice, any interested person may submit comments on the proposed eligible facility to the City by U.S. Mail or through the City’s website. Any timely public comments received will be considered during the Director’s review of the application. 3. Director decision on EFP applications. a. Director review, decision and notice. Upon receipt of a complete application for EFP pursuant to this section, the Director shall undertake administrative review of the application and all pertinent information, materials, documentation and public comments. The Director may approve, or conditionally approve an application for an EFP if the Director makes all of the findings required in Section 6.10.075.F.4. The Director may impose conditions in accordance with Section 6.10.075.F.6. Within five days after the Director approves or conditionally approves an application under this section, or expiration of the shot clock period set forth in Section 6.10.075.E.6, whichever occurs sooner, the Director shall issue a written determination letter, and shall serve a copy of the determination letter on the applicant at the address shown in the application and shall cause the determination letter to be published on the City’s website. 4. Required findings for EFP approval. The Director shall approve or conditionally approve an application for an EFP pursuant to Section 6409(a) and this section if the Director makes all of the following findings: a. The applicant has provided all forms, information, materials, and documentation for the proposed project required by this section; b. The proposed project is for the collocation, removal or replacement of transmission equipment on an existing wireless tower or base station; Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 35 c. The proposed project does not constitute a substantial change to the physical dimensions of the existing wireless tower or base station, as defined in Section 6.10.075.B; and d. The proposed project otherwise qualifies as an eligible facility under then- existing provisions of Section 6409(a). 5. Criteria for denial without prejudice. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this chapter, and consistent with all applicable federal laws and regulations, the Director may deny without prejudice an application for approval of an EFP when the Director finds that the proposed project: a. Does not satisfy the findings for approval as an eligible facility under Subsection E.3 of this Section; b. Involves the replacement of the entire support structure; c. Violates any legally enforceable standard or permit condition related to compliance with generally applicable disability access, building, structural, electrical and/or safety codes; d. Violates any legally enforceable standard or permit condition reasonably related to public health and safety then in effect; or e. Does not qualify for mandatory approval under Section 6409(a) for any lawful reason. 6. Conditional approvals. Subject to any applicable limitations in federal or state law, and in addition to the standard conditions of approval required by Section 6.10.075.F.6, nothing in this section is intended to limit the City’s authority to conditionally approve an application for an EFP under Section 6409(a) to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare in accordance with this section and the Rules and Guidelines, including but not limited to, building code standards and health and safety conditions, and such other reasonable time, place and manner conditions authorized under applicable federal and state laws and regulations. The standard conditions set forth in of Section 6.10.075.G shall apply to all eligible facilities. 7. Written decision. The Director’s decision shall be issued in writing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 6.10.075.F.3.a. and the Rules and Guidelines. The Director’s decision on an application for an EFP shall be final and conclusive and shall not be appealable to the City Council. 8. Deemed Approved. a. If the City fails to act on an EFP application within the 60-day review period referenced in Section 6.10.075.E.6.a. (subject to any tolling pursuant to written agreement or Section 6.10.075.E.6.b.), the applicant may provide the City written notice that the time period for acting has lapsed, and the City then has twenty (20) days after receipt of such notice within which to render its written decision on the application. To the extent required by Section 6409(a), upon the City’s failure to render a decision within that 20-day period, the application is then deemed approved by passage of time and operation of law. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 36 b. The applicant shall provide written notice to the City at least seven days prior to beginning construction or collocation pursuant to an EFP issued pursuant to a deemed approved application. c. An EFP deemed approved pursuant to Section 6409(a) shall comply with all applicable building code standards and traffic, health and safety requirements of the code deemed applicable by the Director. d. Effect of Changes to Federal Law. This subsection does not and shall not be construed to grant any rights beyond those granted by Section 6409(a) and its implementing federal regulations. In the event Section 6409(a) or applicable regulations are stayed, amended, revised or otherwise not in effect, no modifications to an eligible facility shall be processed or approved under this subsection E.9 or any other provision of this code. G. Standard Conditions of approval applicable to all applications. All EFP approvals, whether approved by the approval authority or deemed approved by the operation of law, shall be automatically subject to the conditions in this Subsection, in addition to any conditions imposed pursuant to Section 6.10.075.F and the rules and guidelines. The Director (or the City Council on appeal) shall have discretion to modify or amend these conditions on a case-by-case basis as may be necessary or appropriate under the circumstances to protect public health and safety or allow for the proper operation of the approved eligible facility consistent with the goals of this section. 1. Permit term. The City’s grant or grant by operation of law of an EFP constitutes a federally-mandated modification to the underlying permit, approval or other prior regulatory authorization for the subject tower or base station pursuant to Section 6409(a), for ten years, subject to the following provisions. The City’s grant or grant by operation of law of an EFP will not extend the term, if any, for any ministerial permit or other underlying prior regulatory permit, approval or other authorization. Accordingly, the term for an EFP approval shall be coterminous with the ministerial permit and other underlying permit, approval or other prior regulatory authorization for the subject tower or base station. This condition shall not be applied or interpreted in any way that would cause the term of the underlying permit for the modified facility to be less than ten years in total length, unless such underlying permit is abandoned or revoked pursuant to this code or any other provision of federal or state law. 2. Accelerated approval terms due to invalidation. In the event that any court of competent jurisdiction invalidates any portion of Section 6409(a) or any FCC rule that interprets Section 6409(a) such that federal law would not mandate approval for any eligible facilities request pursuant to Section 6409(a), such EFP approval shall automatically expire one year from the effective date of the judicial order, unless the decision would not authorize accelerated termination of any previously approved EFP or the Director grants an extension upon written request from the permittee that shows good cause for the extension, which includes without limitation extreme financial hardship. Notwithstanding anything in the previous sentence to the contrary, the Director may not grant a permanent exemption or indefinite extension. A permittee shall not be required to remove any equipment, components, structures and improvements approved under the invalidated EFP approval when it has submitted an application for either a SWFP under Section 6.10.070 for those WCFs before the one-year period ends. If the SWFP is denied, the permittee shall remove all its equipment, components, structures and improvements before the one-year period ends. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 37 3. No waiver of standing. The approval of an EFP (either by express approval or by operation of law) does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the City to challenge Section 6409(a), any FCC rules that interpret Section 6409(a) and/or any eligible facilities approval pursuant to Section 6409(a) (whether by the approval authority or by operation of law). 4. Strict compliance with approved plans. Any application filed by the permittee for a ministerial permit to construct or install the eligible facility approved by an EFP must incorporate the EFP approval, all conditions associated with the EFP approval and the approved photo simulations into the project plans (the “approved plans”). The permittee must construct, install and operate the eligible facility in strict compliance with the approved plans. Any alterations, modifications or other changes to the approved plans, whether requested by the permittee or required by other departments or public agencies with jurisdiction over the eligible facility, must be submitted in a written request subject to the Director’s prior review and approval, who may revoke the EFP approval if the Director finds that the requested alteration, modification or other change may cause a substantial change as that term is defined by Section 6409(a) or the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(7), as may be re-numbered or amended. 5. Build-out period. The EFP approval will automatically expire one year from the EFP approval or deemed-granted date unless the permittee obtains all other permits and approvals required to install, construct and/or operate the approved eligible facility, which include without limitation any City ministerial permit, and any other permits or approvals required by any federal, state or other local public agencies with jurisdiction over the subject property, the eligible facility or its use. The Director may grant one written extension to a date certain when the permittee shows good cause to extend the limitations period in a written request for an extension submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the automatic expiration date in this condition. 6. Maintenance obligations – vandalism. The permittee shall keep the site, which includes without limitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, fences and landscape features, in a neat, clean and safe condition in accordance with the approved plans and all conditions in the EFP approval. The permittee shall keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all times. The permittee, at no cost to the city, shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other vandalism at the site within 48 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti or other vandalism occurred. Each year after the permittee installs the wireless facility, the permittee shall submit a written report to the director, in a form acceptable to the director, that documents the then-current site condition. 7. Property maintenance. The permittee shall ensure that all equipment and other improvements to be constructed and/or installed in connection with the approved plans are maintained in a manner that is not detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare and that the aesthetic appearance is continuously preserved, and substantially the same as shown in the approved plans at all times relevant to the EFP. The permittee further acknowledges that failure to maintain compliance with this condition may result in a code enforcement action. 8. Compliance with laws. The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law (“laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the eligible facility or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized in the EFP approval. The permittee expressly Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 38 acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all laws. In the event that the City fails to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance with any applicable provision in the Code, any permit, any permit condition or any Governing Laws, the applicant or permittee will not be relieved from its obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable provisions in the Code, any permit, any permit condition or any Governing Laws. 9. Adverse impacts on other properties. The permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to avoid any and all undue or unnecessary adverse impacts on nearby properties that may arise from the permittee’s or its authorized personnel’s construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal and/or other activities at the site. Impacts of radio frequency emissions on the environment, to the extent that such emissions are compliant with all Governing Laws, are not “adverse impacts” for the purposes of this condition. The permittee shall not perform or cause others to perform any construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal or other work that involves heavy equipment or machines except during normal construction hours authorized by the Code. The restricted work hours in this condition will not prohibit any work required to prevent an actual, immediate harm to property or persons, or any work during an emergency declared by the city. The director or the director’s designee may issue a stop work order for any activities that violate this condition. 10. Inspections – emergencies. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City’s officers, officials, staff or other designee may enter onto the site and inspect the improvements and equipment upon reasonable prior notice to the permittee; provided, however, that the City’s officers, officials, staff or other designee may, but will not be obligated to, enter onto the site area without prior notice to support, repair, disable or remove any improvements or equipment in emergencies or when such improvements or equipment threatens actual, imminent harm to property or persons. The permittee will be permitted to supervise the City’s officers, officials, staff or other designee while any such inspection or emergency access occurs. 11. Permittee’s contact information. The permittee shall furnish the Department with accurate and up-to-date contact information for a person responsible for the eligible facility, which includes without limitation such person’s full name, title, direct telephone number, facsimile number, mailing address and email address. The permittee shall keep such contact information up-to-date at all times and immediately provide the Director with updated contact information in the event that either the responsible person or such person’s contact information changes. 12. Indemnification. a. The permittee, and if applicable, the property owner of the property upon which the eligible facility is installed in the PROW, shall agree in writing to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, boards, commissions, agents, consultants, employees, volunteers and independent contractors serving as City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”), from and against any and all claims, actions, or proceeding against the Indemnitees or any of them, to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the Director or City Council concerning the EFP and the construction, operation, maintenance and/or repair of the eligible facility. Such indemnification shall include damages, judgments, settlements, penalties, fines, defensive costs or expenses, including, but not limited to, interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind related to Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 39 or arising from such claim, action, or proceeding. The permittee, and if applicable, the property owner of the property upon which the eligible facility is installed in the PROW, shall also agree not to sue or seek any money or damages from the City in connection with the grant of the permit and also agree to abide by the City’s ordinances and other laws. The City shall promptly notify the permittee and property owner (if any) of any claim, action, or proceeding. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit City from participating in a defense of any claim, action or proceeding. The City shall have the option of coordinating the defense, including, but not limited to, choosing counsel for the defense at the permittee’s expense. b. Additionally, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the permittee, and every permittee and person in a shared permit, jointly and severally, shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, boards, commissions, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers harmless from and against all claims, suits, demands, actions, losses, liabilities, judgments, settlements, costs (including, but not limited to, attorney's fees, interest and expert witness fees), or damages claimed by third parties against the City for any injury claim, and for property damage sustained by any person, arising out of, resulting from, or are in any way related to the EFP, or to any work done by or use of the PROW by the permittee, owner or operator of the EFP, or their agents, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, boards, commissions, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers and independent contractors serving as City officials. 13. Performance Security. Prior to issuance of any ministerial permit, the permittee shall pay for and provide a performance bond or other form of security that complies with the following minimum requirements and the Rules and Guidelines. a. The security shall be in effect until the eligible facility is fully and completely removed and the site reasonably returned to its original condition, to cover the removal costs of the eligible facility in the event that its use is abandoned or the approval is otherwise terminated. b. The security shall be in a format and amount approved by the Director and City Attorney’s office. The amount of security shall be as determined by the Director to be necessary to ensure proper completion of the removal of the eligible facility. In establishing the amount of the security, the Director shall take into consideration information provided by the applicant regarding the cost of removal. The amount of the security instrument shall be calculated by the applicant as part of its application in an amount rationally related to the obligations covered by the security instrument. The permittee shall be required to submit the approved security instrument to the Director prior to issuance of any ministerial for the proposed eligible facility. c. Security shall always be imposed if the eligible facility is located in a PROW adjacent to any residentially zoned property or residential uses. 14. Insurance. The permittee shall obtain, pay for and maintain, in full force and effect until the eligible facility approved by the permit is removed in its entirety from the PROW, an insurance policy or policies of public liability insurance which shall be in the form and substance satisfactory to the City in accordance with the Rules and Guidelines, and shall be maintained until the term of the permit ended and the eligible facility is removed from the PROW. The insurance shall comply with the minimum limits and coverages and provisions set Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 40 forth in the Rules and Guidelines, and as otherwise established from time to time by the City, and which fully protect the City from claims and suits for bodily injury, death, and property damage. 15. Acceptance of conditions. The EFP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City “Acceptance of Conditions” form, in a form approved by the City Attorney’s office, has been signed and notarized by the applicant/permittee before being returned to the Director; within ten (10) days after the determination letter has been served on the applicant and published on the City’s website in accordance with Section 6.10.070.G.3.a. The permit shall be void and of no force or effect unless such written agreement is received by the City within said ten-day period. H. Operation and Maintenance Standards. The permittee shall comply with all operations and maintenance standards set forth in Section 6.10.070.0 of this chapter and the Rules and Guidelines. I. Additional Requirements. All eligible facilities (including eligible facilities granted by the City and eligible facilities requests granted by operation of law) shall comply with and be subject to all of the following provisions of Section 6.10.070 of this chapter. 1. Section 6.10.070.G(b), (c) and (d) (locational restrictions). 2. Section 6.10.070.J: Exceptions; Director’s Findings. 3. Section 6.10.070.L: Nonexclusive Grant. 4. Section 6.10.070.M: Business License 5. Section 6.10.070.P: Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions and Other Monitoring Requirements 6. Section 6.10.070.Q: No Dangerous Condition or Obstructions Allowed. 7. Section 6.10.070.R: Permit Extension. 8. Section 6.10.070.S: Cessation of Use or Abandonment. 9. Section 6.10.070.T: Revocation or Modification; Removal. 10. Section 6.10.070.V: Effect on Other Ordinances. 11. Section 6.10.070.W: State or Federal Law. 12. Section 6.10.070.X: Nonconforming Wireless Communications Facilities. J. Effect on Other Ordinances; Conflicting Code Provisions Superseded. 1. Compliance with the provisions of this section shall not relieve a person from complying with any other applicable provision of this code. Ordinance 1677 Exhibit B - Page 41 2. The provisions of this section shall govern and supersede any conflicting provisions of the code with respect to the permitting and regulation of eligible facilities in the public right-of-way. Resolution 6894 1 RESOLUTION 6894 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING RULES AND GUIDELINES FOR SMALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND ELIGIBLE FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF- WAY WHEREAS, pursuant to Urgency Ordinance 1676-U, the Seal Beach City Council has enacted procedures and requirements for the approval of small wireless communications facilities and eligible facilities in the public rights-of-way, by amending Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to amend Section 6.10.010 and Section 6.10.065, repealing Section 6.10.070 and adding new Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 ; and WHEREAS, Section 6.10.070 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to adopt rules and guidelines by resolution to further implement and administer the provisions of Section 6.10.070 regarding applications for small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, Section 6.10.075 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to adopt rules and guidelines by resolution to implement and administer the provisions of Section 6.10.075 regarding applications for wireless communications facilities in the public rights-of-way that qualify as eligible facilities under Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act; and WHEREAS, this Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City Council has determined that this Resolution does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Moreover, even if the proposed Ordinance comprises a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Adoption of this Resolution will also enact only minor changes in land use regulations, and it can be seen with certainty that its adoption will not have a significant effect on the environment because it will not allow for the development of any new or expanded wireless telecommunication facilities anywhere other than where they were previously allowed under existing federal, state and local regulations. It is therefore not subject to the environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, minor alterations to land use. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: SECTION 1.The foregoing recitals are hereby adopted as findings of the City Council. SECTION 2.The Rules and Guidelines for Small Wireless Communications Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way (“Rules”) as set forth in Exhibit “1”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted. Resolution 6894 2 SECTION 3. Savings Clause. Neither the adoption of this Resolution nor the repeal or amendment by this Resolution of any resolution or part or portion of any resolution previously in effect in the City, or within the territory comprising the City, shall in any manner affect the prosecution for the violation of any ordinance, which violation was committed prior to the effective date of this Resolution, nor be construed as a waiver of any license, fee or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation of such resolutions. SECTION 4. Severability. If any sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentence, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance 1676-U. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January , 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Thomas Moore, Mayor ATTEST: Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk Resolution 6894 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 6894 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January, 2019. ____________________________ Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 1 EXHIBIT “1” TO CITY OF SEAL BEACH RESOLUTION 6894 CITY COUNCIL RULES AND GUIDELINES FOR SMALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND ELIGIBLE FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1 - POLICY ……………………………………………………………….. 3 Rule 1.1 Purpose ………………………….…………………………………… 3 Rule 1.2 Construction and Intent ………….………………………………….. 3 CHAPTER 2 - DEFINITIONS …………………………………………………………. 3 CHAPTER 3 - WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS- OF-WAY (SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.10.070) …… 5 Rule 3.1 Scope ……………………………………………………………………. 5 3.1.1 Small Wireless Facilities .………………………………………………………………… 5 3.1.2 Eligible Facilities ………………………………………………………. 5 3.1.3 Governing Laws ……………………………………………………….. 5 Rule 3.2 SWFP Applications .……………………………………. 5 3.2.1 Application Procedures ………………………………………….…… 5 3.2.2 Application Submittal Requirements ………………………….……. 6 3.2.3 Public Notice of SWFP Application ……………….….. 10 3.2.4 Design, Aesthetic and Development Standards for Small Wireless Facilities.. 11 3.2.5 Southern California Edison (SCE) Streetlights ………..…………… 19 3.2.6 City-Owned Streetlights …..……..……………………………………. 20 3.2.7 Wooden Utility Poles Regulated by the Southern California Joint Pole Committee ………………….…………………………………….. 22 3.2.8 Conditions of Approval ………………………………………………... 23 3.2.9 Operation and Maintenance Standards ..…..……………….……….. 27 CHAPTER 4 - ELIGIBLE FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY (SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.10.075) …………………………. 28 Rule 4.1 Scope ……………………………………….…………………………. 28 Rule 4.2 EFP Applications .………………….………………………………….. 29 Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 2 4.2.1 Application Procedures ……………………………………………..… 29 4.2.2 Application Submittal Requirements ….……………………………... 29 4.2.3 Application Submittal and Processing ……...……………………….. 33 4.2.4 Public Notice of EFP Application ……………………………………... 33 Rule 4.3 Design, Aesthetic and Development Standards for Eligible Facilities ….…….. 33 4.3.1 Towers and Base Stations in the PROW …………….……………… 33 4.3.2 Application of Federal and State Design, Aesthetic and Development Standards 33 Rule 4.4 Conditions of Approval …………………………….………………….. 33 Rule 4.5 Operation and Maintenance Standards ……..………………………. 33 CHAPTER 5 - [RESERVED]…… …………………. 34 Rule 5.1 Reserved …………..….……………………. 34 CHAPTER 6 - POLICIES, REGULATIONS AND FORMS ……… ……………… 34 Rule 6.1 Director Responsibility …………………………………………………. 34 Rule 6.2 Publication ……………………………………………………………….. 34 Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 3 RULES AND GUIDELINES FOR SMALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND ELIGIBLE FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF- WAY CHAPTER 1 -- POLICY Rule 1.1 Purpose. The Seal Beach City Council has enacted procedures and requirements for the approval of small wireless communications facilities and eligible facilities in the public rights-of-way, by amending Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to amend Section 6.10.010 and Section 6.10.065, repealing Section 6.10.070 and adding new Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075. It is the purpose of these rules and guidelines (“Rules”) to establish application requirements and procedures, development standards and conditions for wireless communications facilities in the public right-of-way to further implement Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code (collectively the “Ordinances”), as may be amended from time to time. Rule 1.2 Construction and Intent. A. The Rules are not intended to, nor shall they be interpreted or applied to: 1. Prohibit or effectively prohibit any wireless communications service provider’s ability to provide wireless communications services; 2. Prohibit or effectively prohibit any wireless communications service provider’s ability to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service, subject to any competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory rules or regulations; 3. Unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; 4. Deny any request for authorization to place, construct or modify wireless communications service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communication Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions; 5. Prohibit any collocation or modification that the City may not deny under federal or California state law; or 6. Otherwise authorize the City to preempt any applicable federal or California state law or regulation. B. The Rules set forth herein shall be construed in a manner consistent with the Ordinances, all other applicable provisions of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, and with the requirements of Federal and State laws, regulations, orders and rulings pertaining to wireless communications facilities in the public rights-of-way. CHAPTER 2 -- DEFINITIONS Except as otherwise expressly defined herein, terms and phrases used in these Rules shall have the meaning ascribed to them in Sections 6.10.010, 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 of Chapter Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 4 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, unless the context in which they are used clearly requires otherwise. City: means the City of Seal Beach. Code: means the Seal Beach Municipal Code. Day: means a calendar day, except as otherwise expressly provided in these Rules. Department: means the Public Works Department. EFP: means an Eligible Facility Permit as defined in Section 6.10.010 and subject to the requirements of Section 6.10.075 of Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code and Section 6409(a). Governing Laws: means all local, federal and state laws, regulations, orders and rulings applicable to the specific existing or proposed wireless communications facility or wireless communications facility permit at issue, federal or state statutes, regulations, FCC rulings and/or orders, and PUC rulings and/or general orders. Section 6.10.010: means Section 6.10.010 of Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal, as may be amended. Section 6.10.070: means Section 6.10.070 of Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, as may be amended. Section 6.10.075: means Section 6.10.075 of Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, as may be amended. Section 6409(a): means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, codified as 47 U.S.C. Section 1455(a) (the “Spectrum Act”), as may be amended. SWFP: means a Small Wireless Facilities Permit as defined in Section 6.10.010 and subject to the requirements of Section 6.10.070 of Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. Substantial change: means a substantial change as defined in Section 6409(a) and Section 6.10.075 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. WCFP: means a Wireless Communications Facility Permit as defined in Section 6.10.010 and subject to the requirements of Section and 6.10.070 of Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code and including the following categories: SWFP and EFP. WCF(s): means wireless communications facility(ies) defined in and subject to the requirements of Section 6.10.010, 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 of Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. CHAPTER 3. -- SMALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY (SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.10.070) Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 5 Rule 3.1 Scope. 3.1.1 Small Wireless Facilities . This Chapter further implements the requirements for the proposed installation or construction, and modification or collocation, of small wireless facilities (SWFs) in the PROW pursuant to Section 6.10.070. 3.1.2 Eligible Facilities. Deployment of eligible facilities, as defined in Section 6.10.010 and 6.10.075, shall be subject to Chapter 4 of these Rules. 3.1.3 Governing Laws. This Chapter, and all applications and permits processed pursuant to the Ordinances and these Rules shall be interpreted in a manner to be consistent with the requirements of Section 6.10.070 and the provisions of any applicable Governing Laws. Rule 3.2 SWFP Applications. 3.2.1 Application Procedures. An application for a SWFP shall be filed and reviewed in accordance with the following provisions, except as otherwise specified in Section 6.10.070. A. Voluntary Pre-submittal Conference. An applicant may request a pre- submittal conference with the Director or designee to take place prior to formal application submittal under Section 6.10.070.E.3. The pre-submittal conference shall be voluntary and at the applicant’s sole option. All requests for pre-submittal conferences shall be in writing; and he applicant shall be required to sign an acknowledgment that participation in a voluntary pre- submittal conference shall not trigger the application of any shot clocks (timing deadlines) under Section 6.10.070.E.6. Department staff will endeavor to provide applicants with an appointment within approximately five business days after receipt of a written request. The voluntary pre- submittal conference will include informal discussion that addresses, without limitation, the appropriate project classification and review process, including whether the project qualifies for approval as a small wireless facility or other wireless communications facility; any latent issues in connection with the existing wireless tower or base station, compliance with generally applicable rules for public health and safety; potential concealment issues or concerns; coordination with other city departments responsible for application review; and application completeness issues. To mitigate unnecessary delays due to application incompleteness upon submittal of an application, applicants are encouraged (but not required) to bring any draft applications or other materials to the pre-submittal conference so that City staff may provide informal feedback and guidance to assist the applicant in preparing the application. B. Application Appointments. All applications must be submitted in person to the City. The Director may require that applications be submitted at pre-scheduled appointments with the Director or designee. The requirement for application appointments shall be posted in a publicly accessible location at City Hall and published on the City’s website. Applicants may generally submit one application per appointment but may schedule successive appointments for multiple applications whenever feasible and not prejudicial to other applicants. Applicants may also submit batched applications, covering multiple WCFs, at the same time; and the Director may develop alternative rules that allow for these concurrently filed multiple applications. Any application received without an appointment or the required application fee, whether delivered in person, by mail or through any other means, will not be considered duly filed unless the applicant received a written exemption from the Director at a voluntary pre- submittal conference. Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 6 B. Shot Clocks. An application shall be reviewed in accordance with the shot clock (timeline for review) set forth in Section 6.10.070E.6, as applicable based on the type of facility at issue. 3.2.2.Application Submittal Requirements. An application for a SWFP shall be made in writing on such forms as the Director prescribes, and shall comply with the following minimum requirements, in addition to all other information, material and documentation determined to be necessary by the Director to effectuate the purpose and intent of this section. The application form shall specify the number, size and format of the project plans and application information, materials and documentation to be provided, including but not limited to electronic format. The Director may waive certain submittal requirements or require additional information based on specific project factors. Unless an exemption or waiver applies, all applications shall include all of the following and will not be accepted if any material form, information or documentation is missing or not fully completed. An application shall not be deemed complete by the City unless all required forms, information and documentation, as set forth herein, have been submitted to the City. A. Complete Application. A fully completed and executed City application form for the type of approval sought, and all information, materials, documents, pre-addressed mailing labels and envelopes, and fees specified in the City-approved application form, Section 6.10.010 and this Chapter. B. Penalty of Perjury. All applications shall be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant and shall be signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California. C. Applicant Information. Complete legal name and contact information for the facility owner, facility operator, agent (if any), and property owner (for any collocation facility on any existing WCF), and related letter(s) of authorization. D. Type of Facility. The type of WCF proposed under Section 6.10.070 (small wireless facility), and a full written description of the proposed facility, its purpose, and specifications. 1. Distributed Antenna System. Applications for a DAS SWF shall be submitted as a single SWFP application for the entire project. Each individual location within the system shall be processed and considered for approval separately. Permitting fees will be applied to each site. Each location will be evaluated and must comply with the all design, aesthetic and development standards as defined by this section. 2. Fiber only. Applicants seeking to install a SWF shall not seek a SWFP to install fiber only and subsequently seek to install antennas and accessory equipment pursuant to a SWFP. The applications for all installations in the PROW shall simultaneously request fiber installation or other cable installation when applying for a SWFP permit. E. Public Notice; Proof of Service: A proposed public notice on the applicant’s letterhead, and a proposed affidavit or mailing or other proof of service. The public notice and affidavit of mailing must be consistent with the text and format of the City-approved forms as adopted by the Director and consistent with the requirements of Rule 3.2.3. City staff Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 7 will review the proposed public notice and affidavit to ensure that each form meets City requirements. The applicant shall modify the forms as requested by the City. F. Inventory. An inventory list and map of the applicant’s existing WCFs, including but not limited to collocations, operated by the applicant within two miles of the proposed site (“service area”), and conceptual plans for a period of five years shall also be provided, if available. The inventory list must include specific information as to location, height, and design of each facility. The City may share such information with other applicants seeking to locate WCFs within the service area, in order to encourage collocation. G. Geographic Service Area. A written description identifying the geographic service area for the subject installation, accompanied by a two-year master plan of anticipated future installations and/or modifications, including maps. H. Report or Alternatives; Report on Technical Infeasibility of Collocation. 1. A report explaining why the SWF is needed at the requested location, including a written statement explaining the rationale for selecting the proposed site; and how the proposed SWF is the least intrusive means for the applicant to provide wireless service in the proposed service. Said statement shall include all existing structures and/or alternative sites evaluated for potential installation of the proposed SWF and why said alternatives are not a viable option. 2. If the applicant is seeking to construct a new monopole, the applicant shall explain why collocation or location on another kind of support structure is not technically feasible, including efforts made to develop such an alternative. If the City has requested that the applicant collocate its SWF on a site, the applicant shall explain why collocation is not technically feasible, including efforts made to develop such an alternative. I. Small Wireless Facility Plans. Detailed engineering plans of the proposed of the proposed SWF and antennas, including height, shape, size and nature of construction in accordance with Section 6.10.070 and any additional requirements established by the Director. The plans shall include, but are not limited to, a fully dimensioned diagram of the proposed SWF and antennas, including height, diameter, design, shape, size, structural integrity, power output and frequency, power generators (if any), cabinets and other equipment shelters, nature of construction, and purpose of the facility, and technical engineering specifications, economic and other pertinent factors governing selection of the proposed design, together with evidence that demonstrates that the proposed facility has been designed to the minimum height and diameter required from a technological standpoint for the proposed site. The plans for a monopole must provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that the structure will be able to accommodate at least one other similar telecommunications provider in addition to the applicant. The plans should include a diagram showing the separation between the proposed SWF and any existing facility or facilities on the same support structure or site, if collocation is planned. J. Site Plans. A fully-dimensioned site/landscaping plan that includes, at a minimum, the following information: specific placement of the proposed tower, equipment shelters, and any other WCF on the site; setbacks from adjacent property lines; the location of existing structures, trees, and other significant site features identifying those features proposed Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 8 to be removed; the type and locations of plant materials proposed to screen SWF antenna and other components; the proposed materials and color(s) for the SWF, and all other information required by the Director. K. Photographs and Visual Analysis. Photographs of the SWF and all antenna, equipment and components; accurate and scaled photo-simulations showing views of the proposed SWF from surrounding residential properties and public rights-of-way at varying distances and angles with a map indicating the locations used for the analysis and their distances from the site. L. Documentation of Federal and State Compliance. Copies of all applicable licenses, permits and/or other approvals required by any federal and/or state agency with authority to regulate WCFs, and documentation of compliance with all conditions imposed in conjunction with such licenses, permits or approvals. The required documentation shall include, but is expressly not limited to, the following: 1. Engineering calculations demonstrating that the proposed SWF will comply with all applicable FCC rules, regulations, and/or specifications. 2. Completion of the radio frequency (RF) emissions exposure guidelines checklist contained in Appendix A to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) “Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety”, or any successor regulations, to determine whether the SWF will be “categorically excluded” as that term is used by the FCC. 3. For a SWF that is not categorically excluded under the FCC regulations for RF emissions, the applicant shall submit an RF exposure compliance report prepared and certified by an RF engineer acceptable to the City that certifies that the proposed SWF, as well as any WCFs that contribute to the cumulative exposure in the subject area, will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards, exposure limits and emission levels. The RF report must include the actual frequency and power levels (in watts effective radio power “ERP”) for all existing and proposed antennas at the site and exhibits that show the location and orientation of all transmitting antennas and the boundaries of areas with RF exposures in excess of the uncontrolled/general population limit (as that term is defined by the FCC) and also the boundaries of areas with RF exposures in excess of the controlled/occupational limit (as that term is defined by the FCC). Each such boundary shall be clearly marked and identified for every transmitting antenna at the project site. M. Proof of all applicable licenses, permits or other approvals from the FAA, JFTB Los Alamitos, Naval Weapons Station, and/or any other federal, state, or local airport authority or airport, if such approval is required, including but expressly not limited to copies of any documents that the applicant is required to file pursuant to FAA, U.S. Army and/or airport authority ordinances, statutes, and/or regulations for the facility. N. Coastal Commission. A coastal development permit or exemption therefrom. O. Any environmental documentation required to obtain such federal and/or state license, permit or other approval. Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 9 P CPUC. A copy of the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the CPUC to the applicant, and a copy of the CPUC decision that authorizes the applicant to provide the wireless telecommunications service for which the facilities are proposed to be constructed in the PROW. Any applicant that, prior to 1996, provided telecommunications service under administratively equivalent documentation issued by the CPUC may submit copies of that documentation in lieu of a certificate of public convenience and necessity. Q. Franchise or Agreement. If the applicant has been granted the right to enter the PROW pursuant to state or federal law, or who have entered into a franchise or lease, license or other agreement with the City permitting them to use the PROW for the proposed SWF, the application shall contain a copy of the relevant franchise or agreement and/or all other documentation necessary to demonstrate the applicant’s right to enter the PROW. R. Environmental compliance. A completed environmental assessment and documentation establishing that all applicable environmental mitigation measures imposed by the City and any other federal or state environmental determination (i) have been met, (ii) will be met as part of the proposed WCF, or (iii) are not applicable. S. Noise Study. A noise study prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer documenting that the level of noise to be emitted by the proposed SWF will comply with this code including but not limited to Chapter 7.15: Noise. T. Traffic Control Plan. A traffic control plan when the proposed installation is on any street adjacent to a non-residential zone. The City shall have the discretion to require a traffic control plan when the applicant seeks to use large equipment (e.g. crane). U. Utility Pole Attachments. For any SWF proposed to be collocated on a pole or structure owned by a public utility such as Southern California Edison, the application shall include written evidence of the utility’s approval of applicant’s proposed attachment including any and all applicable terms and conditions, and detailed description and detailed plans of the approved SWF. A SWF authorized by law and approved by the utility company for attachment to a utility owned pole or structure, shall be subject to all provisions of Section 6.10.070 and these Rules except to the extent any such provisions are preempted by State or federal law related to utility pole attachments by wireless providers (“Pole Attachment Rules”). Such documentation shall include but is not limited to, the following: 1. Southern California Edison (SCE) Documentation. For any SWF proposed to be collocated on an existing or replacement pole owned by Southern California Edison (SCE), the applicant shall provide all of the following: (a) SCE Letter of Authorization; (b) A completed SCE Streetlight Authorization form reflecting the recommendations of the lighting study; (c) SCE Consent Letter; (d) SCE Disconnect Letter; Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 10 (e) A lighting study for the proposed SCE streetlight replacement that meets the Lighting Study Requirements established and published by the Director. (f) Any other documents required by SCE. 2. Wooden utility poles. For any wooden utility pole subject to any Pole Attachment Rules, including but not limited to the Southern California Joint Pole Committee, any and all information and documents demonstrating that such pole is subject to those rules, all applicable requirements, and the manner in which the proposed SWF complies with the applicable Pole Attachment Rules, and detailed plans for the utility-approved SWF. X. Exception. If the applicant requests an exception from any of these requirements pursuant to Section 6.10.070.J, the applicant shall provide all information, studies and other documentation necessary for the City to evaluate that request as part of the SWFP application. Y. Any other additional information, studies and/or other documentation determined necessary by the Director. 3.2.3.Public Notice of SWFP Application. The SWFP application shall include a public notice of filing of the application and proof of service that comply with the City-approved templates. The following provisions apply: A. Method of Providing Notice. The USPS will not send a mail piece via Certified Mail if it is addressed to a generic recipient, such as “Occupant,” “Resident,” or “Business.” Therefore, the following noticing methods shall satisfy the noticing requirements: 1. Notices shall be mailed to all residents, businesses, and property owners within a 150-foot radius of the proposed wireless communications service facility location or site. 2. Notices to property owners shall be sent via USPS Certified Mail to the named property owner of record with the Orange Angeles County Assessor at the mailing address listed with the County Assessor. 3. Notices to generic recipients (“Occupant,” “Resident,” “Business,” etc.) shall be sent via USPS Firm Book/Accountable Mail. 4. If a property owner’s mailing address listed with the County Assessor is the same as the property address itself, a notice shall be sent to the named property owner and to a generic recipient (“Occupant,” “Resident,” “Business,” etc.) at the property address. B. Noticing Process. 1. Once the City determines that the notice and proof of service are in compliance with the City-required form and content, the applicant shall mail the approved Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 11 notice and proof of service to all residents and businesses within a 150-foot radius of the proposed site or location in accordance with the Department’s instructions. 2. Concurrently with service of the notice on the businesses and residents as outlined in Rule 3.2.3.A, the applicant shall submit a copy of the public notice to the Department along with proof of service of the notices on the residents and businesses as required by this Rule. 3.2.4.Design, Aesthetic and Development Standards for Small Wireless Facilities. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.10.070.G of the Code, all small wireless facilities in the PROW shall comply with the following standards unless the Director approves an exception pursuant to Subsection J: Exceptions of Section 6.10.070. A.Application of Federal and State Design, Aesthetic and Development Standards. All small wireless facilities shall be subject to and comply with any Governing Law(s) regulating to the design, aesthetics, or development of the proposed facility which is the subject of the SWFP application. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule 3.2.4, in the event that any Governing Law(s) for the small wireless facility conflicts with any requirement of this Chapter, the Governing Law(s) shall take precedence. B.Height and Volume Standards. Small wireless facilities shall comply with the following height and volume standards. 1. Height. A small wireless facility (a) shall be mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height (including its antennas); or (b) shall be mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures; or (c) shall not extend existing structures on which it is located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater. 2. Volume. (a) Each antenna associated with the small wireless facility deployment (excluding associated antenna equipment) shall not exceed three cubic feet in volume. (b) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre- existing associated equipment on the structure, shall not exceed 28 cubic feet in volume. C. All WCFs shall comply with Chapter 7.15: Noise, of the Code. D. Concealment, Screening and Blending. 1. The applicant shall employ concealment, screening and camouflage techniques and elements in the design and placement of a WCF in order to ensure that the WCF is as visually inconspicuous as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to hide the WCF from predominant views from surrounding properties, all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community. Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 12 2. Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise, and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other techniques to minimize the WCF or wireless collocations communications facility’s visual impact as well as be compatible with the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. 3. All WCFs shall have subdued colors and non-reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding area and structures. 4. The WCF shall be of the least intrusive design possible and occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way possible. In no event shall a SWF exceed the limits prescribed in the design, aesthetic and development standards set forth in Section 6.10.070 and this Chapter. E. Equipment 1. Subject to Section 6.10.070.G.4, or as required by any provision of the Governing Law(s), above-ground electrical meter facilities are prohibited. Applicants shall execute a contract with Southern California Edison for service under the Wireless Technology Rate (WTR) Schedule. WTR equipment shall be installed below grade. All other accessory equipment shall be located underground; but not located in any parkway within the PROW. The Director may grant an exception to undergrounding pursuant to Section 6.10.070.J under any of the circumstances set forth in Section 6.10.070.G.4 or under any of the following circumstances: (a) If Director determines that there is no room in the PROW for undergrounding or that undergrounding is not technically feasible, approval of an exception by the Director shall be required in order to place accessory equipment above-ground and concealed with natural or manmade features to the maximum extent possible. (b) When above-ground is the only technically feasible location for a particular type of accessory equipment and will be ground-mounted, such accessory equipment shall be enclosed within a structure, shall not exceed a height of five feet and a total footprint of nine square feet, and shall be fully integrated into the base of the pole unless not technically feasible, and shall be screened and/or camouflaged, including by the use of landscaping, architectural treatment, or other acceptable alternate screening. Required electrical meter cabinets shall be screened and/or camouflaged. (c) In locations where homes are only along one side of a street, above-ground accessory equipment shall not be installed directly in front of a residence. Such above-ground accessory equipment shall be installed along the side of the street with no homes. If said location is located within the coastal setback, then such location shall be referred to the City's geotechnical staff for review and recommendations. (d) Equipment for which there is a legal or technical requirement to be installed in a specific manner and/or at a specific location may be exempted from the design standards upon written justification from the applicant acceptable to the City in its sole discretion. 2. With the exception of streetlight pole base shrouds as described in these design standards, equipment installed at grade is prohibited. Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 13 F. A WCF shall not be located within any portion of the public right-of-way that interferes or may interfere with City and emergency operations, or pedestrian or vehicular access, including but not limited to, disability access, vehicular travel, sign or signals, or parking, as required by the Governing Laws. G. Vaults, including required vents, and pull boxes shall be installed flush to grade. H. No WCF shall bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning or other signage required by Governing Laws. Signage that serves a public/occupational safety function shall be exempt from the design standards but shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Governing Laws. All signs shall require prior City approval. I. Lighting 1. No facility may be illuminated unless specifically required by the FAA or other government agency. Beacon lights are not permitted unless required by the FAA or other government agency. 2. Legally-required lightning arresters and beacons shall be included when calculating the height of facilities. 3. Any required lighting shall be shielded to eliminate, to the maximum extent possible, impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. The applicant shall submit a lighting study which shall be prepared by a qualified lighting professional to evaluate potential impacts to adjacent properties. 4. Unless otherwise required under FAA or FCC regulations, applicants may install only timed or motion-sensitive light controllers and must install lights so as to avoid illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum extent technically feasible. The City may, in its discretion, exempt an applicant from the foregoing requirement when the applicant demonstrates a substantial public safety need. J. Antennas Mounted on Existing Poles. The applicant shall use the least visible antennas possible, including application of concealment elements. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent technically feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this Rule, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible. K. Utility poles. Except as otherwise may be allowed pursuant to an eligible facilities request under Section 6.10.075 of the code and Chapter 4 of these Rules, any applicable pole attachment rules, or any other provision of Governing Law(s), the height of any antenna shall comply with all of the following requirements: 1. No portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be less than twenty-four feet above any drivable road surface; and Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 14 2. All installations on utility poles shall fully comply with all applicable PUC general orders, including, but not limited to, General Order 95, as may be revised or superseded. L.Wind Loads. Each WCF shall be properly engineered to withstand wind loads as required by this Code or any duly adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of modification of an existing WCF. M.Obstructions. Each component part of a WCF shall be located so as to maintain a corner cutoff area at the intersection of any two streets, a street and alley, or two alleys. The corner cutoff area shall be measured from a point not less than thirty feet from the intersection of the two property lines. Nothing in excess of three feet in height, with the exception of buildings, may be located within the corner cutoff. This includes utilities, fences, walls, monument signs, hedges and other landscaping. N.Landscaping. Where appropriate, each WCF shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted and irrigated by the applicant to replace any landscaping damaged or destroyed during the WCF installation, or in such other locations within the PROW that the City determines to be necessary to provide screening of or to conceal the WCF. O.Security Features. All WCFs shall be designed to minimize opportunities for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive nuisances. 1. Security fencing, if any, shall not exceed 6 feet to 10 feet in height, consistent with fencing in the area. Fencing shall be no less than the above grade height of the equipment cabinet. Fencing shall be effectively screened from view through the use of landscaping. No chain link fences shall be visible from public view. 2. Anti-climbing features shall be incorporated into each WCF as needed, to reduce potential for trespass and injury. 3. The permittee shall be responsible for maintaining the site and facilities free from graffiti. 4. The Director may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti-climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location and/or accessibility, a WCF has the potential to become an attractive nuisance. 5. No lethal devices or elements shall be installed as a security device. P.Fire Prevention. All WCFs shall be designed and operated in a manner that will minimize the risk of igniting a fire or intensifying one that otherwise occurs. At a minimum, such facilities shall comply with the following requirements: 1. At least one-hour fire resistant interior surfaces shall be used in the construction of all buildings. Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 15 2. The exterior walls and roof covering of all above-ground equipment shelters and cabinets shall be constructed of materials rated as non-flammable in the California Building Code. 3. Monitored automatic fire extinguishing systems approved by the Orange County Fire Authority shall be installed in all equipment buildings and enclosures. 4. Openings in all above-ground equipment shelters and cabinets shall be protected against penetration by fire and wind-blown embers to the extent technically feasible. 3.2.5 `Southern California Edison (SCE) Streetlights. Except as otherwise required under any applicable pole attachment rules or other provisions of Governing Laws, the following design standards shall apply to all WCFs deployed on Southern California Edison Streetlights. A. A WCF may only be installed on an SCE streetlight if the proposed facility is approved by SCE in writing. B. Equipment shall be installed on top of the streetlight pole subject to the limitations described below. 1. The streetlight shall be equipped with a mounting bracket to which the wireless communications facility will be attached. The mounting bracket shall not be attached to the streetlight via stainless steel banding or similar. 2. Exposed wiring is prohibited on all streetlights. 3. Conduit is prohibited on concrete or steel street lights, but may be allowed on existing JPA wood poles. 4. Equipment must be enclosed in a single tubular concealment shroud colored to match the pole. (a) Exception: Cannister antennas (“cantennas”) may be exempted from this requirement upon approval from City staff if it can be demonstrated that the cantenna can achieve the tubular design intended by this design standard. The cantenna shall be colored to match the pole. 5. The concealment for all equipment shall have the appearance of creating one tubular-like mass. 6.. Base shrouds are prohibited. C. Equipment that exceeds the limitations set forth above shall be installed below grade. D. All ventilation must be via flush vents located on the pole top concealment elements. Vents must be designed to maximally blend with the overall streetlight structure. Vents along the length of the pole are prohibited. Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 16 E. All cabling, wires, and conduit shall be concealed completely within the pole and the concealment shroud. Cabling and wires shall enter/exit the streetlight pole through conduit sweeps within the streetlight footing. F. Exceptions may be granted by the Director on the findings set forth in Section 6.10.070.J or as otherwise required by the Governing Law(s). 3.2.6. City-Owned Streetlights. If the City agrees to allow the deployment of a WCF on a City-owned streetlight in the PROW, the following minimum requirements shall apply. A. The decision to allow the deployment of a WCF on a City-owned streetlight in the PROW shall be in the City’s sole discretion. The City may require that approval of a WCF shall be conditioned upon execution of a lease, license or other agreement between the City and the applicant. B. If an applicant proposes to replace an existing streetlight pole with a new streetlight pole in order to accommodate the proposed WCF, the replacement streetlight pole shall be designed to resemble existing poles in the PROW near that location, including size, height, color, materials, and style, with the exception of any existing pole designs that are proposed to be removed and not replaced. 1. The replacement streetlight shall be a minimum of 18 inches from the face of the curb. 2. The replacement streetlight shall be offset at the minimum distance technically possible from the existing streetlight. 3. The replacement streetlight mast arm and luminaire shall match the color, design, and materials of the existing streetlight mast arm and luminaire. C. If a new City streetlight pole that will not replace an existing streetlight is proposed, the new streetlight pole shall be designed to resemble existing poles in the PROW near that location, including size, height, color, materials, and style, with the exception of any existing pole designs that are proposed to be removed and not replaced. 1. The new streetlight shall be a minimum of 18 inches from the face of the curb. 2. The new streetlight mast arm and luminaire shall be approved by the Director. D. Equipment shall be installed on top of the streetlight pole and/or in a base shroud subject to the limitations described below. 1. The streetlight shall be equipped with a top-of-pole mounting bracket to which the wireless communications facility will be attached. The mounting bracket shall not be attached to the streetlight via stainless steel banding or similar. 2. Equipment must be enclosed in a single tubular concealment shroud colored to match the pole. Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 17 (a) Exception: Cannister antennas (“cantennas”) may be exempted from this requirement upon approval from City staff if it can be demonstrated that the cantenna can achieve the tubular design intended by this design standard. The cantenna shall be colored to match the pole. 3. The top-of-pole concealment for all equipment shall have the appearance of creating one tubular-like mass. 4. The top-of-pole concealment for all equipment shall not exceed an overall diameter of 16 inches or a height of 84 inches. E. Base shrouds are permitted subject to the following requirements: 1. Base shrouds must either be square with chamfered sides or round. Final selection of base shroud design is subject to City approval. 2. Square base shrouds shall have a maximum dimension of 20” square. 3. Round base shrouds shall have a maximum diameter of 20”. 4. Base shrouds shall not exceed 60” in height. (a) In no case shall base shrouds be located within 18 inches of the face of the curb. 5. All ventilation must be via flush vents located on the pole top and/or base shroud concealment elements. Vents must be designed to maximally blend with the overall streetlight structure. Vents along the length of the pole are prohibited. 6. Equipment that exceeds the limitations set forth above shall be installed below grade. 7. All cabling, wires, and conduit shall be concealed completely within the pole, concealment shroud, and base shroud. Cabling and wires shall enter/exit the streetlight pole through conduit sweeps within the streetlight footing. 8. To maintain consistent design aesthetics, the addition of antennas to existing decorative and ornamental pedestrian and park lighting is prohibited. 3.2.7 Wooden Utility Poles Regulated by the Southern California Joint Pole Committee. The following requirements shall apply to all proposed WCFs on wooden utility poles regulated by the Southern California Joint Pole Committee. A. If top-of-pole mounting is not expressly prohibited by the PUC, the applicable Pole Attachment Rules, or other authority having jurisdiction, equipment shall be installed on top of the wooden utility pole subject to the limitations described below. 1. The wooden utility pole shall be equipped with a top-of-pole mounting bracket to which the personal wireless service facility will be attached. The mounting bracket shall be colored to match the pole. Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 18 2. All wiring running along the length of the pole shall be enclosed in appropriate conduit colored to match the pole and installed tight against the pole to the maximum extent technically possible. 3. Equipment must be enclosed in a single tubular concealment shroud colored to match the pole. (a) Exception: Cannister antennas (“cantennas”) may be exempted from this requirement upon approval from City staff if it can be demonstrated that the cantenna can achieve the tubular design intended by this design standard. The cantenna shall be colored to match the pole. 4. The concealment for all equipment shall have the appearance of creating one tubular-like mass. 5. The concealment for all equipment shall not exceed a diameter of 12 inches or the pole diameter at the height of installation, whichever is greater, or a height of 84 inches. B. If top-of-pole mounting is expressly prohibited by the PUC, the applicable Pole Attachment Rules, or other authority having jurisdiction, equipment shall be installed at the legally-permissible location subject to the limitations described below. 1. Above grade equipment shall be installed a minimum of 16 feet above grade. 2. All wiring running along the length of the pole shall be enclosed in appropriate conduit colored to match the pole and installed tight against the pole to the maximum extent technically possible. 3. Equipment shall be installed in an integrated bracket arm colored to the match the pole subject to the following dimension limits: (a) Maximum projection from pole face: 60 inches (b) Maximum width when viewed from the ground: pole diameter at height of installation or 10 inches, whichever is greater. (i) Exception: Antenna diameter may be up to 12 inches or the pole diameter at the height of installation, whichever is greater. (c) Maximum height: 60 inches. 4. The bracket arm shall project from the utility pole in a direction approved by the City subject to the limits of any PUC general orders. C. Equipment that exceeds the limitations set forth above shall be installed below grade. D. All installations on utility poles shall fully comply with applicable PUC general orders, including, but not limited to, General Order 95. Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 19 3.2.8 Conditions of Approval. In addition to compliance with the design, aesthetic and development standards outlined in Section 6.10.070.H. and these Rules, all SWFs shall be subject to time, place and manner conditions, including but not limited to the following conditions of approval (approval may be by operation of law), as well as any modification of these conditions or additional conditions of approval deemed necessary by the Director: A. The permittee shall submit an as built drawing within ninety (90) days after installation of the facility. The as-built drawing shall be in an electronic format acceptable to the City. B. Where feasible and authorized by law, as new technology becomes available, the permittee shall: 1. Place above-ground SWFs below ground, including, but not limited to, accessory equipment that has been mounted to a telecommunications tower or mounted on the ground, subject to Section 6.10.070.G.4.e and Rule 3.2.6.C, any exception pursuant to Section 6.10.070.J, or as otherwise required by the Governing Laws; and 2. Replace larger, more visually intrusive SWFs with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities, after receiving all necessary permits and approvals required pursuant to the code. C. The permittee shall submit and maintain current at all times basic contact and site information on a form to be supplied by the City. The permittee shall notify the City of any changes to the information submitted within thirty days of any change, including change of the name or legal status of the owner or operator. This information shall include, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Identity, including the name, address and 24-hour local or toll-free contact phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator, and the agent or person responsible for the maintenance of the SWF; and 2. The legal status of the owner of the SWF. D. The permittee shall not transfer or assign the SWFP to any person prior to the completion of the construction of the SWF covered by the permit, unless and until the transferee or assignee of SWFP has submitted the security instrument required by Section 6.10.070 and the conditions of approval. E. The permittee shall notify the City in writing at least ninety (90) days prior to any transfer or assignment of the SWFP. The written notice required in this section must include: (1) the transferee’s legal name; (2) the transferee's full contact information, including a primary contact person, mailing address, telephone number and email address; and (3) a statement signed by the transferee that the transferee shall accept all permit terms and conditions. The Director may require the transferor and/or the transferee to submit any materials or documentation necessary to determine that the proposed transfer complies with the existing permit and all its conditions of approval, if any. Such materials or documentation may include, but shall not be limited to: federal, state and/or local approvals, licenses, certificates or franchise agreements; statements; photographs; site plans and/or as-built drawings; and/or an analysis and certification by a qualified radio frequency engineer demonstrating compliance with all applicable regulations and standards of the FCC, including but not limited to all emission Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 20 levels. Noncompliance with the permit and all its conditions of approval, if any, or failure to submit the materials required by the Director shall be a cause for the City to revoke all applicable permits pursuant to and following the procedure set out in Section 6.10.070.T. F. At all times, all required notices and/or signs shall be posted on the site as required by the FCC, CPUC, any applicable licenses and/or Governing Laws, and as approved by the City. The location and dimensions of a sign bearing the emergency contact name and telephone number shall be posted pursuant to the approved plans. G. If a nearby property owner or resident registers a noise complaint, the City shall forward the same to the permittee. The complaint shall be reviewed and evaluated by the applicant. The permittee shall have ten business days to file a written response with the City regarding the complaint which shall include any applicable remedial measures. If the City determines the complaint is valid and the permittee has not taken any steps to minimize the noise, the City may hire a consultant to study, examine and evaluate the noise complaint and the permittee shall pay the fee for the consultant if the site is found in violation of this section. The matter shall be reviewed by the Director. If the Director determines sound-proofing or other sound attenuation measures should be required to bring the project into compliance with the code, the Director may impose conditions on the project to achieve said objective. H. A condition setting forth the SWFP expiration date shall be included in the conditions of approval. I. The SWFP shall be subject to such conditions, changes or limitations as are from time to time deemed necessary by the Director or City Council for the purpose of: (a) protecting the public health, safety, and welfare; (b) preventing interference with pedestrian and vehicular traffic; and/or (c) preventing damage to the PROW or any adjacent property. The City may modify the permit to reflect such conditions, changes or limitations by following the same notice and public hearing procedures as are applicable to the underlying permit for similarly located facilities, except the permittee shall be given notice by personal service or by registered or certified mail at the last address provided to the City by the permittee. J. The permittee shall not move, alter, temporarily relocate, change, or interfere with any existing structure, improvement or property without the prior consent of the owner of that structure, improvement or property. No structure, improvement or property owned by the City shall be moved to accommodate a WCF unless the City determines that such movement will not adversely affect the City or any surrounding businesses or residents, and the permittee pays all costs and expenses related to the relocation of the City's structure, improvement or property. Prior to commencement of any work pursuant to a ministerial permit, issued for any SWF within the PROW, the permittee shall provide the City with documentation establishing to the City's satisfaction that the permittee has the legal right to use or interfere with any other structure, improvement or property within the PROW to be affected by applicant's WCF. K. The permittee shall assume full liability for damage or injury caused to any property or person by the SWF. L. The permittee shall repair, at its sole cost and expense, any damage including, but not limited to subsidence, cracking, erosion, collapse, weakening, or loss of lateral support to City streets, sidewalks, walks, curbs, gutters, trees, parkways, street lights, traffic Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 21 signals, improvements of any kind or nature, or utility lines and systems, underground utility line and systems, or sewer systems and sewer lines that result from any activities performed in connection with the installation and/or maintenance of a SWF in the PROW. The permittee shall restore such areas, structures and systems to the condition in which they existed prior to the installation or maintenance that necessitated the repairs. In the event the permitted fails to complete such repair within the number of days stated on a written notice by the City Engineer. Such time period for correction shall be based on the facts and circumstances, danger to the community and severity of the disrepair. Should the permittee not make said correction within the time period allotted, the Director shall cause such repair to be completed at permittee's sole cost and expense. M. No SWF shall be permitted to be installed in the drip line of any tree in the PROW. N. The permittee shall obtain, pay for and maintain, in full force and effect until the SWF approved by the permit is removed in its entirety from the PROW, an insurance policy or policies of public liability insurance. Such insurance shall be in the form and substance satisfactory to the City and shall be maintained until the term of the permit ended and the SWF is removed from the PROW. The insurance shall comply with the minimum limits and coverages and provisions set forth in this Subsection, and as otherwise established from time to time by the City, and which fully protect the City from claims and suits for bodily injury, death, and property damage. 1. Commercial general liability insurance to cover liability bodily injury, property damage and personal liability. Exposures to be covered are premises, operations, products/completed operations, and certain contracts. Property damage liability insurance shall include coverage for the following hazards: explosion, collapse and underground. Coverage must be written on an occurrence basis, with the following limits of liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage and $4,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. 2. Automobile Liability. $2,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage, including non-owned and hired vehicles. 3. Workers’ Compensation. Workers’ Compensation, in accordance with the Workers’ Compensation Act of the State of California for a minimum of $1,000,000 or such minimum limits as required by the State, whichever is greater. 4. Professional Liability (or Errors and Omissions Liability): Professional Liability: $1,000,000 per claim/aggregate. 5. Sub-permittees, Consultants, and Contractor Liability. All sub- permittees, consultants, contractors and subcontractors shall be required to provide the same insurance as required of the permittee herein. The permittee shall be responsible for collecting and maintaining all insurance from sub-permittees, consultants, contractors and subcontractors. The permittee shall ensure that all insurance received from all sub-permittees, consultants, contractors, and subcontractors meet and/or exceed the requirements this subdivision. 6. Except with regard to the professional liability policy(ies), the insurance must name the City and its elected and appointed council members, boards, Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 22 commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees, volunteers and independent contractors serving as City officials, as additional named insureds, be issued by an insurer admitted in the State of California with a rating of at least a A:VIII in the latest edition of A.M. Best's Insurance Guide, and include an endorsement providing that the policies cannot be canceled or reduced except with thirty days prior written notice to the City, except for cancellation due to nonpayment of premium. The insurance provided by permittee shall be primary to any coverage available to the City, and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City and its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees. volunteers and independent contractors serving as City officials shall be excess of permittee’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. The policies of insurance required by this permit shall include provisions for waiver of subrogation. In accepting the benefits of the permit, the permittee shall be required to waive all rights of subrogation against the City and its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. The insurance must afford coverage for the permittee's and the wireless provider's use, operation and activity, vehicles, equipment, facility, representatives, agents and employees, as determined by the City's risk manager. 7. Before issuance of any ministerial permit, for the SWF, the permittee shall furnish the City risk manager certificates of insurance and endorsements, in the form satisfactory to the risk manager and City Attorney’s office, evidencing the coverages required by the City. O. Should the utility company servicing the SWF with electrical service that does not require the use of an above-ground meter cabinet, the permittee shall at its sole cost and expense remove the meter cabinet and any related foundation within ninety (90) days of such service being offered and reasonably restore the area to its prior condition. An extension may be granted if circumstances arise outside of the control of the permittee. P. The permittee shall modify, remove, or relocate its SWF, or portion thereof, without cost or expense to City, if and when made necessary by (i) any public improvement project, including, but not limited to, the construction, maintenance, or operation of any underground or above ground facilities including but not limited to sewers, storm drains, conduits, gas, water, electric or other utility systems, or pipes owned by City or any other public agency, (ii) any abandonment of any street, sidewalk or other public facility, (iii) any change of grade, alignment or width of any street, sidewalk or other public facility, or (iv) a determination by the Director that the WCF has become incompatible with public health, safety or welfare or the public's use of the PROW. Such modification, removal, or relocation of the facility shall be completed within ninety days of notification by City unless exigencies dictate a shorter period for removal or relocation. Modification or relocation of the SWF shall require submittal, review and approval of a modified SWFP pursuant to the code including applicable notice procedures. The permittee shall be entitled, on permittee's election, to either a pro-rata refund of fees paid for the original permit or to a new permit, without additional fee, at a location as close to the original location as the standards set forth in the code allow. In the event the SWF is not modified, removed, or relocated within said period of time, the City may cause the same to be done at the sole cost and expense of the permittee. Further, due to exigent circumstances including those of immediate or imminent threat to the public's health and safety, the City may modify, remove, or relocate a SWF without prior notice to permitted provided the permittee is notified within a reasonable period thereafter. Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 23 Q. The SWFP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City “Acceptance of Conditions” form, in a form approved by the City Attorney’s office, has been signed and notarized by the applicant/permittee before being returned to the Director; and until the ten (10) calendar day appeal period has elapsed. The permit shall be void and of no force or effect unless such written agreement is received by the City within said thirty-day period. 3.2.9.Operation and Maintenance Standards. In accordance with Section 6.10.070.O, all SWFs must comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standards and such additional standards the Director deems necessary and appropriate based on the specific application as set forth in the decision approving the WCFP. A. Unless otherwise provided herein, all necessary repairs and restoration shall be completed by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent within forty-eight (48) hours: 1. After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent; or 2. After permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent receives notification from the City. B. Prior to entering any PROW for the purpose of maintenance, repairs or restoration, the permittee, owner or operator shall provide written notice to the Director and obtain authorization. Under no circumstances shall maintenance, repairs, or restoration be undertaken in a manner that closes any PROW or impedes pedestrian or vehicular traffic except upon written authorization of the Director and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Director. C. Each permittee shall provide the Director with the name, address and twenty-four-hour local or toll-free contact phone number of the permittee, and (if different from the permittee) the owner, the operator and the agent responsible for the maintenance of the facility (“contact information”). Contact information shall be updated within seven days of any change. D. All facilities, including, but not limited to, communication towers, poles, accessory equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of: 1. General dirt and grease; 2. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint; 3. Rust and corrosion; 4. Cracks, dents, and discoloration; 5. Missing, discolored or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage; 6. Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris; Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 24 7. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and 8. Any damage from any cause. E. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the WCF shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permitted, owner and operator of the WCF shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or decayed landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be made until it is submitted to and approved by the Director. F. The permittee shall replace its WCF, after obtaining all required permits, if maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the WCF to the condition it was in at the time of installation. G. Each WCF shall be operated and maintained to comply at all conditions of approval. Each owner or operator of a WCF shall routinely inspect each site to ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in this section. CHAPTER 4 -- ELIGIBLE FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY (SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.10.075) Rule 4.1 Scope. 4.1.1 This Chapter further implements the requirements for the proposed modification or collocation of all proposed WCFs in the public right-of-way that qualify as Eligible Facilities under Section 6.10.075 of the Code and Section 6409(a). 4.1.2 This Chapter and all applications and permits processed pursuant to Section 6.10.075 and this Chapter shall be interpreted in a manner to be consistent with the requirements of Section 6.10.075 and the provisions of any Governing Laws. Rule 4.2 EFP Applications. 4.2.1 Application Procedures. An EFP application shall be filed and reviewed in accordance with the following provisions, except as otherwise specified in Section 6.10.075. A. Voluntary Pre-submittal Conference. An applicant may request a pre- submittal conference with the Director or designee to take place prior to formal EFP application submittal. The pre-submittal conference shall be voluntary and at the applicant’s sole option. All requests for voluntary pre-submittal conferences shall be in writing, and he applicant shall be required to sign an acknowledgment that participation in a voluntary pre-submittal conference shall not trigger the application of the shot clock (timing deadline) under Section 6.10.075.E.6. The procedures set forth in Rule 3.2.1 shall apply to the scheduling of a voluntary pre-submittal conference, and shall include informal discussion that addresses whether or not the project qualifies for approval as an eligible facility pursuant to Section 6409(a), all matters set forth in Rule 3.2.1 and any other issues or concerns. B. Application Appointments. All EFP applications must be submitted in person to the City. The Director may require that EFP applications be submitted at pre- scheduled appointments with the Director or designee. The requirement for application appointments shall be posted in a publicly accessible location at City Hall and published on the Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 25 City’s website. Appointments shall be scheduled in accordance with the procedures set forth in Rule 3.2.1.B of these Rules. C. Shot Clock; timeline for review. An EFP application shall be reviewed in accordance with the shot clock (timeline for review) set forth in Section 6.10.075.E. 4.2.2 Application Submittal Requirements. An application for an EFP shall be made in writing on such forms as the Director prescribes, and shall comply with the following minimum requirements, in addition to all other information, materials and documentation determined to be necessary by the Director to effectuate the purpose and intent of this section. The application form shall specify the number, size and format of the project plans and application information, materials and documentation to be provided, including but not limited to electronic format. The Director may waive certain submittal requirements or require additional information based on specific project factors. Unless an exemption or waiver applies, an EFP application must include all information, documentation and materials required pursuant to Section 6.10.075 and this Rule. Submittal of an incomplete application shall result in issuance of a notice of incompleteness to the applicant and the tolling of the applicable timeframe for review (shot clock) under Section 6.10.075.E.6. An application shall not be deemed complete by the City unless all required information, materials and documentation, as set forth herein, have been submitted to the City. Failure to submit a complete application shall also constitute grounds for the City to deny the application. A. Complete Application. A fully completed and executed City application form for the proposed eligible facility, and all information, materials, documentation, pre- addressed mailing labels and envelopes, and fees specified in the City-approved application form. B. Penalty of Perjury. All EFP applications shall be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant and shall be signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California. C. Applicant Information. Complete legal name and contact information for the facility owner, facility operator, agent (if any), and property owner (for any collocation facility on any existing WCF), and related letter(s) of authorization. D. Identification of Eligible Facilities Request: An applicant who contends that the proposed WCF constitutes an eligible facility under Section 6409(a) shall clearly indicate in the application that the applicant is claiming eligible facilities status under Section 6409(a), in accordance with the City-approved form. E. Section 6409(a) Justification Analysis. The application shall include a written statement that explains in factual detail the basis for the applicant’s claim that the proposed facility is an eligible facility and whether and why Section 6409(a) and the related FCC regulations at 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100 et seq., or any successor regulation, require approval for the specific proposed eligible facility. The applicant’s written statement shall include the following: 1. The applicable standard and all the facts that allow the City to conclude the standard and qualification as an eligible facility has been met; Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 26 2. An explanation and analysis setting forth whether and why the support structure qualifies as an existing tower or existing base station; and 3. An explanation and analysis setting forth whether and why the proposed collocation or modification does not cause a substantial change in height, width, excavation, equipment cabinets, concealment or permit compliance. F. Public Notice; Proof of Service: A proposed public notice on the applicant’s letterhead, and a proposed affidavit or mailing or other proof of service. The public notice and affidavit of mailing must be consistent with Section 6.10.075.E.1.a. and this Chapter, and the text and format of the City-approved forms as adopted by the Director. City staff will review the proposed public notice and affidavit to ensure that each form meets City requirements. The applicant shall modify the forms as requested by the City. G. Eligible Facility Plans. Detailed engineering plans of the proposed of the proposed eligible facility, including height, shape, size and nature of construction in accordance with the requirements established by the Director. The plans shall include, but are not limited to, a fully dimensioned diagram of the proposed eligible and antennas, including height, diameter, design, shape, size, structural integrity, power output and frequency, power generators (if any), nature of construction, and purpose of the facility, and technical engineering specifications, economic and other pertinent factors governing selection of the proposed design, together with evidence that demonstrates that the proposed facility has been designed to the minimum height and diameter required from a technological standpoint for the proposed site. The plans for a monopole must provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that the structure will be able to accommodate at least one other similar telecommunications provider in addition to the applicant. The plans should include a diagram showing the separation between the proposed eligible facility and any existing facility or facilities on the same support structure or site. H. Site Plans. A fully-dimensioned site/landscaping plan that includes, at a minimum, the following information: specific placement of the proposed tower, equipment shelters, and any other WCF on the site; setbacks from adjacent property lines; the location of existing structures, trees, and other significant site features identifying those features proposed to be removed; the type and locations of plant materials proposed to screen antenna and other components; the proposed materials and color(s) for the eligible facility, and all other information required by the Director. I. Photographs and Visual Analysis. Photographs of the eligible facility and all antenna, equipment and components; accurate and scaled photo-simulations showing views of the proposed eligible facility from surrounding residential properties and public rights-of-way at varying distances and angles with a map indicating the locations used for the analysis and their distances from the site. J. Documentation of Federal and State Compliance. Copies of all applicable licenses, permits and/or other approvals required by any federal, state, and/or local agency with authority to regulate eligible facilities and documentation of compliance with all conditions imposed in conjunction with such licenses, permits or approvals. The required documentation shall include, but is expressly not limited to, the following: 1. Engineering calculations demonstrating that the proposed eligible facility will comply with all applicable FCC rules, regulations, and/or specifications. Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 27 2. Completion of the radio frequency (RF) emissions exposure guidelines checklist contained in Appendix A to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) “Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety”, or any successor regulations, to determine whether the WCF will be “categorically excluded” as that term is used by the FCC. 3. For an eligible facility that is not categorically excluded under the FCC regulations for RF emissions, the applicant shall submit an RF exposure compliance report prepared and certified by an RF engineer acceptable to the City that certifies that the proposed eligible facility, as well as any other WCFs that contribute to the cumulative exposure in the subject area, will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards, exposure limits and emission levels. The RF report must include the actual frequency and power levels (in watts effective radio power “ERP”) for all existing and proposed antennas at the site and exhibits that show the location and orientation of all transmitting antennas and the boundaries of areas with RF exposures in excess of the uncontrolled/general population limit (as that term is defined by the FCC) and also the boundaries of areas with RF exposures in excess of the controlled/occupational limit (as that term is defined by the FCC). Each such boundary shall be clearly marked and identified for every transmitting antenna at the project site. K. Licenses, Permits and Other Approvals. Proof of all applicable licenses, permits or other approvals from the FAA, JFTB Los Alamitos, Naval Weapons Station, and/or any other federal, state, or local airport authority or airport, if such approval is required, including but expressly not limited to copies of any documents that the applicant is required to file pursuant to FAA, U.S. Army and/or airport authority ordinances, statutes, and/or regulations for the facility. L. Coastal Commission. A coastal development permit or exemption therefrom. M. Environmental Documentation. Any environmental documentation required to obtain such federal and/or state license, permit or other approval. N CPUC. A copy of the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the CPUC to the applicant, and a copy of the CPUC decision that authorizes the applicant to provide the wireless telecommunications service for which the eligible facility is proposed to be deployed in the PROW. Any applicant that, prior to 1996, provided telecommunications service under administratively equivalent documentation issued by the CPUC may submit copies of that documentation in lieu of a certificate of public convenience and necessity. O. Franchise or Agreement. If the applicant has been granted the right to enter the PROW pursuant to state or federal law, or who have entered into a franchise or lease, license or other agreement with the City permitting them to use the PROW for the proposed eligible facility, the application shall contain a copy of the relevant franchise or agreement and/or all other documentation necessary to demonstrate the applicant’s right to enter the PROW. P. Environmental Compliance. A completed environmental assessment and documentation establishing that all applicable environmental mitigation measures imposed by the City and any other federal or state environmental determination (i) have been met, (ii) will be met as part of the proposed eligible facility, or (iii) are not applicable. Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 28 Q. Noise Study. A noise study prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer documenting that the level of noise to be emitted by the proposed eligible facility will comply with this code including but not limited to Chapter 7.15: Noise. R. Traffic Control Plan. A traffic control plan when the proposed installation is on any street adjacent to a non-residential zone. The City shall have the discretion to require a traffic control plan when the applicant seeks to use large equipment (e.g. crane). S. Utility 1. Southern California Edison (SCE) Documentation. For any eligible facility proposed to be collocated on an existing pole owned by SCE, the applicant shall provide all of the following: (a) SCE Letter of Authorization; 2. A completed SCE Streetlight Authorization form reflecting the recommendations of the lighting study; 3 SCE Consent Letter; 4. SCE Disconnect Letter; 5. A lighting study for the proposed collocation that meets the Lighting Study Requirements established by the Director. 6. Any other documents required by SCE. T. Wooden utility poles. For any proposed eligible facility on a wooden utility pole subject to any pole attachment rules, including but not limited to the Southern California Joint Pole Committee, any and all documents demonstrating that such pole is subject to those rules, all applicable requirements, and the manner in which the proposed eligible facility complies with the applicable pole attachment rules. U. Exception. If the applicant requests an exception pursuant to Section 6.10.070.J, the applicant shall provide all information, studies and other documentation necessary for the City to evaluate that request as part of the EFP application. V. Any other additional information, studies and/or other documentation determined necessary by the Director to determine whether the proposed facility qualifies as an eligible facility under Section 6.10.075 and Section 6409(a). 4.2.3 Application Submittal and Processing. All applications for EFP approval shall be subject to and comply with the requirements of Section6.10.075.E, including but not limited to the timelines set forth in Section 6.10.075.E.6, and the requirements of Rule 4.2.1 herein. 4.2.4 Public Notice of EFP Application. An EFP application shall include a notice of filing of the eligible facilities application that complies with the City-approved template, and the applicant shall mail the notice in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 6.10.075.F.1 and Rule 3.2.3 of these Rules. Upon City’s approval of the form and content of Resolution 6894 Exhibit “1” - Page 29 the notice, the applicant shall mail the approved notice to all residents and businesses within a 150-foot radius of the proposed site or location and provide proof of service to the City, in accordance with the Department’s instructions. Rule 4.3 Design, Aesthetic and Development Standards for Eligible Facilities. All proposed eligible facilities in the PROW shall comply with the following design, aesthetic and development standards unless the Director approves an exception pursuant to Subsection J: Exceptions of Section 6.10.070. 4.3.1 Towers and Base Stations in the PROW. Towers and base stations proposed in the PROW shall be designed so that they do not constitute a substantial change as defined in Section 6.10.075.B(2) and (3) of the code. 4.3.2 Application of Federal and State Design, Aesthetic and Development Standards. All eligible facilities shall be subject to and comply with any applicable General Laws. In the event that any applicable General Law conflicts with any requirement of this Chapter, the applicable General Law shall take precedence. Rule 4.4 Conditions of Approval. In addition to the conditions required by Section 6.10.075.G, the permittee shall comply with all generally applicable building, structural, electrical and safety codes, disability access statutes and regulations, and traffic codes and standards for the proposed eligible facility and other conditions imposed by the Director that are reasonably related to health and safety. Rule 4.5. Operation and Maintenance Standards. The permittee shall comply with all operations and maintenance standards set forth in Section 6.10.070.0 and Rule 3.2.6. CHAPTER 5 -- [RESERVED] Rule 5.1 [Reserved] CHAPTER 6 -- POLICIES, REGULATIONS AND FORMS Rule 6.1 Director Responsibility. 6.1.1 Due to rapidly changing technology and regulatory requirements, pursuant to Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075, the City Council authorizes the Public Works Director to publish policies, rules, regulations and guidelines to serve as further regulatory guidance and clarification, and to issue updates at the discretion of the Director to adjust for new technologies and regulations, and compliance therewith is a condition of approval in every WCFP and EFP. 6.1.2 The Public Works Director is authorized to create all forms and notices required in order to administer the Ordinances and these Rules. All forms and notices shall be construed in a manner consistent with the Ordinance and these Rules, and the Governing Laws. Rule 6.2 Publication. Any rules, regulations, guidelines and forms adopted by the Director to further implement the Ordinances and/or these Rules shall be published on the City’s website, and made available for inspection at the City. LAW January 23, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & U.S. MAIL Michael Van Eckhardt Assistant Vice President/Senior Legal Counsel AT&T Services, Inc. 16631 NE 72nd Way RTC 1 Redmond, WA 98052 Amy Greyson i 714.990.0901 1 Civic Center Circle, PO Box 1059 714.990.6230 Brea, California 92822-1059 agreyson@rwglaw.com rwglaw.com Re: City of Seal Beach Draft Ordinances and Guidelines regulating Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way City Council Agenda January 28, 2019 Dear Mr. Van Eckhardt: Thank you for your letters dated September 6, 2018 and December 3, 2018, on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility ("AT&T"), in which you provided comments on prior drafts of proposed ordinances and rules regulating wireless telecommunications facilities ("wireless facilities") in the public rights-of-way and related resolutions approving rules and guidelines in the City of Seal Beach ("City"). We have reviewed your fetters, and we have set out below general and specific responses to your comments. To the extent that AT&T's comments in your September 6, 2018 letter have been subsumed into the December 3, 2018 letter, we have not addressed your earlier comments. Background At the January 28, 2019 City Council meeting, staff will present three items for consideration by the City Council with regard to wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way: Urgency Ordinance XXXX, an Ordinance of the Seal Beach City Council Amending Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Amend Section 6.10.010 and Section 6.10.065, Repeal Section 6.10.070, and Add New Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 Regulating Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way and Declaring the Urgency Thereof; and ',~,r ~t- ~ ;.~~:r; Los Angeles San Francisco Temecula Central Coast Michael Van Eckhardt January 23, 2019 Page ~ 2 2. Ordinance YYYY, an Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach City Council Amending Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Amend Section 6.10.010 and Section 6.10.65, to Repeal Section 6.10.070, and to Add New Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 Regulating Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way; and 3. Resolution XXXX, a Resolution of the Seal Beach City Council Establishing Rules and Guidelines for Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way ("Rules") The staff report and proposed Ordinances and Rules will be available for public review on Friday, January 25, 2019. The draft Ordinances and Rules reflect input received from wireless providers over the past several months, including but not limited to the November 2018 public workshop, and review of the recent FCC Ruling and Third Report and Order, issued on September 27, 2018 (FCC 18- 133) ("2018 FCC Ruling"), Section 6049(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creations Act of 2012 ("Section 6409(a)"), and other provisions of federal and state law regulating wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way. The proposed Ordinances and Rules reflect the City's efforts to update its local requirements in accordance with developing federal and state laws, while preserving the City's ability to use and manage the public rights-of-way and to prevent interference with the public's access to the public rights-of-way. In preparing these draft Ordinances and Rules, City staff has taken into account the comments submitted by you and other providers. We have divided our responses by topic and referenced the relevant pages) and comment numbers (where applicable) from your letters. City's Responses to Comments in December 8, 2018 Letter Comment: "AT&T is pleased to see that the city made several revisions to the previous draft ordinances based in part on our initial comments. In particular, we are pleased to see the city adopt the FCC's definition for "small wireless facility" and developed an administrative process for handling small cell siting applications. The addition of the shot clock provisions will also help avoid confusion and unnecessary disputes. (12/8/18 AT&T letter, Introduction, p. 1) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. Comment: "1. Definition of collocation. The FCC has made clear that the definition of collocation includes placing a new wireless telecommunications facility on an existing structure whether or not that structure already houses wireless facilities or has been zoned for wireless. The city's definition of collocation in the context of small cells recognizes this point. But the city also must apply this same definition to other wireless facilities. Unless the city revises its third definition of collocation under Section 6.10.010, the city may improperly apply a 150-day shot Michael Van Eckhardt January 23, 2019 Page ~ 3 clock in instances when the 90-dav shot clock applies. And under state law, that additional delay could result in deemed approvals. (12/8/18 AT&T letter, p. 1) City Response to Comment: The definition of "collocation" in Section 6.10.075.B has been revised to provide that "Collocation" includes: "For purposes of an eligible facilities request, means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(2), or any successor regulation , which defines that term as the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes, or as otherwise defined by federal law with respect to eligible facilities. As an illustration and not a limitation, the FCC's definition effectively means "to add" and does not necessarily refer to more than one wireless facility installed at a single site." Provisions regulating shot clocks for eligible facilities are contained in Section 6.10.075.E.6. Comment: "2. Pre~arran~ed submittal appointments. AT&T appreciates the city's need to manage the intake process, but it bears repeating that the requirement for submittal appointments cannot be used to delay filings. The FCC has made clear that the applicable shot clock commences when the applicant proffers its application whether or not that complies with a local restriction on filings." (12/8/18 AT&T letter, p. 2) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. Section 6.10.070.E.4 and Section 6.10.075.E.4 both allow the Director to require an appointment for a provider to submit an application for a small wireless permit or eligible facilities permit. This is not apre-application requirement, but is an option should the Director find that staffing issues or similar concerns justify requiring an appointment in order to preserve expeditious processing of an application. The provisions do not mandate an appointment in all circumstances. Comment: "3. Limit consultant review. Sections 6.10.070.E(5) and 6.10.075.E(51 authorize the city to hire a consultant to provide expert assistance in evaluating an application. While AT&T appreciates the city's desire to thorou~hlV review applications, the city should reconsider using a consultant. In some instances, consultants can unnecessarily increase the cost of deployment and they often slow down the permitting process because it is in their interest to find problems to increase their fees. Anv provision that allows the use of consultants should limit review to appropriate and objective criteria, such as a structural safety assessment or compliance with FCC regulations of radio frequency emissions. Moreover, the city should not retain an expert to analyze technical feasibility or to perform coverage analyses. Such analyses are completely irrelevant for eligible facilities requests under Section 6409(a). And the FCC has rejected the "significant yap" test to establish need for wireless facilities." (12/8/18 AT&T letter, p. 2) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. As with many other substantive areas of regulation, the City may determine there is a need for consultation with an expert, and consequently the Ordinances authorize the Director to retain a consultant as deemed necessary based on a particular application. Michael Van Eckhardt January 23, 2019 Page ~ 4 Comment: "4. Minimum permit term. Section 6.10.075(F) does not provide for a full ten-year term for eligible facilities requests. This violates California Government Code Section 65964(b), which provides that permit durations of less than ten years are considered unreasonable. The city should grant permits for eligible facilities requests for a minimum of ten years." (12/8/18 AT&T letter, p. 2) City Response to Comment: Section 6.10.075.G.1 provides that a small wireless facility permit or eligible facilities permit shall have a term often years. The draft Ordinances also reserves the City's right to impose a shorter term if allowed under law. (Section 6.10.075.G.2.) Comment: "5. Repetitive provisions. As we previously noted, the Proposed Ordinances include repetitive indemnity provisions at Sections 6.10.075(F)(12) and (15). One of these provisions should be eliminated." (12/8/18 AT&T letter, p. 2) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. Section 6.10.075.F.15 has been eliminated as duplicative. Comment: "6. Overbroad indemnity. The city's indemnity provisions are too broad. One key issue that the city must address is to eliminate the right of the city to select defense counsel. AT&T must retain the right to select its own counsel." (12/8/18 AT&T letter, p. 2) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. This provision is based on standard procedure for the City to retain authority to approve defense counsel, and its consent will not be unreasonably withheld. This is a policy decision for the City. Comment: "Further, the city should avoid characterizing small cells as a threat and blight (See Section 1(C)(3)). Instead, the city should eliminate such references because small cells present a win-win for the city and providers." (9/6/18 AT&T letter, p. 2) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. The purpose of the design, aesthetic and development standards and criteria are to protect public health and safety with regard to use of the public rights-of-way, preserve the aesthetics of City streets, and protect areas of historical significance, and to avoid visual blight. Comment: "FCC Shot Clock Compliance. The Proposed Ordinance includes processes and provisions that risk violating the time limits on application review under applicable federal law. The city should revise these processes and provisions because if the city fails to act on time, the application may be deemed granted under applicable state or federal law upon notice by the applicant." (9/6/18 AT&T letter, p. 2) City Response to Comment: The current Ordinances contain the time deadlines required by the shot clock requirements for small wireless facilities under the FCC Ruling (see Section 6.10.070.E.6, 6.10.070.E.7 and 6.10.070.E.8) and with eligible facility requests under Section Michael Van Eckhardt January 23, 2019 Page ~ 5 6409(a) (see Section 6.10.075.E.6). This includes procedures for determining if an application is complete, timing requirements for issuance of notices of deficiency due to incomplete applications; tolling or re-start of the shot clock as provided under federal law, and deadline for decisions. The appeal provision has been eliminated, and the decision of the Director will be final. Comment: "the Proposed Ordinance seeks several pieces of information that cannot be required in the context of an EFR. The FCC's implementing regulations make clear that the city "mav require the applicant to provide documentation or information only to the extent reasonably related to determining whether the request meets the requirements" of Section 6409(a) and the FCC's regulations.... Indeed, the regulations specifically prohibit the city from requiring "anv other documentation, including but not limited to documentation intended to illustrate the need for such wireless facilities or to iustifv the business decision to modify such wireless facilities." (9/6/18 AT&T letter, pp. 3-4) City Response to Comment: The required documentation for an eligible facility permit application is set out in Rule 4.2.2, and include: (A) a complete application; (B) submittal under penalty of perjury; (C) applicant information; (D) identification of eligible facilities request; (E) Section 6409(a) justification analysis (why the application constitutes an eligible facility under Section 6409(a) and the applicable FCC regulations); (F) public notice and proof of service; (G) eligible facility plans; (H) site plans; (I) photographs and visual analysis; (J) — (N) documentation of federal and state compliance (including all required state and federal governmental permits, licenses and other approvals, including compliance with RF emissions standards); (0) franchise or agreement authorizing the applicant's use of the public right-of-way; (P) environmental clearance; (Q) noise study; (R) traffic control plan; (S) utility approvals (e.g., from Southern California Edison); (T) compliance with pole attachment rules for wooden utility poles; (U) documentation supporting any exception requested; and (V) any other additional information or documentation deemed necessary by the Director. These requirements are consistent with Section 6409(a) and the FCC regulations. Comment: "some of the design standards under the Guidelines in the proposed ordinance may also conflict with Section 6409(a1." (9/6/18 AT&T letter, p. 4) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. As proposed, the design, aesthetic and development criteria are set out in Rule 4.3, which requires that any proposed tower or base station must be designed so that they do not constitute a substantial change as defined by Section 6409(a) and Section 6.10.075.6.(2) and (3); and that all such proposed eligible facilities must comply with any design, aesthetic and development requirements of federal and state law. Comment: "... the city needs to delete Section 6.10.075(F1(7)(d), which prohibits modifvin~ nonconforming structures. Under Section 6409(a), the city cannot deny an eligible facilities Michael Van Eckhardt January 23, 2019 Page ~ 6 request to modify a nonconforming structure. An eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a) must be approved even if it modifies or expands a nonconforming wireless communications facility because the city must approve a proposal to modify an existing wireless communications facility which does not "substantially change the physical dimensions" of the eligible support structure... The FCC expressly "reiectfedl municipal arguments that any modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that has 'legal, non-conforming' status should be considered a'substantial change' to its'phvsical dimensions'." (9/6/18 AT&T letter, p. 4) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. Section 6.10.075.1.11 provides that Section 6.10.070.X applies to nonconforming wireless facilities. Section 6.10.070.X provides that modifications may be made to nonconforming facilities to extent it is required by Section 6409(a). Comment: "Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a local jurisdiction must avoid taking any action on a wireless siting permit that "prohibitfsl or fhasl the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Courts have found an "effective prohibition" exists where a wireless carrier has (1) a "significant yap" in wireless service coverage; and (2) that the proposed facility would provide the "least intrusive means," in relation to the land use values embodied in local regulations, to provide the service coverage necessary to fill that yap. If a wireless carrier satisfies both of these requirements, state and local standards that would otherwise be sufficient to permit denial of the facility are preempted and the municipality must approve the wireless facility. In that case, the burden shifts to the local government to prove that another site is potentially available, technically feasible, and less intrusive." (9/6/18 AT&T letter, pp. 4-5) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. The Exception provision (Section 6.10.070.1) allows the Director to grant an exception from the strict locational, physical, or design, or development requirements of the Ordinances or Rules, under any of the following three circumstances: (i) Because of special, unique circumstances applicable to the proposed location and/or the proposed wireless facility, the strict application of the requirements of the section would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other permittees in the vicinity operating a similar WCF; or (ii) Denial of the small wireless facility, as proposed, would violate federal law, state law, or both; or (iii) a provision of this section, as applied to applicant, would deprive applicant of its rights under federal law, state law, or both. This provision is to the benefit of wireless providers, and ensures that the City's decision on an application will not violate federal or state law. Comment: "2. Performance Security —.... Section 65964(a) of the California Government Code allows for a performance bond rationally related to the cost of removal. Accordin~ly, the city should amend the provision for the performance security to only ensure removal.." (9/6/18 AT&T letter, p. 6) Michael Van Eckhardt January 23, 2019 Page ~ 7 City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. Section 6.10.070.D.12 and 6.10.075.6.13 provide that security shall be provided to cover the removal costs of the small wireless facility or eligible facility if the facility is abandoned or its use is otherwise terminated. Comment: "4. Rule 3.2.4(6) seeks to require under~roundin~ of accessory equipment. But this is inconsistent with the City Code. Section 9.55.015(B)(6) of the City Code permits the city council to authorize an exception from under~roundin~ requirements for "Antennae, associated equipment and supporting structures used by a utility for furnishing wireless communications services." (9/6/18 AT&T letter, p. 6) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. There was no inconsistency between the undergrounding provisions of the proposed Ordinances and Municipal Code Section 9.55.015.8.6, but Section 6.10.070.G.4.g has been modified to provide as follows: "To conceal the non-antenna equipment, applicants shall install all non-antenna equipment (including but not limited to all cables) underground to the extent technically feasible. If such non-antenna equipment is proposed within an underground utility district and the type of non-antenna equipment has been exempted by the City Council from undergrounding pursuant to Section 9.55.015.8.6 of Chapter 9.55 of the code, the non-antenna equipment shall comply with the requirements of this section if the Director finds that such undergrounding is technically feasible and undergrounding is required for building, traffic, emergency, disability access, or other safety requirements. Additional expense to install and maintain an underground equipment enclosure does not exempt an applicant from this requirement, except where the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that this requirement will effectively prohibit the provision of wireless communications services." Comment: "6. Landscaping —Rule 3.2.4(H) requires landscaping features, including maintaining, irri~atin~, and enhancing sites as deemed necessary by the city. While appropriate for the city to require a provider to maintain and not damage landscaping in the right-of-way, AT&T cannot be required to enhance and irrigate landscaping. This provision should be amended accordin~ly. (9/6/18 AT&T letter, p. 6) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. With regard to landscaping, Rule 3.2.4.N provides that "Where appropriate, each WCF shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted and irrigated by the applicant to replace any landscaping damaged or destroyed during the WCF installation, or in such other locations within the PROW that the City determines to be necessary to provide screening of or to conceal the WCF." This rule is intended to protect the aesthetics of the site, by ensuring concealment of the proposed facility. Michael Van Eckhardt January 23, 2019 Page ~ 8 Conclusion Should you have any additional comments or concerns with the proposed Ordinances and Resolution, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Myrter or Mr. Brooks, or the undersigned. Very truly yours, r ~ ~~C, ~~- C ~~ Amy G~ son cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Seal Beach Jill Ingram, City Manager Steve Myrter, Public Works Director Travis Brooks, Management Analyst, Public Works Craig A. Steele, City Attorney 57296-1077\2259963v1.doc RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON LAW January 23, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & U.S. MAIL Paul B. Albritton, Esq. Mackenzie &Albritton 155 Sansome Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Amy Greyson T 714.990.0901 1 Civic Center Circle, PO Box 1059 F 714.990.6230 Brea, California 92822-1059 E agreyson@rwglaw,com rwglaw.com Re: City of Seal Beach Draft Ordinance and Guidelines regulating Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way City Council Agenda January 28, 2019 Dear Mr. Albritton: Thank you for your letters dated August 13, 2018 and November 30, 2018 on behalf of Verizon Wireless ("Verizon"), in which you provided comments on prior drafts of proposed ordinances and rules regulating wireless telecommunications facilities ("wireless facilities") in the public rights-of-way and related resolutions approving rules and guidelines in the City of Seal Beach ("City"). We have reviewed your letters, and we have set out below general and specific responses to your comments. To the extent that Verizon's comments in your August 13, 2018 letter have been subsumed into the November 13, 2018 letter, we have not addressed your earlier comments. Background At the January 28, 2019 City Council meeting, staff will present three items for consideration by the City Council with regard to wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way: 1. Urgency Ordinance XXXX, an Ordinance of the Seal Beach City Council Amending Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Amend Section 6.10.010 and Section 6.10.065, Repeal Section 6.10.070, and Add New Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 Regulating Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way and Declaring the Urgency Thereof; and Orange County Los Angeles San Francisco Temecula Central Coast Paul B. Albritton, Esq. January 23, 2019 Page ~ 2 2. Ordinance YYYY, an Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach City Council Amending Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Amend Section 6.10.010 and Section 6.10.65, to Repeal Section 6.10.070, and to Add New Sections 6.10.070 and 6.10.075 Regulating Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way; and Resolution XXXX, a Resolution of the Seal Beach City Council Establishing Rules and Guidelines for Small Wireless Facilities and Eligible Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way ("Rules") The staff report and proposed Ordinances and Rules will be available for public review on Friday,lanuary 25, 2019. The draft Ordinances and Rules reflect input received from wireless providers over the past several months, including but not limited to the November 2018 public workshop, and review of the recent FCC Ruling and Third Report and Order, issued on September 27, 2018 (FCC 18- 133) ("2018 FCC Ruling"), Section 6049(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creations Act of 2012 ("Section 6409(a)"), and other provisions of federal and state law regulating wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way. The proposed Ordinances and Rules reflect the City's efforts to update its local requirements in accordance with developing federal and state laws, while preserving the City's ability to use and manage the public rights-of-way and to prevent interference with the public's access to the public rights-of-way. In preparing these draft Ordinances and Rules, City staff has taken into account the comments submitted by you and other providers. We have divided our responses by topic and referenced the relevant pages) and comment numbers (where applicable) from your letters. City's Responses to Verizon's Comments Comment: "At the outset, we wish to emphasize that there is simply no need "for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety" that would justify an urgency ordinance under Government Code Section 36937(b). There are no pending applications which pose anv threat to the Citv, and the findings of fact in the ur~encv ordinance are overstated as there is no emergency, particularly as Verizon Wireless is willing to work with the City to craft workable regulations. We urge the Council not to adopt the urgency ordinance or to conduct first reading of the regular ordinance. Instead, Council should direct staff to work with industry stakeholders on a more thoughtful drafting process to avoid conflict between the Citv, industry and the community." (8/13/18 Verizon letter, p. 1) City Response to Comment: Over the past several months the City has had numerous inquiries from wireless providers about the status of the City's regulations. The City refrained from adopting a new ordinance or rules and guidelines based on numerous requests by wireless providers to delay any action pending discussions and input from the industry. While Paul B. Albritton, Esq. January 23, 2019 Page ~ 3 comments to the City's earlier drafts were received from some providers, in most cases specific text was not proposed, leaving it to staff to guess at what provisions would be acceptable. In acquiescing to the requests for delay, it has now become impossible to have the Ordnance in place prior to January 14, 2019, the effective date of the FCC Ruling. Given that the FCC Ruling is now in effect and must guide the City's handling of small wireless facility applications, the need for to have all final standards and criteria adopted prior to April 15, 2019, and repeated requests for an explanation of the City's current regulations from the industry, there is a need for immediate action and supports adoption of the Urgency Ordinance. Comment: "Public Notice, Comment and Appeals Are Inappropriate for Review Under Oblective Standards" (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 2) City Response to Comment: The 2018 FCC Ruling does not address public notice or input from persons who may be impacted by installation or modification of a wireless facility. As drafted, the Ordinances require public notification of small wireless and eligible facilities applications to residents and businesses located within 150 feet of the proposed site, in order to assist in educating the public and allowing them an opportunity to provide input whether or not the proposed facility complies with the applicable federal and state standards and City requirements. This is a policy decision for determination by the City Council. It is also noted that in Verizon's original letter dated August 13, 2018, Verizon proposed a 150-radius for public notification for administrative approvals (p. 2). The draft Ordinances are consistent with this distance limit. Comment: "Subjective Standards Must Be Eliminated" (11/30/18 Verizon letter, pp. 2-3) City Response to Comment: Staff has revised and updated the proposed standards and criteria to incorporate objective standards. The Director is also authorized to adopt and publish supplemental standards prior to April 15, 2019, that will provide a further objective basis for review and action upon small wireless and eligible facilities applications. Comment: "Design Standards Must Be Reasonable and Should Accommodate Typical Small Cell Equipment on Poles" (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 3) City Response to Comment: From your letter, the City understands that Verizon contends Southern California Edison has only approved select designs, and that any City requirement not approved by SoCal Edison would be infeasible. As drafted, the Ordinances and Rules provides that any applicable pole attachment rules applicable to a proposed wireless facility to be attached to an existing pole will supersede City requirements. To the extent that an applicant contends a standard is not technically feasible, such as shrouding that impedes signal propagation, the applicant may present the evidence justifying its contention that it is infeasible and seek an exception under Section 6.10.070.J. Paul B. Albritton, Esq. January 23, 2019 Page ~ 4 Comment: "While the Draft Ordinance provides for an exception from standards, the exception findings require the Director to evaluate whether the standards violate federal and/or state law. Draft Ordinance § 6.10.070(J)(11. This inappropriately requires quasi-judicial determinations for permits approved administratively by the Director, and it reflects a lack of confidence that the proposed regulations comply with the Infrastructure Order. Further, the determination would come too late, as the FCC requires that cities publish reasonable, objective standards for small cells by mid-April 2019. (11/30/18 letter, p. 3) City Response to Comment: The Exception provision (Section 6.10.070.J) allows the Director to grant an exception from the strict locational, physical, or design, or development requirements of the Ordinances or Rules, under any of the following three circumstances: (i) Because of special, unique circumstances applicable to the proposed location and/or the proposed wireless facility, the strict application of the requirements of the section would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other permittees in the vicinity operating a similar WCF; or (ii) Denial of the small wireless facility, as proposed, would violate federal law; state law, or both; or (iii) a provision of this section, as applied to applicant, would deprive applicant of its rights under federal law, state law, or both. This provision is to the benefit of wireless providers, and ensures that the City's decision on an application will not violate federal or state law. The City will continue to work on drafting additional standards and criteria to be published by the Director, to further implement the Ordinances and Rules, by the April 15, 2019 deadline of the 2018 FCC Ruling. Comment: "Under~roundin~ Requirements Mav be Unreasonable and Could Effectively Prohibit Wireless Services" (11/30/18 Verizon letter, pp. 4-5) City Response to Comment: Section 6.10.070.G.4.g of the Ordinances requires that in order to conceal the non-antenna equipment, applicants shall install all non-antenna equipment (including but not limited to all cables) underground to the extent technically feasible. If the non-antenna equipment is proposed within an underground utility district and the type of non-antenna equipment has been exempted by the City Council from undergrounding pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.55.015.B.6, the non-antenna equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section 6.10.070.G.4.g if the Director finds that undergrounding is technically feasible and undergrounding is required for building, traffic, emergency, disability access, or other safety requirements. In addition, the Ordinances recognize that undergrounding may be superseded by applicable pole attachment rules. (Section 6.10.070.C.1.c.) The Ordinances also allow the applicant to seek an exception to any undergrounding requirement under Section 6.10.070.J. Comments: "Location Restriction Are Unreasonable and Contradict State Law...The Draft Ordinance imposes several absolute location restrictions, notably a six-foot setback from residential property which may exclude small cells from many rights-of-way in the City...Forbiddin~ or effectively barring use of certain streets also violates Public Utilities Code Paul B. Albritton, Esq. January 23, 2019 Page ~ 5 Section 7901 that grants telephone corporations such as Verizon Wireless a statewide right to place their telephone equipment in any public right-of-way." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 5) City Response to Comments: The locational restrictions have been modified in the most recent drafts. As proposed, the Ordinances express a preference for collocation on existing infrastructure located at alleys, streets and/or near property line prolongations. (Section 6.10.070.D.4.a) Small wireless facilities are not allowed within six (6) feet of the living area of any residential dwelling unit. The term "living area" means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including but not limited to bedrooms, windows, basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. The 6-foot distance shall be measured from the dwelling unit's outer wall located nearest to the proposed SWF. (Section 6.10.070.D.4.b.) Small wireless facilities are also not allowed within the PROW or any poles, infrastructure, buildings or other structures of any kind in the PROW, in the following locations or sites: (i) On the Seal Beach Pier, or any decorative lighting or poles on the Seal Beach Pier; (ii) On any decorative lighting or poles on Main Street from and including Pacific Coast Highway to the Seal Beach Pier; or (iii) On Electric Avenue between Marina to Ocean (including but not limited to within the parkway, greenbelt, bike path or any other PROW within Electric Avenue), except in the following locations: (aa) on the north side of the PROW adjacent to the westbound lanes of Electric Avenue; or (bb) on the south side of the PROW adjacent to the eastbound lanes of Electric Avenue. (Section 6.10.070.G.4.c.) The proximity limitation adjacent to residential uses is premised in order to preserve the aesthetics for residents. The prohibition on small wireless facilities in the other areas is based on the need to protect historically significant areas, and because the City's decorative lighting cannot structurally support wireless facilities. An applicant may seek an exception to these limitations under Section 6.10.070.J. Comment: "Provisions for Eligible Facilities Requests Must Comply with Federal and State Law"...Director approval is appropriate, but public notice is not because there is not benefit of public comment to evaluation of objective criteria" (11/30/18 Verizon letter, pp. 5-6) City Response to Comment: As outlined above, the 2018 FCC Ruling does not address public notice or input from persons who may be impacted by installation or modification of a wireless facility. As drafted, the Ordinances require public notification of small wireless and eligible facilities applications to residents and businesses located within 150 feet of the proposed site, in order to assist in educating the public and allowing them an opportunity to provide input whether or not the proposed facility complies with the applicable federal and state standards and City requirements. This is a policy decision for determination by the City Paul B. Albritton, Esq. Ja nuary 23, 2019 Page ~ 6 Council. It is also noted that in Verizon's original letter dated August 13, 2018, Verizon proposed a 150 foot radius for public notification for administrative approvals (p. 2). The draft Ordinances are consistent with this distance limit. Comment: "Provisions for Eligible Facilities Requests Must Comply with Federal and State Law".... "...the FCC limited the application materials a city may require to those "reasonably related" to determining if an eligible facilities request meets substantial change criteria, which notice materials are not. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(c)(1). Notice requirements for eligible facilities requests must be stricken. Similarly, the Citv cannot require information re~ardin~ purpose, economic factors or design rationale. Draft Guidelines § 4.2.2(G)." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, pp. 5-6 City Response to Comment: The proposed procedures are intended to obtain information from the applicant to demonstrate that a proposed facility qualifies as an eligible facility, including whether or not the proposed facility constitutes a substantial change. Comment: "Provisions for Eligible Facilities Requests Must Comply with Federal and State Law".... "Standards for "concealment elements" for new facilities are excessive and will pose complications for modifications submitted as eligible facilities requests." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, pp. S-6) City Response to Comment: Staff has revised and updated the proposed standards and criteria to incorporate objective standards. The Director is also authorized to adopt and publish supplemental standards prior to April 15, 2019, that will provide a further objective basis for review and action upon small wireless and eligible facilities applications. Comment: "Provisions for Eligible Facilities Requests Must Comply with Federal and State Law".... "The Draft Ordinance does not guarantee a full ten-year term for eligible facilities permits in conflict with Government Code Section 65964(b) which states that permit durations of less than ten years are generally presumed to be unreasonable." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. City Response to Comment: The draft Ordinances provide for aten-year term for eligible facilities. (Section 6.10.075.G.1.) The draft Ordinances also reserves the City's right to impose a shorter term if allowed under law. (Section 6.10.075.G.2.) Comment: "Provisions for Eligible Facilities Requests Must Comply with Federal and State Law".... "We su~~est that instead of codifvin~ term limits, applicant for eligible facilities requests should be allowed to request extension of an underlvin~ permit term, with the Director eranted authority to approve this. (11/30/18 Verizon letter. p. 6) City Response to Comment: The suggestion is noted. This is a policy decision for the City. Paul B. Albritton, Esq. January 23, 2019 Page ~ 7 Comment: "Requirements for Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Must Comply with Federal Law."... "The requirement for a technical report on radio frequency emissions every five nears exceeds the Citv's authority." ... The City should require follow-up monitoring report only if radio or antennas equipment has been upgraded." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 6) City Response to Comment: The draft Ordinances authorize a term often years for small wireless facilities permit or eligible facilities permit. The draft Ordinances recognize that the City cannot regulate RF emissions, but may require that the provider demonstrate the proposed facility complies with the applicable RF standards imposed by the FCC. Given the ten-year term of the permit, the requirement to again submit proof of compliance at the half-way point — afterfive years — is a reasonable safety condition. Comment: "...the City should consider accommodating an emer~encv procedure whereby wireless carriers can repair or swap damaged equipment, particularly in times of crisis." X11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 6) City Response to Comment: Section 6.10.070.D.7 has been modified to provide that a Maintenance Encroachment Permit may be requested for minor modifications and routine maintenance and repairs, or minor modifications resulting from an emergency. Comment: "... the City cannot deny anv application, including minor modifications, based on an increase in emissions output if the modification is shown to comply with FCC exposure limits. (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 6) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. A permit application which complies with the applicable RF emissions standards but meets all other requirements would not be denied. Comment: "The finding of no interference with emer~encv operations is inappropriate because interference issues are within the FCC's jurisdiction, not the City's. Draft Ordinance § 6.10.070(11(1)(d). The appropriate remedy for any complaint of interference with emer~encv operations is to petition the FCC which alone may resolve interference issues. This finding exceeds the City's authority and must be stricken." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 7) City Response to Comment: Under Public Utilities Code Section 7901, wireless providers may not construct their lines, or erect poles, posts, piers or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines "in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road." Under Public Utilities Code Section 7901.1, municipalities have "the right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed." A requirement for the applicant to demonstrate that a proposed small wireless facility or eligible facility will not interfere with the ability of law enforcement, fire trucks or ambulances to transmit or receive electronic communications necessary to perform their emergency or law enforcement services is a Paul B. Albritton, Esq. January 23, 2019 Page ~ 8 reasonable condition intended to protect the public health and safety and preserve public use of the rights-of-way. Comment: "Submittal Requirements and Other Procedures Must Comply with Federal and State Law or Are Unnecessary" ..."As the FCC has determined that mandatory pre-application procedures start the Shot Clock, Verizon Wireless will calculate the Shot Clock to commence running on the day it requests an application appointment." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 7) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. Section 6.10.070.E.4 and Section 6.10.075. E.4 both allow the Director to require an appointment for a provider to submit an application for a small wireless permit or eligible facilities permit. This is not apre-application requirement, but is an option should the Director find that staffing issues or similar concerns justify requiring an appointment in order to preserve expeditious processing of an application. The provisions do not mandate an appointment in all circumstances. Comment: "The City cannot require existing network information, ~eo~raphical service area information or a master plan for new right-of-way facilities. Draft Guidelines §§ 3.2.2(F), 3.2.2(G). These are not related to findings for approval, and because Public Utilities Code Section 7901 grants telephone corporations such as Verizon Wireless a statewide franchise to use the right-of-way, the City cannot require demonstration of need for a facility." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 7) City Response to Comment: The draft Ordinances include a locational preference for collocations, to the extent not preempted by law, to limit interference with the use of the public rights-of-way and preserve aesthetics. In order to effectuate these goals, Rule 3.2.2.E provides that the applicant must submit an inventory list and map of the applicant's existing wireless facilities, including but not limited to collocations, operated by the applicant within two miles of the proposed site, and conceptual plans for a period of five years shall also be provided, if available. Comment: "Applicants cannot be required to provide photosimulations from private property views. Draft Guidelines §§ 3.2.2(K), 4.2.2(1). The scope of aesthetic review is limited to impacts on the right-of-way because Public Utilities Code Sections 7901 and 7901.1 narrow the City's purview to factors addressing public use or access of the roadway. Also, the City cannot authorize a wireless carrier's entry onto private property for photographs. Photosimulations must be limited to views from right-of-way vantage points." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 7) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. The draft Ordinances and Rules do not require that the applicant enter onto private property, but merely require that an applicant provide photosimulations to show how the proposed wireless facility may look from private property. Paul B. Albritton, Esq. January 23, 2019 Page ~ 9 Comment: "Most small cells include no moving parts and generate no noise. In this case, applicants should be allowed to submit manufacturer specifications confirming no noise rather than a noise study. Draft Guidelines § 3.2.2(S)." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 7) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. The requirement for a noise study is reasonable and consistent with other City ordinances that regulate activities which may result in noise disturbances to surrounding residents, occupants or businesses. Manufacturer specifications may be insufficient to demonstrate compliance with the City's noise standards. Comment: "The City cannot require re-design of permitted facilities based on availability of new technolo~v. Draft Ordinance § 6.10.070(G)(9), Draft Guidelines § 3.2.10(6). This would violate the vested rights of permittees. Requirements for future under~roundin~ could contradict the Infrastructure Order as described above. By requiring smaller facilities, the City would dictate the technology to be used by Verizon Wireless. However, local jurisdictions may not regulate the technolo~v used by wireless providers to provide service to their customers. (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 7) City Response to Comment: The comments are noted. A permittee may present evidence that such requirements are not technically feasible or otherwise preempted by state or federal law, pursuant to Section 6.10.070.J. Comment: "Verizon Wireless appreciates the option for extension of permit terms under Draft Ordinance Section 6.10.070(R), and Section 6.10.070(H)(1) should be revised to acknowledge the extension option. A contradiction in Sections 6.10.070(R)(2)(a)and 6.10.070(R)(3) must be resolved to confirm permittees can extend permits if they apply within six months prior to expiration." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, pp. 7-8) City Response to Comments: The comments are noted. Section 6.10.070. R.1 provides that a permittee may seek an extension no later than six months prior to the expiration of the ten-year term. Any request within the six-month period must be submitted as a new permit request. The duplicative language of Section 6.10.070.R.3 has been deleted. Comment: "The provision requiring facility removal should be revised to extend the period from 30 to 90 days. Draft Ordinance § 6.10.070(T)(2). This will allow permittees to coordinate with City departments, secure contractors, perform work and confirm it is done satisfactorily." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 8) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. As proposed, removal of a permitted facility must be completed within 30 days. Comment: Requiring an annual site condition report and review is burdensome for both permittees and the City. Draft Ordinance § 6.10.070(H)(4). This obligation is excessive, oarticularly as Verizon Wireless can remotely monitor facility oaerations and routinely inspects Paul B. Albritton, Esq. January 23, 2019 Page ~ 10 facilities to ensure optimal performance. At most, the City should require documentation of site conditions at five-year intervals." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. S) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. The annual site condition requirement is intended to ensure adequate monitoring and safety of the facility location. Comment: "The Citv need not require a signed, notarized form accepting conditions of approval. Draft Ordinance § 6.10.070(H)(13), Draft Guidelines § 3.2.10(Q). California case law consistently confirms that a permittee that receives the benefit of a permit is obligated to perform the conditions of approval under which the permit was granted." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 8) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. Execution of an "Acceptance of Conditions" form is a standard requirement for all City-approved permits. Comment: "Certain requirements for contact information may be unnecessary. Draft Ordinance § 6.10.070(H)(9), Draft Guidelines § 3.2.10(C). Verizon Wireless maintains a network operations control center that remotely monitors facility performance and can be reached 24 hours every day bV a toll-free number, as requested in the Draft Guidelines. The City will have the permittee's information on file based on the application, and we suggest that for emer~encv contact, the draft regulations simply require the network operations number." (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 8) City Response to Comment: The comments are noted. The draft Ordinances require specified contact information to be available to both the City and members of the public to facilitate their ability to contact the permittee if problems arise with a particular location. Comment: With respect to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City should routinely find small cells to be exempt due to their small size and minimal impact with no onerous requirements for environmental documentation. Applicable exemptions under the CEQA Guidelines may be Class 1(Existin~ Facilities), Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), Class 11 (Accessory Structures), and "common sense" exemptions. 14 Cal. Code Reis. §§ 15301, 15303, 15311, and 15061(b)(3). (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 8) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. Review of any proposed small wireless permit or eligible facility will be undertaken in accordance with CEQA. Comment: Lastly, for street lights owned by the Citv, we encourage the Council to exempt facilities from the Draft Ordinance permit requirements, as the City in its propriety right will have full discretion over design and other terms. (11/30/18 Verizon letter, p. 8) City Response to Comment: The comment is noted. Paul B. Albritton, Esq. January 23, 2019 Page ~ 11 Conclusion Should you have any additional comments or concerns with the proposed Ordinances and Resolution, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Myrter or Mr. Brooks, or the undersigned. Very truly yours, ~~.~ ~ ,~~ f Amy G re n cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Seal Beach Jill Ingram, City Manager Steve Myrter, Public Works Director Travis Brooks, Management Analyst, Public Works Craig A. Steele, City Attorney 57296-1077\2259962v1.doc Agenda Item: L AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:January 28, 2019 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager FROM:Crystal Landavazo, Interim Community Development Director SUBJECT:Adoption of Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) and Formation of Working Group for JLUS Implementation and Continued Collaboration ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 6895 adopting the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) and establishing the formation of a working group to work toward implementation of JLUS strategies and continue collaboration efforts on future matters that may affect the installation and the City. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Department of Defense has a long and successful history of working together with communities throughout the nation to provide a more secure environment. As part of this endeavor, Congress authorized the Department of Defense, through the Office of Economic Advancement (OEA), to provide community planning assistance grants to help integrate military installations and operations into local government long term planning programs. The JLUS program is an OEA planning process designed to address the compatibility of on- going military operations and programs with local community land use planning and provide recommendations to balance the interest of both community and military needs. The JLUS is an excellent tool to bridge the partnership and maintain a positive relationship with local governments so that both entities may co-exist successfully. The City of Seal Beach was awarded a grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to partner with Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB) representatives to complete the land use and compatibility study. The process was facilitated with the use of a consultant, Matrix Design Group, to establish a Policy Committee and Technical Review Committee, evaluate existing conditions, seek public input and concerns related to NWSSB, and identify potential strategies to address identified issues. The Technical Review Committee, made up of city staff and NWSSB staff, reviewed all documentation collected and provided guidance to the Policy Committee. The policy committee consisted of City policy makers that reviewed the data collected from public workshops and collaborated with NWSSB command staff to reach agreeable resolutions to issues raised. Four public workshops were held throughout this process to obtain community guidance and both the Technical Review Committee and Policy Committee focused their review on ensuring public concerns were reflected in the final document and proposed strategies. The City of Seal Beach and Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach have had a history of positive relationships and communication which is reflected in the document as many issues identified are a result of regional impacts or a need to formalize and memorialize procedures between the two. A few of the issues that arose from the study were the City’s need for funding assistance to eradicate the sand erosion on East Beach, the need for a Special Event Parking Application to request parking on NWSSB property during large community events, and the need for a NWSSB Working Group that would formalize communication and goal setting between the Navy and the City. The JLUS was prepared in two parts; the Joint Land Use Study Report which consists of a general overview of the JLUS process and the compatibility factors identified and an implementation plan with strategies to address the issues identified, and the Background Report which provides further analysis on the compatibility areas reviewed and the issues that were identified. The implementation plan includes a strategy for the creation of a working group to ensure continued collaboration and communication between the City and NWSSB to work on issues identified in the JLUS and any future issues that may arise in the future. Similarly, a proposed strategy includes the adoption of a Resolution that would formalize the communication points and partnerships that exist between the City of Seal Beach and Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. The latter strategy is a resolution that is expected to be prepared as a result of coordination within the working group to identify points of contact, respective communication roles, triggers for coordination and communication, and procedures for early development review. The JLUS provides a guide for the City and NWSSB to memorialize its ongoing coordination and the working group will provide an avenue to explore implementation of the JLUS strategies. The working group will also provide a formal setting for addressing any future items that may arise. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Planning Department has determined that the proposed Joint Land Use Study is exempt from the requirements of CEQA and the City’s CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 which exempts the adoption of feasibility and planning studies. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Resolution as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the adoption of the Joint Land Use Study and formation of a working group because the document is not regulatory. The JLUS is a guiding document that provides strategies for future consideration and does not commit the City to any expenses through its adoption. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 6895 adopting the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) and establishing the formation of a working group to work toward implementation of JLUS strategies and continue collaboration efforts on future matters that may affect the installation and the City. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Crystal Landavazo Jill R. Ingram Crystal Landavazo, Interim Community Development Director Jill R. Ingram, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 6895 - A Resolution of the Seal Beach City Council Adopting the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study and Establishing a Working Group for the Implementation of JLUS Strategies and Continued Collaboration B. Exhibit A – Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study C. Exhibit B – Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Background Report RESOLUTION 6895 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE NAVAL WEAPONS STATION SEAL BEACH JOINT LAND USE STUDY AND ESTABLISHING A WORKING GROUP FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF JLUS STRATEGIES AND CONTINUED COORDINATION THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Seal Beach (“the City”) participated in the development if the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study as the project sponsor through grant funding obtained from the Office of Economic Adjustment within the Department of Defense. Section 2. Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach is key in protecting our Nation’s security and is important to contributing to local and regional economies through payroll, annual expenditure, and value of jobs created. Section 3. The goal of the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study is to protect the viability of current and future military missions and operations, while simultaneously guiding community growth, sustaining the environmental and economic health of the region, and protecting public health, safety, and welfare. Section 4. The City of Seal Beach played a critical role in the development of the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use as the project sponsor and provided technical guidance relevant to the City’s policies, regulations, culture, and values. Section 5. The general public was instrumental in the development of the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study and strategies by providing their perspective and feedback. Section 6. The Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study strategies incorporate a variety of suggested actions that can be implemented to promote compatible land use and resource planning. Section 7. One important element of implementation of the strategies is establishment of a working group to work together to establish procedures, recommend or refine specific strategies and suggested actions for member agencies, and make adjustments to strategies over time to ensure the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study continues to resolve compatibility issues through realistic strategies and implementation. Section 8. A key first step in prioritizing the strategies evaluating proper implementation of the strategies is the adoption of the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study by the City of Seal Beach and establishment of a working group. Section 9. The working group will formally outline a communication plan, responsibilities in coordination compatibility concerns, response times, triggers for communications and coordination, representative from Naval Weapons Station at City’s Strategic Goal Setting Workshop, and similar items to provide clear areas of responsibility and communication. The working group shall consist of policy level members of both the City of Seal Beach and Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby adopts Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study and establishes a working group for implementation of proposed strategies and continued collaboration. Section 11. Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 12. Exhibit B is hereby incorporated by this reference as though set forth in full. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January , 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: ___________________________________________ NOES: Council Members: ___________________________________________ ABSENT: Council Members: ___________________________________________ ABSTAIN: Council Members: ___________________________________________ _____________________________ Thomas Moore, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 6895 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January, 2019. ________________________ Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk Resolution 6895 Exhibit A Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study Resolution 6895 Exhibit B Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Background Report JLUS Report NWS Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study Prepared for: City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach , CA 90740 Prepared by: January 2019 This study was prepared under contract with the City of Seal Beach, with financial support from t he Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of the key JLUS partners involved in the development of this study and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. How to Read the JLUS Documents The Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) consists of three separate documents that provide different levels of information. These three documents are: JLUS Background Report The JLUS Background Report provides a detailed technical background of existing conditions within the Seal Beach JLUS Study Area. It is separated out into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction and overview of the project and why it was conducted. Chapter 2 introduces the communities that are within the Study Area and gives an overview of their history and demographic trends, including population, housing characteristics, economic outlook, and future growth and development. Chapter 3 provides an overview of NWS Seal Beach and its operational facilities, discusses the installation’s mission and tenants, its strategic and local importance, and facility and training capabilities and operations. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the military footprints that go outside the installation boundaries. Chapter 4 provides an overview of relevant plans, programs, and studies that are tools to address compatibility issues in the JLUS Study Area. Chapter 5 presents the compatibility issues identified and a detailed assessment of each and how it impacts NWS Seal Beach and/or the surrounding community. JLUS Report The JLUS Report is a condensed portfolio of the key issues and strategies identified through the NWS Seal Beach JLUS process. The report includes a user-friendly reference of the Background Report that is accessible and easy-to-use for all stakeholders. This report provides a brief discussion on the purpose and objectives of the JLUS, describes the benefit of the JLUS, and provides an overview of the various JLUS partners that assisted in its development. Finally, this document outlines the relevant compatibility issues accompanied by applicable strategies identified in the Implementation Plan and provides summaries of the strategies separated by stakeholder. Executive Summary Brochure The Executive Summary brochure provides a brief overview of the project and highlights the key recommended strategies to address the compatibility issues identified. Policy Committee (PC) The Policy Committee consisted of elected officials from participating jurisdictions, NWSSB leadership, and leaders from participating agencies. The committee was responsible for the direction of the JLUS, preparation and approval of the study design, approval of policy recommendatio ns, and approval of draft and final JLUS documents. The Policy Committee was comprised of the following individuals: ◼ Thomas Moore, Mayor City of Seal Beach ◼ Mike Varipapa, City Council Member City of Seal Beach ◼ Ellery Deaton, City Council Member City of Seal Beach ◼ Schelly Sustarsic, City Council Member City of Seal Beach ◼ Sandra Massa-Lavitt, City Council Member City of Seal Beach ◼ Jill Ingram, City Manager City of Seal Beach ◼ Tom Modica, Assistant City Manager City of Long Beach ◼ Crystal Landavazo, Interim Community Development Director City of Seal Beach ◼ Diana Tang, Manager of Government Affairs City of Long Beach ◼ CAPT Noel Dahlke, Commanding Officer Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Technical Committee (TC) The Technical Committee was responsible for identifying and studying technical issues, providing feedback on report development, and assisting in the development and evaluation of implementation strategies and tools. Membership included area planners, military base planners, business and development community representatives, and other subject matter experts as needed to assist in the development and evaluation of implemen tation strategies and tools. Items discussed by the TC were brought before the PC for consideration and action. The Technical Committee was comprised of the following individuals: ◼ Crystal Landavazo, Interim Community Development Director City of Seal Beach ◼ Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner City of Seal Beach ◼ David Spitz, Associate Engineer City of Seal Beach ◼ Salim Rahemtulla, Facilities Management Division Director Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach ◼ Jazmin Atencia, Installation Program Integrator Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach ◼ Lindsay Flieger, Environmental Protection Naval Facilities Engineering Command ◼ Andrew Chang, Management Analyst City of Long Beach ◼ Joshua Hickman, Tidelands Program Manager City of Long Beach ◼ Kelly Finn, Community Planning Liaison Officer Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach JLUS Consultant Matrix Design Group, Inc. was the project consultant hired to conduct the JLUS project through coordination with and assistance from the City of Seal Beach, the PC, the TC, the public, and other stakeholders. Celeste Werner, AICP Project Manager Mike Hrapla Deputy Project Manager David Wilder RA, PMP Planning Lead January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page i Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... i 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 What Is a Joint Land Use Study? ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 JLUS Goal and Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Why Prepare a Joint Land Use Study? ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Public Outreach ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 JLUS Study Area ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 JLUS Implementation ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2. Community Profiles ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Study Area Growth Trends ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Economic Overview................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 3. Military Profile ................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Installation Setting ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Current Mission Operations ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 NWSSB Mission Footprint .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 4. Compatibility Tools .......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Federal Programs and Policies ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Plans and Programs ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 State of California Legislation, Plans and Programs ............................................................................................................................................................. 21 County and Municipal Plans and Programs ......................................................................................................................................................................... 24 5. Compatibility Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Identification of Compatibility Issues................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Methodology and Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Page ii Joint Land Use Study January 2019 6. Implementation Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Implementation Plan Guidelines .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Military Compatibility Areas ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 36 Figures Figure 1 NWS Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study Study Area ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 Military Influence Area (MIA) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3 Seal Beach Anaheim Bay ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 4 Military Compatibility Overlay District ................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 5 Operational Military Compatibility Area ................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Figure 6 Notification Military Compatibility Area ................................................................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 7 Strategy Key ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 41 Tables Table 1 Population Change 2000-2010 and Estimates through 2035 ................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2 JLUS Strategies ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 January 2019 Joint Land Use Study iii A AB Assembly Bill AQ Air Quality AT/ FP Antiterrorism / Force Protection B BIG Boating Infrastructure Grant BLM Bureau of Land Management BSC Building Standards Code C CAA Clean Air Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CMLUCA California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst COA Critical Operations Area COM Communication / Coordination CPLO Community Plans and Liaison Officer CWA Clean Water Act D DoD Department of Defense DSS Dust / Smoke / Steam E EA Environmental Assessment EAP Encroachment Action Plan e.g. For Example EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act F FCC Federal Communications Commission FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FSC Frequency Spectrum Capacity FSI Frequency Spectrum Impedance / Interference FY Fiscal Year I INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan IE Infrastructure Extension IRT Innovative Readiness Training J JLUS Joint Land Use Study iv Joint Land Use Study January 2019 L LAS Land / Air / Sea Space Competition LG Light and Glare LU Land Use M MCAOD Military Compatibility Area Overlay District MIA Military Influence Area MLLW Mean Lower Low Water MOA Memorandum of agreement N NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NGO Non-governmental Organization NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Noise NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration NWSSB Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach O O3 Ozone OCTA Orange County Transit Authority OEA Office of Economic Adjustment OPR Office of Planning and Research OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense P PC Policy Committee PM2.5 Particulate Matter 2.5 PT Public Trespassing R RC Roadway Capacity REPI Readiness Environmental Protection Integration RF Radio Frequency RV Recreational Vehicle S SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCRMP South Coast Resource Management Plan SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SIP State Implementation Plan SUA Special Use Airspace T T&E Threatened and Endangered TC Technical Committee January 2019 Joint Land Use Study v U UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service vi Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Please see the next page. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 1 The Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB) Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) is a collaborative planning effort sponsored by the City of Seal Beach in partnership with the City of Long Beach. The JLUS was undertaken in an effort to guide planning and development in the areas surrounding NWSSB to help mitigate any future issues and enhance coordination among all entities involved in the process. The NWSSB JLUS encourages a proactive approach in promoting increased communication about the important decisions surrounding land use regulation, conservation, and natural resource management issues that affect both the local communities and the military. The aim of the JLUS process is to establish and encourage a working relationship between military installations and the neighboring communities that surround them so that compatibility issues related to current and future missions and local growth can be reduced or prevented. Compatibility issues refer to the conflicting uses of land, air, water, and other resources that can individually, or cumulatively, impact the military’s ability to carry out all missions. The compatibility factors considered in this document are described in the Compatibility Assessment chapters of this JLUS (Chapter 5) and the Background Report (Chapter 5). A review of these factors led to the development of a set of strategies that address current and future compatibility concerns. The recommended strategies constitute a toolbox for effective mitigation that includes policy, planning and zoning, coordination and communication, and outreach methods. One of the key recommendations is the formation of a JLUS Coordination Committee responsible for overseeing implementation progress in the months and years after the JLUS is completed. This and all other recommended strategies are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6, the Implementation Plan. What Is a Joint Land Use Study? A JLUS is a community-led planning process accomplished through the collaborative efforts of stakeholders in a defined area, the JLUS Study Area. The process is designed to identify compatible land uses and to help manage growth, within and adjacent to, an active military installation. The JLUS stakeholders include local municipal governments, state and federal officials, residents, business owners, non-governmental organizations, and the military. Through the JLUS process, these parties convene at various forums to identify existing and potential future issues and the actions that can be carried out to eliminate, mitigate, or avoid compatibility conflicts. In addition, the process is intended to establish and encourage a formal, permanent working relationship between local jurisdictions, agencies, and NWSSB. JLUS Goals and Objectives The overarching goal of a JLUS is to protect the viability of current and future military missions and operations, while simultaneously guiding community growth, sustaining the environmental and economic health of the region, and protecting public health, safety, and welfare. To achieve this goal in relation to the NWSSB, three primary JLUS objectives were identified. Page 2 Joint Land Use Study January 2019  Understanding. Convene community and military representatives to identify, confirm, and understand compatibility issues and concerns in an open forum, with consideration to both community and military perspectives and needs. Achieving understanding includes increasing public awareness, education, and opportunities for input through a cohesive outreach program.  Collaboration. Encourage cooperative land use and resource planning by NWSSB and surrounding communities so that future community growth and development are compatible with the military missions and operations and so that operational impacts on land and waterways within the JLUS Study Area can be reduced.  Actions. Provide a set of mutually supported tools, activities, and procedures that local jurisdictions, agencies, and NWSSB can implement in order to avoid and mitigate compatibility issues. The actions include both operational measures to mitigate installation impacts on surrounding communities and local government and agency approaches to reduce community impacts on military operations. These strategies will help decision makers prioritize projects within their annual budgeting cycles and resolve compatibility issues effectively and efficiently. Why Prepare a Joint Land Use Study? Collaboration and joint planning among military installations, local jurisdictions, and agencies protects the long-term viability of existing and future military missions. Working together also enhances local economies and industries before incompatibility becomes an issue. Recognizing the close relationship that should exist between installations and adjacent communities, the Department of Defense (DoD) Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) implemented the JLUS program to mitigate existing and future conflicts and enhance communication and coordination among all affected stakeholders. The program aims to protect current and future operational missions while preserving the sustainability of local communities. Public Outreach The JLUS process was designed to create a locally relevant document that builds consensus and garners stakeholder support. To achieve these goals and objectives, the process included a public outreach program that provided a variety of opportunities for interested parties to participate in the identification and mitigation of compatibility issues. Stakeholders An early step in any planning process is the identification of stakeholders. Stakeholders can include individuals, groups, organizations, and governmental entities interested in, affected by, or affecting the outcome of the Joint Land Use Study. Informing and involving them early in the project is essential to identifying, understanding, and resolving their most important issues through the development of mutually supported strategies and actions. The stakeholders that were identified for the NWSSB JLUS included, but were not limited to:  Local jurisdictions (City of Seal Beach, City of Long Beach, and Orange County);  DoD officials (including OEA representatives) and military installation personnel;  Local, regional, and the state planning, regulatory, and resource management agencies;  Landholding and regulatory federal agencies;  The public (including residents and landowners);  Environmental advocacy organizations;  Non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and  Other special interest groups (including local school districts and other educational institutions). January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 3 Policy Committee and Technical Working Group The development of the JLUS was guided by two committees made up of personnel from the participating cities and NWSSB. The two committees were the Policy Committee (PC) and the Technical Committee (TC). JLUS Policy Committee (PC). The PC consisted of elected officials and leadership from participating jurisdictions and leadership from NWSSB. The PC was responsible for the direction of the JLUS, preparation and approval of the study design, approval of policy recommendations, and approval of draft and final JLUS documents. JLUS Technical Committee (TC). The TC was responsible for identifying and studying technical issues, providing feedback on report development, and assisting in the development and evaluation of implementation strategies and tools. Membership included area planners, military base planners, , and other subject matter experts from participating jurisdictions to assist in the development and evaluation of implementation strategies and tools. Items discussed by the TC were brought before the PC for consideration and action. Public Workshops In addition to the PC and TC meetings, a series of public workshops were held throughout the development of the JLUS. These workshops provided an opportunity for the exchange of information with the community at large. Participants who attended the workshops helped identify the issues that would be addressed in the JLUS and provided input on the proposed mitigation strategies. Each workshop included a traditional presentation and at least one facilitated exercise that offered a “hands on,” interactive opportunity for the public to participate in the development of the study. Public Outreach Materials JLUS Overview / Compatibility Factors Fact Sheet. At the beginning of the JLUS project, a fact sheet was developed to describe the program, its objectives, why it is important to partner with NWSSB, and various methods available to the public for giving input on the process The fact sheet also provides an overview of the 25 compatibility factors that would be analyzed throughout the project and a map of the proposed NWSSB JLUS Study Area. This fact sheet was made available at the public workshops for review by interested members of the public, as well as posted on the project website for download. Strategy Tools Brochure. The Strategy Tools Brochure was prepared for the second public workshop. JLUS strategies comprise a variety of actions that military installations, local governments, agencies, and other stakeholders can implement to promote compatible land use planning. This brochure provides an overview of the strategy types that could alleviate compatibility issues surrounding NWSSB’s assets. NWSSB JLUS Website A project website was developed and maintained to provide stakeholders, the public, and media representatives access to project information and an opportunity to comment on it. The website has been maintained for the entire duration of the project to ensure information is easily accessible when needed. Information on the website includes program points of contact, schedules, documents, maps, public meeting information, and comment and email sign-up sheets. The project website is located at www.sealbeachjlus.com. Page 4 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 JLUS Study Area The JLUS Study Area, as depicted on Figure 1, is designed to address the land and waterways near NWSSB where community uses and activities may impact current or future military operations and / or where community uses and activities may be impacted by military operations. JLUS Implementation It is important to note that once the JLUS process is completed, the final document is not an adopted plan, but rather a set of recommended strategies to be used by local jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations in the NWSSB JLUS Study Area to guide future planning efforts. Acceptance of the study by stakeholders (e.g. committees, jurisdictions, and the public) establishes their collective support for the recommended implementation efforts. For instance, local jurisdictions may use the strategies in this JLUS to guide future subdivision regulation amendments, growth policy updates, and zoning amendments to assist in the review of development proposals in the JLUS Study Area. NWSSB can use the JLUS to coordinate with local jurisdictions on future projects and to optimize internal planning for compatible outcomes. NWSSB JLUS Website January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 5 P a c i f i c O c e a n Naval Weapons StationSeal Beach LongBeach SealBeach Los AlamitosReserve Centerand Air Station Coast Guard StationLos Angeles-Long Beach 39 19 55 42 39 1 22 90 72 7 47 1 73 91 91 90 57 605 5 105 710 405 Lo s Lo sAn ge les An ge lesCo un ty Co un ty Ora n ge Co un ty Ora n ge Co un ty Los Angeles Anaheim Artesia Bellflower Brea Buena Park Carson Cerritos Compton Costa Mesa Cypress Downey Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Hawaiian Gardens Huntington Beach La Habra La Habra Heights Lakewood La Mirada La Palma Los Alamitos Lynwood Newport Beach Norwalk Orange Paramount Placentia Santa Ana Santa Fe Springs Signal Hill South Gate Stanton Westminster Whittier NWS Seal BeachJoint Land Use StudyStudy Area Legend Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Study Area Long Beach Seal Beach Other City County Other Military Installation Interstate State Highway Major Road Railroads Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge Water Body Wetlands 0 21 Miles Source: USGS 2016, US Census TIGER 2016.US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017. Figure 1 Page 6 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 This page intentionally left blank. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 7 The study area for the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB) Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) covers 64.5 square miles of land near the coast of Southern California and extends an additional 8.6 square miles over the Pacific Ocean. The Study Area is centered on NWSSB and includes three other communities—Orange County and the Cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach. The following analysis of the JLUS Study Area communities provides the context in which compatibility issues relating to NWSSB operations and missions arise and specifically the local civilian environment. Study Area Growth Trends The following section presents current trends in population growth, housing, median home values, and economic growth in the JLUS Study Area. These trends illustrate the type of growth which has occurred in the region surrounding NWSSB, what may be anticipated to occur in the future, and provides valuable insight on where potential incompatibilities between NWSSB and the surrounding communities may develop. Population Trends and Projections The population data used in the following tables is based on information obtained from the State of California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau. Population projections show the overall population trends in the JLUS Study Area, which informs future planning and infrastructure investments. Table 1 shows the 2000 and 2010 census totals and the percentage of population increase in jurisdictions within the JLUS Study Area. The table also shows the estimated population counts and percentages of increase from 2016 through 2035. Table 1. Population Counts and Rates of Change from 2000 through 2035 Jurisdiction Population: 2000 Population: 2010 Percent Change: 2000-2010 Population: 2016 Percent Change: 2010-2016 Estimated Population: 2020 Estimated Population: 2035 Estimated Percent Change: 2016-2035 California 33,873,086 37,253,956 9.98% 39,255,883 5.37% 40,719,999 45,521,334 15.96% Orange County 2,846,289 3,010,232 5.76% 3,194,024 6.11% 3,260,659 3,504,411 9.72% City of Seal Beach 24,157 24,168 0.05% 24,924 3.13% 25,000 24,800 -0.05% City of Long Beach 461,522 462,257 0.16% 479,756 3.79% 491,000 534,100 11.33% Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, E-8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2000-2010. Sacramento, California, 2012; State of California Department of Finance, Total Estimated and Projected Population for California and Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2060 in 5-year Increments, 2017; Southern California Association of Governments 2012 – 2035 RTP (2020 and 2035 Projections for the cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach). Page 8 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 The following is an overview of key findings from the census data:  The population within the JLUS Study Area is steadily growing, with all jurisdictions increasing in population at similar rates.  The City of Seal Beach grew 3.13 percent from 2010 to 2016.  The City of Long Beach also grew from 2010 to 2016, with a 3.79 percent increase in population.  Orange County has grown 5.76 percent from 2010 to 2016.  The Cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach experienced comparable growth rates between 2010 and 2016, which shows growth was steady in the immediate area. However, Orange County’s growth rate during this same time period exceeds the growth rate of the State of California, which may indicate development pressure in the county. City population growth estimates were prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments. These projections were provided in 15-year increments from 2000 through 2035 and are shown in Table 1. The population projections show positive growth for the City of Long Beach. It is projected that Long Beach will experience 11.33 percent growth between 2016 and 2035. It is projected that Seal Beach will experience a slight decline in population of approximately 0.05 percent during the same period. Orange County is projected to grow by 9.72 percent between 2016 and 2035. In addition to population estimates and projections, population density is a tool for understanding growth in the JLUS Study Area. Population density is the amount of people per square mile of a defined geographic area. Orange County is a densely populated county due, in part, to its idyllic location on the Pacific Ocean and the traditionally strong economic environment in Southern California. Economic Overview Economic Growth Trends The historic economic engine of southern California, specifically Orange County, has been a combination of manufacturing, tourism, and service industries. NWSSB has a strong economic presence in the City of Seal Beach, providing 2,010 jobs and a direct payroll of $38.9 million in, 2010 as reported in the 2010 NWSSB Economic Impact and Community Involvement Report. Orange County Orange County employment is diverse. The top employment industries in Orange County are manufacturing, healthcare / social service, retail services, professional / scientific, accommodation / food, and education. These industries have similar shares of the Orange County workforce, with the manufacturing sector employing the largest number of people (13%) and the education sector employing the smallest (8%). Disney is the largest single employer in the County, with 27,000 employees. The University of California (UC) at Irvine employs over 22,000 people while the healthcare sector includes 12,227 employees of St. Joseph’s Health and 7,000 employees of Kaiser Permanente. Boeing and Wal-Mart round-out the list of major employers with 6,890 and 6,000 workers, respectively. City of Seal Beach As in other jurisdictions in the JLUS Study Area, the top employment industries in the City of Seal Beach are diverse; healthcare / social service, education, professional / scientific, manufacturing, and retail are all represented. The financial / insurance sector rounds-out the top six employment industries in the city. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 9 City of Long Beach The top employment industries in the City of Long Beach are very similar to Orange County, only varying in the percentage of workers employed in each sector. The spread is slightly larger and ranges from a high of 13.3 percent of all workers in healthcare / social service to a low of 6.6 percent in the professional / scientific sector . Current Development Overview in the JLUS Study Area Land uses throughout the JLUS Study Area range from numerous urbanized areas to residential and recreational land uses. Agricultural land use is present in some isolated unincorporated Orange County areas. This section discusses the setting in the immediate vicinity of NWSSB. North The area to the north of the NWSSB is characterized by a golf course, park, and some residential developments. It is built-out much like the areas to east, south, and west. East The eastern extent of the installation corresponds to the eastern city limit of the City of Seal Beach. The City of Westminster is directly east of these boundaries, while the City of Huntington Beach is to the southeast. These areas are characterized by residential developments and some industrial uses. South The area to the south of the installation is dominated by the Pacific Ocean and includes a number of recreational beaches, seaside residential developments, and community parks. The Navy is also planning to build a new ammunition pier in this area and has completed an environmental assessment (EA) of its construction and operation. The proposed facility will not have any long-term impacts on community activities, but short-term impacts are likely. However, the City of Seal Beach participated in the public involvement process of the EA, and ongoing coordination between the City and installation could help minimize or even avoid any compatibility issues. West The area to the west is characterized by the high density residential development, Leisure World, a nationally recognized active retirement community. This area also includes other low- and high-density residential developments, schools, and open space that separates the residential uses from nearby industrial sites. There are no known large developments proposed in this area. Page 10 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 This page intentionally left blank. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 11 Naval Weapon Station Seal Beach (NWSSB) is located on the central coast of California in Orange County. With its Mediterranean climate and proximity to the Pacific Ocean, this site is ideal for the Navy to carry‐out and execute a variety of missions. Identifying and describing the various activities performed at the operating facilities and in the surrounding areas that make up the NWSSB military influence area provides valuable insight into the importance of NWSSB as a national strategic asset and as a part of the fabric of the surrounding communities. The purpose of providing this information is to enable stakeholders to make informed decisions about future development and economic growth within communities and institutions near NWSSB that could potentially impact the viability and future role of the base. Installation Setting NWSSB comprises three non‐contiguous operating facilities totaling over 5,023 acres of land. Land use around NWSSB is primarily residential, single‐family housing, with multiple developments located adjacent to the installation. Current Mission Operations NWSSB is an important asset because of its economic impact on the region, as described earlier, and because of the capabilities its mission components support. NWSSB provides the facilities that enable a variety of tenants to operate and conduct various missions relating to national security. NWSSB is the Navy’s primary West Coast ordnance storage, loading and maintenance installation. The NWSSB vision is to be a model for shore‐based infrastructure support, seamlessly enabling tenant commands to excel in serving the Fleet while embracing a culture of continuous improvement, transparency, and execution. Naval Weapon Station Seal Beach Mission Footprint The Military Influence Area (MIA) is the area in which the combined effects of different military operations and / or activities occur, or could occur, and represents the spatial extent of an installation’s impacts in a given region. The individual “footprints” of specific mission operations, including associated noise, traffic, safety hazards, and air, water, and land use, etc. are all considered when developing an MIA. The MIA constitutes a planning tool for promoting awareness of military activities in surrounding communities, establishing compatible development requirements and standards in designated areas, and ultimately, for maintaining operational capability. The NWSSB MIA is identified in the installation’s Encroachment Action Plan (EAP) and used in coordination with local jurisdictions as a notification boundary and land use overlay in relevant administrative and planning documents. The NWSSB Community Plans and Liaison Officer (CPLO) requests notification regarding developments that are proposed within the MIA boundaries so that development applications of interest to NWSSB can be tracked and follow‐up actions can be implemented. The CPLO may also coordinate with the jurisdictions to adopt the MIA as a land‐use overlay (Military Influence Planning District) in planning documents to help identify and reduce incompatible development. Figure 2 illustrates the NWSSB MIA. Page 12 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 NWSSB Military Influence Area (MIA) Lo s Ang ele sLo s Ang ele sCo un tyCo un tyOra n geOra n geCo un tyCo un tySeal BeachLong BeachLong Beach Breakwater221911605405Los CoyotesDiagonalLos AlamitosBroadwayOcean2ndWarnerBolsa Chica4thBellflowerRedondoLampsonAthertonAnaheimCherryKatellaStudebaker7thSeal BeachWestminsterWillowCypressGardenGroveHuntingtonBeachRossmoorBolsa Bay StateMarineConservation AreaMilitary InfluenceArea (MIA)LegendMilitary Influence Area Explosives AnchorageSeal Beach Naval WeaponsStationLong BeachSeal BeachOther CityCountyInterstateState HighwayMajor RoadRailroadsWater Body0¾¼½MilesSource: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), 2017. Chart 18749.NWS SB, 2017.Figure 2 January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 13 Mission activities conducted on and around NWSSB have the potential to negatively impact surrounding communities should incompatible land uses be permitted and / or approved for development. Examples of these potential community impacts include maritime congestion, restricted land use, etc. Conversely, the military mission is vulnerable to incompatibilities created by certain types of civilian development or activities, such as maritime congestion (e.g. Anaheim Bay), increased safety hazards, poor air quality, etc. Understanding the overall distribution of “mission footprints” is essential for promoting compatible and informed land use decisions. There are several mission‐related activities that form the basis of the NWSSB MIA as it extends outside the installation boundaries. These actions are essential to the installation’s ability to sustain current and future mission operations. The MIA is thus characterized by three major mission requirements, which are: Transportation of equipment and materials,Equipment and materials storage, andMaritime resources use.For each of these required actions, there are several operational mission elements, or areas, that make up the NWSSB MIA. The operational mission elements are as follows: Equipment / Material Transport CorridorsEquipment and Materials Storage AreasoExplosives Safety ZonesAnaheim Bay and Facilities Jetties, Wharf, and Berthing areas1 Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter I (7–1–12 Edition) Section 110.215  Harbors  Mooring Area Inner and Outer Approach ChannelsTransport Corridors The Naval Weapons Station uses local roadways to transport equipment and materials between the base and strategic locations. Additionally, the corridors are used to transport equipment and materials from the NWSSB port to military ships (both to load and unload equipment and materials). Given both military and civilian use of local roadways, NWSSB and local jurisdiction coordination is important to ensure adequate levels of service during transport activities. Equipment and Material Storage The largest mission‐related land use at NWSSB is associated with rows of equipment / material storage facilities in the eastern portion of the facility and the open space surrounding them that buffer other land uses. Historically, this area has been leased for agricultural uses, which has resulted in the preservation of large contiguous areas of open land. NWSSB is surrounded by fully developed cities and contains some of the last undeveloped land in the City of Seal Beach and in northern Orange County. Therefore, NWSSB property has often been perceived as “under‐utilized” land subject to development interest, including utility and infrastructure expansion projects. Anaheim Bay and Facilities Anaheim Bay Harbor is classified as a Naval Explosives Anchorage1. The Anaheim Bay is a strategic asset and has a critical operational footprint within the NWSSB, including several facilities and buildings that support Page 14 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 operational activities integral to the NWSSB mission. The NWSSB Anaheim Bay can be separated into four different areas (Figure 3), which are: Wharf, berth areas,Jetties;Mooring areas;Channels; andAnchoragesAnaheim Bay is divided into an inner and outer deep‐water harbor. The 96‐acre inner harbor is natural but dredged to maintain the minimum operational depth that allows Navy ships to use the bay. The Anaheim Bay is subject to periodic closures during munitions operations, as determined necessary by the Commanding Officer. Wharf and Berth Facilities The total berthing capacity at NWSSB is an existing 1,000 foot wharf with 850 feet of berthing. Proposed alternatives for replacing and expanding the wharf and associated berthing capacities are currently undergoing an Environmental Assessment (EA). Jetties The 94‐acre outer harbor is man‐made, protected by two converging stone jetties (east and west), and maintained to a depth of 43 feet. The west jetty is 3,500 feet long and the east jetty is 3,950 feet long; both extend 20 feet below the mean lower low water (MLLW) level. The jetties’ purpose is to protect the outer harbor and mooring areas. The anchorage ground is defined as the waters of Anaheim Bay Harbor between the east side of the entrance channel and the east jetty and between the west side of the entrance channel and the west jetty. West and East Mooring Areas There are two mooring areas—west and east—located within the jetties. The west mooring area is maintained at an operational depth of 25 feet MLLW. The east mooring area is maintained at an operational depth of 25 feet MLLW. The mooring areas are illustrated on Figure 3. Inner Approach Channel The Inner Approach Channel extends 1,600 feet seaward from the outer end of the jetties and varies in width from 400 feet to 800 feet. The Inner Approach Channel is maintained at an operational depth of 41 feet below the MLLW level. Outer Approach Channel The Outer Approach Channel begins at the end of the Inner Approach Channel and extends an additional 3,100 feet It is approximately 800 feet wide, and is maintained to an operational depth of 39 feet below MLLW. Both the channels are illustrated on Figure 3. Anchorages There are two explosives anchorages located in Anaheim Bay. These are located on both sides of the Inner Approach Channel and are shown on Figure 3. Long Beach Harbor Explosives Anchorage The Long Beach Harbor Explosives Anchorage, D‐8, is located approximately 2.3 miles from Anaheim Bay, at the Long Beach Breakwater in the East San Pedro Bay. This anchorage is illustrated on Figure 3. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 15 Seal BeachExplosivesAnchorageExplosivesAnchorageEast JettyWestJettyOuter Approach Channel(Up to 800' Wide)Inner Approach Channel(Up to 400' Wide)InnerHarborInnerHarborWest Mooring AreaEast Mooring AreaOuter HarborSeal BeachAnaheim BayLegendPublic Navigation ChannelRestricted AreaApproach ChannelExplosives AnchorageJetty / Jetty Access AreaDocks and WharfsSeal Beach Naval WeaponsStationSeal BeachRoadWater Body01,000FeetSource: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), 2017. Chart 18749.Matrix Design Group, 2017.Figure 3 Page 16 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 This page intentionally left blank. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 17 This section provides an overview of governmental plans and programs (tools) that are currently used, or that may be used, as of June 2018, to directly or indirectly address compatibility issues identified within the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB) Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) Study Area. There are three types of planning tools that are evaluated: those with permanent, semi-permanent, and conditional outcomes. Permanent planning tools include two acquisition programs—fee simple purchase of property and the purchase of development rights. Semi-permanent tools include regulations such as zoning and adopted legislation. Examples of conditional tools include comprehensive plans, memorandums of understanding, intergovernmental agreements, and other policy documents that can be modified. The overview also defines regional planning entities. Federal Plans and Programs Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1963 is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources to control air pollution. Under the CAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established limits on six criteria pollutants through the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). To protect public health and public welfare, the CAA also gives EPA the authority to limit emissions of air pollutants from sources like chemical plants, utilities, and steel mills. Individual states or tribes may have stronger air pollution laws, but they may not have weaker pollution limits than those set by EPA. The CAA requires each state to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that outlines how it will control air pollution. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) administers the policies established by the CAA and the EPA, relative to air quality in the JLUS Study Area. The SCAQMD monitors air pollutants and manages and regulates air pollution standards for Orange County. Air quality districts at non-attainment for primary pollutants—or non- compliant with particulate standards—may have to enact certain measures to bring the district back into attainment with air quality standards. This may limit the ability of NWSSB to perform certain mission activities or delay implementation of new mission requirements. Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 governs the management of water resources and addresses the control and monitoring of water pollution in the U.S. The CWA establishes the goals of eliminating the release of toxic substances and other sources of water pollution to ensure that surface waters meet high quality standards. In doing so, the CWA authorizes local governments to prevent the contamination of nearshore, underground, and surface water sources. All the agencies are required to comply with the CWA, including NWSSB, local governments, and community service districts. Water quality is crucial to maintain adequate potable water supplies in support of the installation mission. Page 18 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Department of Defense Conservation Partnering Initiative In 2003, Congress amended Title 10 U.S.C. Sections 2684a and 2692a (P.L. 107-314), the National Defense Authorization Act, to grant authority to the Department of Defense (DoD) to partner with other federal agencies, states, local governments, and conservation-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to set aside lands near military bases for conservation purposes and to prevent incompatible development from encroaching on, and interfering with, military missions. This law provides an additional tool to support smart growth, conservation, and environmental stewardship for both military installations and surrounding areas, including nearby communities. Implementation of the Conservation Partnering Initiative on land surrounding NWSSB would protect the base from incompatible development. Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act (ESA) established a program for the conservation of threatened and endangered (T&E) plants and animals and their habitats. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are the lead implementing agencies of the ESA. The ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with the USFWS and / or the NOAA Fisheries Service, to ensure that actions they “authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species.” The law also prohibits any action that causes a taking of any listed species of endangered plant or animal. The protection of T&E species and their habitats on and around NWSSB can affect mission capabilities and flexibility. The integration of ESA requirements into compatibility planning is critical for both existing species listings and future potential species listings. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) established the authority for public agencies that possess public lands to be managed and planned according to national and local interests. The law prescribes that public lands that have been identified for development shall uphold and protect scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, and other values that are unique to specific geographies. This law provides the impetus for the various resource management plans that have been developed and prepared for public agencies including the Draft South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement. The South Coast RMP planning area encompasses five southern California counties, including Orange County. This plan provides the land use plan for federal land within the RMP planning area. FLPMA is a tool to help protect certain public lands from development. Considering the large amount of publicly owned land in Orange County, integration of compatibility planning tools into federal plans can help protect NWSSB and its missions. National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 is a federal regulation that established as U.S. policy the protection and enhancement of the environment and that requires federal agencies to analyze and consider the potential environmental impact of their actions. The purpose of NEPA is to promote informed decision-making by federal agencies by making detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts available to both agency leaders and the public. All projects receiving federal funding, including military projects, require NEPA compliance and documentation. The NWSSB uses this tool to ensure full transparency regarding the proposed actions that are needed to support the mission, to assist leadership with making informed decisions, and to provide the public with an opportunity to give feedback. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 19 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Per the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into U.S. waters. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. According to the law, individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. Diminished water quality on NWSSB or within specific military mission footprints could result in facility closures and / or operational constraints to enable environmental restoration. Such closures or constrains may, in turn, limit NWSSB’s ability to use certain areas for mission critical activities. Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration To implement the authority provided by the DoD Conservation Partnering Initiative, the DoD established the Readiness Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) program. This initiative enables DoD to work with state and local governments, NGOs, and willing landowners to limit encroachment and incompatible land use. The REPI program enables NWSSB to accomplish environmental and encroachment prevention goals (coastal resilience, habitat restoration, water quality and supply improvement, etc.) with its conservation partners. Safe Drinking Water Act The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the primary federal law that ensures the quality of drinking water in the United States. The SDWA authorizes the EPA to establish national health-based drinking water standards to protect against naturally-occurring and man-made water contaminants. The SDWA applies to every public water system in the U.S. and requires all operators to comply with the primary standards. Clean drinking water is an operational necessity for NWSSB mission objectives. The Sikes Act The Sikes Act requires the DoD to develop and implement Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs) for military installations across the U.S. The plans are prepared in cooperation with the USFWS and State fish and wildlife agencies to ensure public and military use of natural resources is consistent with conservation needs and goals. The Sikes Act requires INRMPs to be reviewed at least every 5 years with the USFWS and the state(s) where an installation is located. The DoD Instruction 4715.3 and the Navy’s Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual (OPNAVINST 5090.1B, Change 2) guide the Navy’s implementation of the Sikes Act. The current INRMP for NWSSB was adopted in 2014 and is discussed in greater detail below. Department of Defense Energy Siting Clearinghouse Section 358 of the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act sanctions the study of new construction and obstructions and their effects on military installations and operations. The Energy Siting Clearinghouse coordinates the DoD’s review of existing applications for energy projects. Several key elements of Section 358 include the designation of a lead organization and senior official to conduct the review of energy project applications, a specific timeframe for completing a hazard assessment associated with an application (30 days), and specific criteria for DoD objections to projects. Section 358 also stipulates the DoD must provide an annual status report to Congress. This legislation facilitates procedural certainty and a predictable process that ensures compatibility between energy development and military capability. Page 20 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Plans and Programs NWSSB plans and programs provide guidance for land uses and development activities on the installation. These tools govern land use inside the fenceline or within the boundary of the military mission, or proposed military mission, footprint. These tools provide guidance and establish measures for standard operating procedures during specific events such as flight training. There are various installation tools that are instrumental in assisting and guiding land use decisions as they interface with the military mission. Draft Environmental Assessment for the Ammunition Pier and Turning Basin Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (April 2017) The April 2017 Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Ammunition Pier and Turning Basin Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach is an assessment of siting alternatives for the construction of a new ammunition pier that was reviewed at the time of this project. The purpose of the EA is to determine the possible environmental impacts of building a new pier, turning basin, and associated waterfront facilities. The Navy has indicated the project is needed to accommodate the increase in Navy ships on the West Coast that is anticipated with the movement of naval forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific theatre. By 2020, approximately 60 percent of U.S. naval forces will be based in the Pacific, up from 40 percent a decade earlier. The EA identifies three alternatives and a no action alternative and evaluates various factors, including air quality, safety, and security, to identify the alternative that will have the least impact on the environment. The Final EA is expected in early 2019. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, California The NWSSB Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) is a long-term planning document that guides the management and use of natural resources at NWSSB. An INRMP is required of all DoD installations that contain significant natural resources (see the Sikes Act above). The NWSSB’s most recent INRMP was adopted in January 2014 and balances natural resources management with mission needs. Key goals include: ◼ Managing NWSSB natural resources to ensure sustainability of all ecosystems within the installation; ◼ Ensuring no net loss of the capability of installation lands to support the NWSSB mission; ◼ Conserving and rehabilitating natural resources on military installations; ◼ Sustaining multipurpose use of the resources and public access to NWSSB to facilitate the use of those resources; ◼ Participating, as appropriate, in regional ecosystem initiatives; and ◼ Demonstrating conservation benefits for species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The NWSSB INRMP also addresses specific compatibility and encroachment issues for current land uses and activities that take place at NWSSB. The NWSSB INRMP establishes management policies in order to mitigate these issues. Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Installation Development Plan The Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Installation Development Plan (IDP) addresses regional land and facility requirements from a functional perspective and provides land use recommendations. The Plan identifies and provides guidance on the overall installation mission, base goals, resources, and infrastructure. The mission statement is: January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 21 Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach and its detachments provide shore-based infrastructure support to the Navy’s ordnance mission and other fleet and fleet support activities. Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Encroachment Action Plan The Encroachment Action Plan (EAP) identifies encroachment issues internal to the installation. Encroachment issues due to community activities outside the installation are also identified in this report. The current NWSSB EAP Executive Summary states: The most significant mission compatibility concerns at NWSSB relate to real property development and other non-Navy activities within our MIA. Land uses and other issues that may not be compatible with Navy operations at NWSSB include: ◼ Competition for Land, Airspace or Sea Space ◼ Air Quality Regulations ◼ Urban Development ◼ Maritime Issues ◼ Endangered Species ◼ Transportation The challenges that the installation faces can impede its ability to operate, ultimately jeopardizing the viability of NWSSB's mission. The Navy and its partners in the community have an opportunity to properly manage future growth and development cooperatively for the benefit of all. State of California State of California Legislation, Plans and Programs Assembly Bill 1108 (2002) California Assembly Bill (AB) 1108 (Chapter 638, Statutes of 2002) amends the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to require CEQA lead agencies to notify military installations when a project meets certain criteria. The purpose of AB 1108 is to ensure the military is notified of proposed projects that could potentially impact military operations. AB 1108 amends CEQA to provide military agencies with early notice of proposed projects within two miles of installations or underlying training routes and special use airspace. To obtain this information, a military installation such as NWSSB must provide local planning agencies within the critical operations areas (COA) an installation point of contact and the relevant information such as impact areas and boundaries of the installation’s COAs. The local lead agency is required to give notice to military installations of any project within their boundaries, if: (1) the project includes a general plan amendment; (2) the project is of statewide, regional, and / or area-wide significance; or (3) the project is required to be referred to the Advisory Land Use Committee (ALUC) or appropriately designated body. Notification gives the military installation an opportunity to provide early input so that potential conflicts can be evaluated and addressed proactively. California Clean Air Act In 1988, the California General Assembly passed the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) that furthers the mission of the Federal CAA. The CCAA establishes the authority for air pollution control districts or air quality management districts to implement the necessary measures to maintain and / or restore air quality to the state air quality standards for air pollutants. Per the CCAA, district plans for areas that are in serious nonattainment must show no net Page 22 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 increase in emissions from new and modified stationary sources; and best available retrofit technology for existing sources. The CCAA directly applies to the NWSSB JLUS Study Area because the area is in extreme nonattainment for ozone (O3) and serious nonattainment for particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5). California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act of 1976 established provisions for guiding and regulating land uses in and around a shoreline. The Act defines goals and policies, sets the boundaries of the State’s coastal zone, and provides mechanisms such as the Coastal Commission for implementing the coastal management program and managing California’s coastline. The NWWSB’s mission footprint includes coastal areas, and so this Act has potential implications for operational activities. Source: California Coastal Commission, Coastal Management Program. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) in Orange County have broad authority in regulating water quality with the goal of preserving and enhancing all beneficial uses of the state’s water. Senate Bill 1462 (2004) SB 1462 (Chapter 906, Statutes of 2004) expands the requirement that local governments notify military installations of proposed development and planning activities. This statute states that: prior to action by a legislative body to adopt or substantially amend a general plan, the planning agency shall refer the proposed action to the branches of the Armed Forces when the proposed project is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation, beneath a low-level flight path, or within Special Use Airspace (SUA).... The purpose of SB 1462 is to require public agencies to provide a complete copy of a development application of any proposed development located within 1,000 feet of a NWSSB. It authorizes the US Navy to request consultation to avoid potential conflict and to discuss alternatives, mitigation measures, and the effects of the proposed project on NWSSB. SB 1462 also requires NWSSB review of proposed actions that potentially impact the installation’s operations and missions. This allows NWSSB the opportunity to comment on nearby proposed development and express any concerns with potential impacts on the installation. Senate Bill 1468 (2002) SB 1468 (Chapter 971, Statutes of 2002) requires State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to include guidance concerning incorporating military installation compatibility into a general plan, and how a general plan should consider the impact of civilian growth on readiness activities at military bases, installations, and training areas. The statute includes the following methods to address military compatibility in a general plan: “In the land use element, consider the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and operating and training areas, when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses covered by the general plan for land or other territory adjacent to those military facilities, or underlying designated military aviation routes and airspace. “In the open-space element, open-space land is defined to include areas adjacent to military installations, military training routes, and restricted airspace. “In the circulation element, include the general location and extent of existing and proposed military airports and ports.” January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 23 SB 1468 is part of a state policy package to promote the development of a partnership between communities and the military that allows for collaboration on land use compatibility issues. OPR encourages local jurisdictions near military installations, and under military training routes or restricted airspace, to incorporate the above items into their general plans. Local governments in the JLUS Study Area are not currently required by law, however, to incorporate the SB 1468 military compatibility guidance in their general plans. The bill specifies that if a funding agreement is reached between local jurisdiction and NWSSB to support these efforts, the inclusion of military compatibility issues in a general plan will become mandatory. California Advisory Handbook for Community and Military Compatibility Planning The requirement for a compatibility handbook was reflected in Government Code §65040.9, which directed the OPR to prepare “an advisory planning handbook for use by local officials, planners, and builders that explains how to reduce land use conflicts between the effects of civilian development and military readiness activities...”. The Handbook was updated in 2106 and designed to serve as a resource to help develop processes and plans that would sustain local economies, safeguard military readiness, and protect the health and safety of residents living near military bases. The handbook is a useful tool for development of the NWSSB JLUS as it describes in detail the different compatibility issues that should be explored and the types of compatibility tools available to address these identified issues. California Coastal Management Program The California Coastal Management Program is a combination of federal, state, and local planning and regulatory authorities who implement land use controls for land, air, and water resources along the coast. The California Coastal Management Program comprises three agencies: ◼ The California Coastal Commission; ◼ The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission; and, ◼ The California Coastal Conservancy. These three agencies are responsible for the management, protection, restoration, and enhancement of the California coastal resources of various segments of the coastline. These agencies carry out these responsibilities through a variety of actions including planning, permitting, and non-regulatory measures. Specifically, the California Coastal Commission manages development along the California coast, except in the San Francisco Bay Area which is managed by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The California Coastal Conservancy purchases, protects, restores, and enhances coastal resources and provides access to the shore. The Coastal Program is governed primarily by the California Coastal Act, McAteer-Petris Act, and Suisan Marsh Preservation Act. The California Coastal Commission's planning area or coastal zone extends 1,000 yards or slightly more than half a mile inland from the mean high tide line. However in significant coastal estuary and recreational areas, the coastal zone can extend inland to the first major ridgeline or five miles from the mean high tide line, whichever is less. The coastal zone extends less than 1,000 yards or slightly less than half a mile in developed urban areas. For federal consistency, the Coastal Commission reviews activities that affect the coastal zone, regardless of their location. California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) protects and preserves sensitive native species and their habitats. CESA allows for an incidental take of a listed endangered species or its habitat to a lawful development project. CESA is based in the foundations of early consultation to avoid adverse impacts to such species and their habitat and to develop mitigation Page 24 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 planning in projects that will allow for the recovery of endangered species and essential habitats. The CESA can limit NWSSB from conducting or introducing certain missions if an endangered species is present on base and requires extensive management measures. California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst The California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst (CMLUCA) was developed by OPR to assist the development community and local governments in determining if a project affects military training areas and airspace. The CMLUCA is a mapping tool that identifies where a project is relative to the nearest military installation. This mapping application enables users to determine compliance with state legislation requiring the development community and local government agencies to notify the military of any project that may affect military readiness. County and Municipal Plans and Programs Local Jurisdictions – General Plans Local plans and programs can greatly influence compatibility planning. Of these, the general plan provides the foundational policy against which all local planning activities are guided. California state law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan “for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning” (§65300). The general plan, as mandated by state law, must cover seven required elements (land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety) and identify the goals, policies, and programs the county will implement to manage future growth and land uses. Local Jurisdictions – Zoning The zoning ordinance (also referred to as a zoning or development code) is used to regulate the types of land use within a jurisdiction. The zoning ordinance is the principal tool used to implement the general plan. While the general plan provides broad policy direction on land use, the zoning ordinance provides the specific rules under which land can be developed and used. This includes standards for building setbacks, height restrictions, lot coverage, and design requirements. Adoption of the zoning ordinance, zoning changes, or amendments requires review at a public hearing. Local Jurisdictions – Subdivision Regulations Subdivision regulations control the division of property and detail the location of individual parcels/lots, road rights-of-way, and easements. Local jurisdictions will typically have a subdivision ordinance that guides the review and approval of new subdivisions based on the State’s Subdivision Map Act (commencing at Government Code section 66410). Basically, there are two types of subdivisions: parcel maps, which are limited to divisions resulting in fewer than five lots (with certain exceptions); and subdivision maps/tract maps, which create five or more lots. Local Jurisdictions – Building Codes Building codes are ordinances / regulations controlling the design, construction process, materials, alteration, and occupancy of any structure to insure human safety and welfare. They include both technical and functional standards for the variety of structures. City of Seal Beach The 2003 City of Seal Beach General Plan is the policy guide that is used in determining the appropriate physical development and character of the City. The General Plan was designed to preserve and enhance the small- town rural character of the city, while understanding and providing an opportunity for balancing land use to become a self-sufficient community. The General Plan addresses the following elements: land use, circulation, open space / recreation / conservation, safety, housing, noise, cultural resources, and growth management. Goals, programs, objectives, and policies pertaining to NWSSB are included in the Land Use Element. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 25 The Land Use Element is divided into five Planning Areas that are based on the character and specific land uses that the planning area possesses. Planning Area 5 is the area that contains the goals and policies related to NWSSB. The goals and policies identified that help NWSSB include the following: ◼ Support the Station’s mission by providing needed facilities that will allow for future expansion requirements. Priority should be given to those functions most directly related to the Station’s primary mission. ◼ Establish a logical and functional land use plan that maximizes the utilization of real estate, improves installation efficiency, promotes land use compatibility, and permits future expansion. ◼ Consult in the development of each site in a way that is compatible with the surrounding community and that recognizes all natural and man-made constraints. ◼ Anticipate encroachment pressure before events occur and that may compromise mission effectiveness. The City of Seal Beach Zoning Code provides the regulations that implement the policies and guidance established in the city’s General Plan. The city’s Zoning Code has the following zoning districts: ◼ Residential Districts ◼ Commercial and Mixed-use Districts ◼ Light Manufacturing and Oil Extraction Districts ◼ Public and Semi-public Facilities Districts ◼ Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Districts Zoning around NWSSB is primarily residential with some manufacturing and commercial. NWSSB is identified as military land use on the zoning map. The City of Seal Beach last amended their Subdivision Regulations in 2008. The Seal Beach City Council has authority to enforce standards through regulation over requests for development or redevelopment of land subdivisions. This coordination assures that development within the city is orderly, healthful, efficient and economical. A review of the subdivision regulations has identified the following concerns related to military compatibility: ◼ The subdivision regulations do not include provisions for lighting standards; ◼ The subdivision regulations do not include notification of military personnel. The City of Seal Beach has adopted the California Building Standards Code for building, residential, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, pool and spa, and fire. City of Long Beach The City of Long Beach General Plan is the policy document that guides the city’s development in an orderly pattern. While the Plan was originally adopted in 1973, there have been several updates of elements in recent years including the most recent Land Use Element update in February 2017. The General Plan addresses the following elements: Historic preservation, open space, housing, air quality, mobility, land use, seismic safety, local coastal program, noise, public safety, conservation, and scenic routes. There are no goals, policies, or objectives in the Plan that promote military compatibility planning or coordination; however, it is worth noting that NWSSB is not located within nor is it adjacent to the city limits. The City of Long Beach Zoning Code provides the regulations that implement the policies and guidance established in the city’s General Plan. Zoning districts categories include: Page 26 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 ◼ Residential ◼ Commercial ◼ Industrial ◼ Institutional ◼ Parks The City of Long Beach adopted their Subdivision Regulations in 1983. The Long Beach City Council has authority to enforce standards through regulation over requests for development or redevelopment of land subdivisions. This coordination assures that development within the city is orderly, healthful, efficient and economical. A review of the subdivision regulations has identified the following concerns related to military compatibility: ◼ The subdivision regulations do not include provisions for lighting standards; ◼ The subdivision regulations do not include notification of military personnel. The City of Long Beach has adopted the 2017 California Building Standards Code (BSC). The California BSC contains 12 codes for the various elements of buildings. The 12 codes are: ◼ Part 1 California Administrative Code, ◼ Part 2 California Building Code, ◼ Part 2.5 California Residential Code, ◼ Part 3 California Electrical Code, ◼ Part 4 California Mechanical Code, ◼ Part 5 California Plumbing Code, ◼ Part 6 California Energy Code, ◼ Part 7 (Currently Vacant), ◼ Part 8 California Historical Building Code, ◼ Part 9 California Fire Code, ◼ Part 10 California Existing Building Code, ◼ Part 11 California Green Building Standards Code, and ◼ Part 12 California Reference Standards Code. Orange County The 2005 Orange County General Plan is the blueprint for growth for the unincorporated areas within the county. The Plan has been updated several times in the past 12 years due to the dramatic changes and growth of the county. The County Plan provides the guidance for the unincorporated county areas, which are mostly located in the southernmost portion of the county with some “islands” of unincorporated areas spread throughout the northern and central portion of the county. The General Plan addresses the following elements: land use, transportation, public services and facilities, resources, recreation, noise, safety, housing, and growth management. There are no goals, policies, or objectives in the Plan that promote military compatibility guidance. However, the Plan recognizes the military, in general, through the provision of a transportation network including roadways and airports and airspace. While the Land Use Element was last updated in 2015 and the Transportation Element was last updated in 2012, there are no policies that formalize the provision of the transportation network needed and utilized by NWSSB. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 27 The Orange County Zoning ordinances include districts in the unincorporated areas of the County: ◼ Agriculture ◼ Commercial ◼ Employment ◼ Open Space ◼ Residential Orange County last amended their Subdivision Regulations in 2015. The Orange County Board of Supervisors has authority to enforce standards through regulation over requests for development or redevelopment of land subdivisions, in order to assure that development within the city is orderly, healthful, efficient and economical. A review of the subdivision regulations has identified the following concerns related to military compatibility: ◼ The subdivision regulations do not include notification of military personnel, and ◼ The subdivision regulations do not include noise or air safety disclosure related to military operations and training. Orange County has adopted the following building codes at the dates indicated in the statement. ◼ Building Code – California Building Code 2016, California Residential Code 2013, Energy Code- California Energy Code 2016 and California Green Building Standards Code 2016, Adopted and amended by Ordinance No. 16-018 on November 22, 2016 ◼ Plumbing Code - CPC 2016 Adopted and amended by Ordinance No. 16-019 on December 17, 2013. ◼ Mechanical Code – California Mechanical Code 2016 Adopted and amended by Ordinance No. 16-020 on December 17, 2013. ◼ Electrical Code – California Electrical Code 2016 Adopted and amended by Ordinance No. 16-021 on December 17, 2013. ◼ Fire Code – California Fire Code 2016 Adopted and amended by Ordinance No. 16-022 on December 17, 2013. ◼ Beginning on January 1, 2017*, OC Development Services, Building and Grading Plan Check section is required by State law to enforce the 2016 Edition of California Building Standards Codes (a.k.a., Title 24 of the California Codes of Regulations). All permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2017, will be required to meet these new 2016 CA Building Standards Codes. Page 28 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 This page intentionally left blank. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 29 Identification of Compatibility Issues Compatibility, in relation to military readiness, can be defined as the balance or compromise between community needs and interests and military needs and interests. The goal of compatibility planning is to promote an environment where both community and military entities communicate, coordinate, and implement mutually supportive actions that allow both to achieve their respective objectives. A number of factors can be evaluated to determine whether community and military plans, programs, and activities are compatible or in conflict. For this Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), 25 compatibility factors were used to identify compatibility issues at NWSSB and potential strategies for avoiding or mitigating compatibility related conflicts with current and future land uses. Methodology and Evaluation The methodology for the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach JLUS consisted of a comprehensive and inclusive discovery process to identify stakeholder issues associated with the 25 compatibility factors. At the initial Policy Committee (PC) and Technical Committee (TC) meetings and public workshop, stakeholders were asked to identify the location and type of issues relating to the compatibility factors that they thought existed today or could exist in the future. As a part of the evaluation phase, the PC, TC, and the public examined and prioritized the compatibility issues identified. Other factors and associated issues were analyzed based on available Page 30 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 information and similarity with other community JLUS experiences around the country. Of the 25 standard compatibility factors, the were determined inapplicable to the NWSSB JLUS Study Area: ◼ Cultural Resources ◼ Frequency Spectrum Interference / Impedance ◼ Legislative Initiatives ◼ Light and Glare ◼ Marine Environments ◼ Scarce Natural Resources ◼ Vertical Obstructions ◼ Vibration Compatibility issues relating to the remaining 16 factors were identified in the NWSSB JLUS Study Area and are reviewed below. Air Quality Air quality is defined in terms of six air pollutants that are regulated at the federal and state level. For compatibility, the primary concerns are pollutants that limit visibility, such as particulates, ozone, etc., and potential non-attainment of air quality standards that may limit future changes in operations at the installation or in the area. The following compatibility issue relating to air quality was identified: ◼ There is a Concern about Air Quality in the JLUS Study Area Limiting Mission Operations and / or Community Activities. The JLUS Study Area within the South Coast Air Basin is in extreme nonattainment for ozone (O3), serious nonattainment for particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5), and a maintenance condition for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter 10 (PM10). These air pollutant classifications have the potential to limit both military operations and community activities, including construction and transportation operations. Antiterrorism / Force Protection Antiterrorism / Force Protection (AT / FP) relates to the vulnerability of personnel, facilities, and information on an installation to outside threats. Security concerns, including trespassing, can present immediate compatibility concerns for installations. Due to current world conditions and recent events, military installations are required to meet more restrictive standards to address AT / FP issues. These standards include increased security checks at installation gates and physical changes that enhance security (e.g., gates, entry designs). The following Antiterrorism / Force Protection compatibility issues were identified in the NWSSB Study Area: ◼ There is an Opportunity to Partner with the Community to Ensure Continued Use of the Installation for Parking when the City Has Public Events. The Navy has allowed the parking of cars on the installation during the city’s public events throughout the year. Increased security requirements may mean changing the procedures to ensure that the shared service can continue while meeting security requirements. ◼ Security Procedures Related to Civilian Access and Proximity to NWSSB Mission-Critical Resources. The existing NWS Seal Beach wharf in Anaheim Bay is adjacent to the only civilian public navigational channel between Huntington Harbour and the ocean. ◼ Security Concern Related to Potential Surveillance Vantage Points Outside NWSSB. Specific examples for why this particular challenge is important to address includes a recent experience where encroachment from the construction of a 4-story building overlooking gate operations and the filming of an emergency response exercise from a helicopter had occurred. City planners do not anticipate any changes in development or zoning currently surrounding the Station. Residential zoning has a height restriction of 25 feet (2 stories), which prohibits residents from building a third story addition on their lots. This zoning provision has been in effect since 1974. Therefore, there is very little likelihood that taller, more densely occupied buildings will be constructed near the Station. The usage of recreational drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles, January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 31 can create opportunities for views into the installation from outside the fence line or through unauthorized overflight. Biological Resources Biological resources include federal and state listed species (threatened and endangered species) and the habitats they live in or otherwise use. Biological resources may also include areas such as wetlands and migratory corridors that are critical to the overall ecosystem. The presence of these resources may require special development considerations and should be evaluated early in the planning process. The following Biological Resources issues were identified in the NWSSB JLUS Study Area: ◼ Potential Seal Beach Wildlife Refuge Impacts due to Military Mission Operations, Expansion, or Construction Activities. There is a potential for military mission operations, expansion or construction activities impacting the biological resources that occur in the Seal Beach Wildlife Refuge, which is located on the installation. ◼ Concern with Coyote Population in and Around Seal Beach Community Including NWSSB. Coyote activity in and around the City of Seal Beach is causing safety concerns among residents. Coordination / Communication Interagency communication serves the general welfare by supporting a more comprehensive planning process that includes all affected stakeholders. Interagency coordination also seeks to develop and include in local planning documents policies that are mutually beneficial for local communities and the military. The following issues that relate to Coordination / Communication were identified: ◼ There is a Need for Enhanced Engagement for Sharing Information Regarding Future Changes to the NWSSB Mission. Future changes to the NWSSB mission creates potential engagement opportunities for coordinating and partnering with jurisdictions and organizations to educate the public. There is an opportunity for outreach to enhance communication between City staff and the public which could dispel perceptions that changes in operations at NWSSB could bring larger ships for a prolonged amount of time that would further disrupt the water viewshed. Dust / Smoke / Steam Dust results from the suspension of particulate matter in the air. Dust and smoke can be created by fire (controlled or prescribed burns, agricultural burning, and artillery exercises), ground disturbance (agricultural activities, military operations, grading), industrial activities, or other similar processes. Dust, smoke and steam are compatibility issues if sufficient in quantity to impact flight operations (such as reduced visibility or cause equipment damage). The following Dust / Smoke / Steam issue was identified: ◼ NWSSB Out-Leases Over 2,000 Acres of Property in the Safety Buffer Zone for Agricultural Uses, Which has the Potential to Generate Fugitive Dust. NWSSB out-leases over 2,000 acres of property in the safety buffer zone for agricultural uses. Energy Development Development of energy sources, including alternative energy sources (such as solar and wind) could pose compatibility issues related to glare (solar energy), or vertical obstruction (wind generation), or frequency interference. The following Energy Development issue was identified: ◼ Energy Development Coordination. There are no formal procedures for coordinated alternative energy development proposals with the DoD and NWSSB. Frequency Spectrum Capacity Frequency spectrum refers to the range of electromagnetic waves capable of carrying signals for point-to-point wireless communications. In a defined area, the frequency spectrum is limited and increasing demand for frequency bandwidth from commercial applications such as cellular phones, computer networking, GPS units, and mobile radios, is in direct competition Page 32 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 with the capacity necessary for maintaining existing and future missions and communications on installations. The following compatibility issue relating to Frequency Spectrum Capacity was identified in the Study Area: ◼ Potential for Cell Towers to Impact Frequency. Cell tower permits have been trending upwards in the City of Seal Beach, leading to increased cell tower development in the public right-of-way. This has the potential to lead to frequency conflict or competition. Housing Availability Housing availability addresses the supply and demand for housing in a region, the competition for housing that may result from changes in the number of military personnel in an area, and the supply of military family housing provided by an installation. The following Housing issue was identified: ◼ Limited Housing Inventory in Seal Beach and Surrounding Communities. In Seal Beach and surrounding communities, there is a lack of moderate- to-low income housing that would support military personnel and civilians, which may be an impediment to retaining and attracting personnel, and thus, affect the mission. Infrastructure Extensions Infrastructure refers to public facilities and services such as potable water conveyances, sewers, electric facilities, and roadways that are necessary to support community development (existing and proposed). The following Infrastructure Extensions issues were identified: ◼ Opportunity to Codify Early (Prior to Environmental Review) Coordination Between the Navy and the City of Seal Beach Regarding Infrastructure Extensions. The City of Seal Beach provides the installation with utilities and as such should be included in the Navy’s long-range plans for expanding infrastructure. However, there is an opportunity (prior to environmental review) to formalize coordination between the Navy and the city, which can prevent delays in executing certain mission infrastructure expansion. Land / Air / Sea Space Competition The military manages or uses land, air, and sea space for testing, training, and operational missions. These resources must be available and of a sufficient size, cohesiveness, and quality to accommodate effective training and testing. However, military and civilian air and sea operations can compete for limited air and sea space, especially when their respective use areas are in close proximity to each other. Ultimately, the competition for these shared resources can impact future growth in operations for all users. The following Land / Air / Sea Spaces issues were identified: ◼ Use of Marina and Waterways for Military Operations and Recreational Activities. The Cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach have abundant natural seaside resources for the community including providing waterways for military operations and resources for water-related recreational activities, e.g. surfing. ◼ Opportunity to Partner with NWSSB. NWSSB can leverage its size to partner with neighboring communities. A recent example is the community pool agreement with the City of Seal Beach. ◼ Proposed Class IV Bike Track Along the South Side of Pacific Coast Highway. Possibly an encroachment concern of incompatible design if not coordinated with NWSSB. ◼ Operational Concerns Related to Close Proximity of Mission to National Wildlife Area. There is concern that there is potential for reduced operational capacity at the Small Arms Range due to the proximity of a refuge viewing area. ◼ Changes in the Long Beach Breakwater Would Impact Mission Requirements. A feasibility study currently underway considers alternatives that would modify the Long Beach Breakwater. Modification to the breakwater would increase wave action, impacting the Navy’s ability to transfer ordnance at the anchorage. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 33 ◼ Offshore Oil Development May Impact Navy. The U.S. Secretary of the Interior has announced a plan for the exploration of oil and gas. There is concern that the exploration of oil and gas could lead to offshore development. Land Use The basis of land use planning and regulation relates to the government’s role in protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare. Local jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans, land use plans and zoning ordinances can be the most effective tools for preventing or resolving land use compatibility issues. These tools ensure the separation of land uses that differ significantly in character. For instance, industrial uses are often separated from residential uses to avoid impacts from noise, odors, lighting. The following Land Use issues were identified: ◼ Potential Future Concern About Compatibility of Nearby Future Land Uses. There is a potential future concern about the compatibility of land uses, especially near the wharf area. There is a safety element associated with this mission requirement, and as such is required to have land free and clear of safety hazards to facilitate the safe storage, logistics, and transport of munitions. ◼ There is an Opportunity to Codify Military Compatibility Guidance in the City of Seal Beach Planning Documents. The City of Seal Beach General Plan and Zoning Ordinance do not include military compatibility guidance as required by state law, but there is an opportunity to include such guidance when these planning documents are updated. Noise Sound that reaches unwanted levels is referred to as noise. The central issue with noise is the impact, or perceived impact, it has on people, animals (wild and domestic), and general land use compatibility. Exposure to high noise levels can have a significant impact on human activity, health, and safety. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. To understand the relevance of decibels, a normal conversation often occurs at 60 dB, while an ambulance siren approximately 100 feet away is about 100 dB. Noise associated with military operations (arrival / departure of military aircraft, firing of weapons, etc.) may create noises in higher dB ranges. The following Noise issues were identified: ◼ Residential Concern with Noise from Joint Force Training Base Los Alamitos. Noise generated from aviation operations at Joint Force Training Base Los Alamitos are often attributed to the operations at NWSSB. ◼ Concern with Noise Generated Near Liberty Gate on Seal Beach Boulevard from Pick Ups. The installation gate known as Liberty Gate, located closest to the wharf, exits onto Seal Beach Boulevard, which is a residential street near the Downtown area. There are concerns from residents in the area that noise is generated from rideshare services, and sometimes family or friends of sailors who wait for them by parking along the street in front of nearby homes. Public Services Public services concerns include the assurance that adequate services such as police, fire, emergency services, parks and recreation, and water / wastewater / stormwater infrastructure are of good enough quality and quantity to support the installation and surrounding communities as the area develops. The supply and demand of these public services in the event of emergency situations is also relevant. The following Public Service issue was identified: ◼ Concern about Beach Erosion. There is a concern about costs associated with continued beach erosion of the City of Seal Beach’s East Beach and Surfside Beach. Regular replenishment of sand (approximately every five years) is required at East Beach at great expense to the City. Previous efforts to resolve the issue with construction of a groin have been unsuccessful. Page 34 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Public Trespassing This factor addresses public trespassing, either intentional or unintentional, onto a military installation. The potential for trespassing increases when public use areas are in close proximity to the installation. The following Public Trespassing issues were identified: ◼ Concerns about Public Trespassing on NWSSB. There is concern that public trespassing can occur on NWSSB through the fence line and in the channels. Roadway Capacity Roadway capacity relates to the ability of existing freeways, highways, arterials, and other local roads to provide adequate mobility and access between military installations and their surrounding communities. The following Roadway Capacity issues were identified: ◼ I-405 Improvement Project. There is pressure from outside entities to utilize Navy land that may appear underutilized. A recent example of this occurred with the I-405 improvement project, which is currently in construction. During the project development, it was determined that the freeway expansion would require an underground high-pressure gas pipelines to be relocated on to adjacent Navy property. ◼ Alternative Concepts for Improving Pacific Coast Highway. The Corridor Study for the Pacific Coast Highway Between Avenida Pico and Los Angeles County Line by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) identified six key issues and developed five transportation alternative concepts for improving Pacific Coast Highway. ◼ Traffic Congestion along Westminster Boulevard. Accidents that occur in the community can cause traffic to be rerouted, which affects congestion throughout the region particularly on Westminster Boulevard. For example, when accidents occur on I-405, traffic is rerouted to Westminster Boulevard. Delays in traffic have the potential to impact readiness at NWSSB. ◼ Traffic Generation on Seal Beach Boulevard. Operations at NWSSB can create truck traffic, due to deliveries, from Seal Beach Boulevard to Westminster Boulevard. ◼ Regional Impacts Due to Traffic Rerouting. Accidents that occur in the community can cause traffic to be rerouted, which affects congestion throughout the region. For example, when accidents occur on I-405, traffic is rerouted to Westminster Boulevard. Delays in traffic have the potential to impact readiness at NWSSB. Safety Safety zones are areas in which land use and population density allowances should be more restrictive due to the higher risks to public safety that characterize these zones. Issues to consider include aircraft accident potential zones, weapons explosive safety zones (munitions operations or explosive safety quantity distance for storage). The following Safety issue was identified: ◼ Concern over errant vehicles travelling at high speed disregarding traffic lights at Kitts Highway and Westminster Boulevard. There is concern about vehicles travelling on Westminster Boulevard disregarding a red or yellow traffic light at Kitts Highway and colliding with Navy trucks transiting through the intersection. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 35 Implementation Plan This chapter identifies and organizes the recommended courses of action, or strategies, for addressing specific compatibility issues. The recommendations were developed through a collaborative effort between representatives of local jurisdictions, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, state and federal agencies, and local organizations, as well as members of the public and other stakeholders that own or manage land or resources in the region. Because the NWSSB Joint Land Use Study is the result of a collaborative planning process, the strategies constitute a true consensus and a realistic and coordinated approach to compatibility planning. The JLUS strategies incorporate a variety of actions that advance compatible land use and resource planning. Upon implementation, existing and potential compatibility issues arising from the civilian / military interface can be avoided or significantly reduced. The recommended strategies function as the heart of the JLUS report and are the culmination of the planning process. Each of the JLUS strategies that are included in this chapter are meant to address specific compatibility issues that are described in greater detail in Chapter 5 of the NWSSB JLUS Background Report. The issues are included before each set of strategies as a point of reference to what the strategies are addressing. The issue and related strategy identification numbers used in this chapter also correspond to identification those used in Chapter 5 of the Background Report for easy reference. Integral to the successful implementation of strategies is the establishment of a JLUS Implementation Coordination Committee (see Strategy COM-1A) to oversee the execution of the JLUS. Through this committee, local jurisdictions, NWSSB, and other stakeholders can sustain their collaborative efforts and adjust strategies over time to ensure the JLUS continues to provide realistic implementation strategies and guide the resolution of compatibility issues into the future. It is important to note that a JLUS is not an adopted plan, but rather a recommended set of strategies that can be implemented by the JLUS participants in order to address current and potential future compatibility issues. Page 36 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Implementation Plan Guidelines A vital component of a successful plan is balancing the different needs of all stakeholders who are involved in the JLUS process. To produce a balanced plan, several guidelines were used as the basis for strategy development. These guidelines included: ◼ Recommended strategies must not result in the taking of property values, as defined by state law. ◼ In some cases, the recommended strategies can only be implemented with new enabling legislation. ◼ To minimize regulation, many of the strategies are only recommended for the specific geographic area where the issue they address occurs (e.g. within the noise contours), instead of recommended for the whole JLUS Study Area. ◼ Like other planning processes that include numerous stakeholders, the challenge is to create a solution or strategy that meets the needs of all parties. In lieu of eliminating strategies that do not have 100 percent buy-in from all stakeholders, it was determined that the solution / strategy may result in the creation of multiple strategies that address the same issue but tailored to individual circumstances. ◼ Since this JLUS is meant to be a “living document”” and state and federal regulations are subject to change, the implementing jurisdiction or party should ensure there are no conflicts between the strategy and existing state or federal laws before adopting any given strategy in the Implementation Plan. Military Compatibility Areas In compatibility planning, the generic term “Military Compatibility Area” (MCA) formally designates a geographic area where military operations may impact local communities, and conversely, where local activities may affect the military’s ability to carry out its mission(s). An MCA should: ◼ Promote an orderly transition between community and military land uses so that land uses remain compatible; ◼ Protect public health, safety, and welfare; ◼ Maintain operational capabilities of military installations and areas; ◼ Promote an awareness of the size and scope of military training areas to protect areas separate from the actual military installation that are used for training purposes (e.g., critical air space); and ◼ Establish compatibility requirements within the designated area, such as requirements for sound attenuation or easements. The MCAs are geographic areas where specific types of recommended JLUS strategies apply. As a planning technique, the MCAs ensure that strategies are applied in appropriate areas and that locations that do not have a specific compatibility issue are not adversely impacted by regulations inappropriate for their location or circumstance. The Military Compatibility Area Overlay District (MCAOD) is a zoning district that also ensures JLUS strategies are applied in appropriate areas, while other locations are not adversely impacted by regulations or policies that do not apply. The MCAOD encompasses all the MCAs and its geographic boundary is defined by the combination of the MCA boundaries. The MCAOD should be used by local jurisdictions to address ways to prevent or mitigate compatibility issues. Each jurisdiction’s MCAOD boundary is determined by the largest geographic boundary of all the MCAs that fall within their jurisdiction. The NWSSB MCAOD is depicted on Figure 4 and includes two smaller MCAs: an operational MCA and a notification MCA. These MCAs are shown on Figures 5 through 6 and are discussed in the following sections. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 37 Lo s Ang ele s Lo s Ang ele sCo un ty Co un ty Ora n ge Ora n geCo un tyCo un ty Seal Beach Long Beach Long Beach Breakwater Bolsa BayState MarineConservationAreaBolsa Chica RdLos Coyotes Diagonal Los Alamitos BlvdBroadway Ocean Bl v d 2nd S t Warner Ave Bolsa Chica St4th St Bellflower BlvdRedondo AveLamps o n A v e Atherton St Anaheim StCherry AveKatella Ave Studebaker Rd7th St SealBeachBlvdWestminster Blvd Willow St 22 19 1 1 605405 Cypress Garden Grove Huntington Beach Rossmoor Military CompatibilityArea Overlay District Legend MCAOD Land Notification MCA Sea Operational MCA Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Barge Transport Area Additional Area Controlled By NWS Seal Beach Long Beach Seal Beach Other Community County Interstate State Highway Major Road Railroads Water Body Bolsa Bay State Marine Conservation Area 0 1¼½¾ Miles Source: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), 2017. Chart 18749.NWS SB, 2017. Figure 4 Page 38 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Lo s Ang ele s Lo s Ang ele sCo un ty Co un ty Ora n ge Ora n geCo un tyCo un ty Seal Beach Long Beach Long Beach Breakwater Bolsa BayState MarineConservationAreaBolsa Chica RdLos Coyotes Diagonal Los Alamitos BlvdBroadway Ocean Bl v d 2nd S t Warner Ave Bolsa Chica St4th St Bellflower BlvdRedondo AveLamps o n A v e Atherton St Anaheim StCherry AveKatella Ave Studebaker Rd7th St SealBeachBlvdWestminster Blvd Willow St 22 19 1 1 605405 Cypress Garden Grove Huntington Beach Rossmoor OperationalMilitary CompatibilityArea Legend Operational MCA Barge Transport Area Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Long Beach Seal Beach Other Community County Interstate State Highway Major Road Railroads Water Body Bolsa Bay State Marine Conservation Area 0 1¼½¾ Miles Source: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), 2017. Chart 18749.NWS SB, 2017. Figure 5 January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 39 Lo s Ang ele s Lo s Ang ele sCo un ty Co un ty Ora n geOra n geCo un ty Co un ty Seal Beach Westminster Blvd Bolsa Chica RdStudebaker RdBolsa Chica StLampso n Ave Seal Beach BlvdWestminster Blvd 22 1 22 1 405 Garden Grove Huntington Beach Rossmoor Notification Military CompatibilityArea Legend Land Notification MCA Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge Long Beach Seal Beach Other Community County Interstate State Highway Major Road Water Body 0 ½¼ Miles Source: NWS SB, 2017. Figure 6 Page 40 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Operational MCA The Operational Military Compatibility Area (MCA) is a marine-based area where any future development and/or uncoordinated activities (i.e. alternative energy, recreational activities) may impede NWSSB operational requirements. Notification MCA ◼ The Notification Military Compatibility Area (MCA) is a land-based area where increased coordination and communication may be required to ensure future activities do not unintentionally impact NWSSB activities or impede community economic development. How to Read the Implementation Plan The strategies that comprise the implementation plan address the issues that were identified while preparing the JLUS. The purpose of each strategy is to: ◼ Avoid future actions, operations, or approvals that would cause a compatibility issue; ◼ Eliminate an existing compatibility issue; ◼ Reduce the adversity of an existing issue; and / or ◼ Provide for on-going communications and collaboration. In an effort to list and describe the strategies in an efficient manner, they are presented in a table format in which identified issues are listed first, followed by the recommended strategy for addressing it. The identified issues and strategies are organized in terms of the general compatibility factor with which they are associated. The following paragraphs explain how to read the information that is presented for each strategy. Issue / Strategy ID Number. Each strategy is assigned a unique identifier (i.e., COM 1A, COM-1B, COM-1C, etc.) to provide an easy reference. A Strategy ID is composed of the Compatibility Issue to which it applies (i.e. “COM” for Communications / Coordination strategies) and a sequential number. Geographic Area. The geographic area identifies the area in which a given strategy can be appropriately applied. Some of the strategies are designated as “General” if they are not limited to a specific location; some are designated as “Study Area,” if they apply to across the entire Study Area or a specific geography within the Study Area; some are designated as “MCAOD” if they apply to the entire MCAOD for the JLUS Study Area, while others may apply to a specific MCA. Strategy. Each strategy has been given a descriptive title that is highlighted in bold type. Each descriptive title is followed by a more detailed explanation of the recommended action. Timeline. The timeline is an estimate of when the initiation of a strategy is anticipated: Short-Term Strategy to be initiated within 1-2 years following JLUS completion. Mid-Term Strategy to be initiated within 3-4 years following JLUS completion. Long-Term Strategy to be initiated in 5 or more years following JLUS completion. On-Going Strategy will be needed on a continuous, intermittent, or as needed basis. Responsible Partner. At the right end of the strategy table are a set of columns labelled with the names or acronyms of each jurisdiction, military entity, agency, and organization with responsibilities in implementing the JLUS strategies. A column is also labelled “Other.” If an entity has responsibility relative to implementing a strategy, a mark is shown under their name. A solid square (◼) indicates primary responsibility January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 41 for implementing the strategy. A hollow square () indicates the entity plays a key supporting role but is not directly responsible for implementation. “Other” is marked in cases where entities that did not participate in the JLUS have implementing responsibilities. Their names are then listed at the end of the strategy description. Figure 7 provides an example strategies table for further clarification. The strategies for addressing compatibility issues and opportunities in the NWSSB Study Area are presented in Table 2. Figure 7. Strategy Key Page 42 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other AIR QUALITY (AQ) AQ-1 There is a Concern about Air Quality in the JLUS Study Area Limiting Mission Operations and / or Community Activities. The JLUS Study Area within the South Coast Air Basin is in extreme nonattainment for ozone (O3), serious nonattainment for particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5), and a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter 10 (PM10). These air pollutant classifications can potentially constrain both military operations and community activities, including construction and transportation operations. AQ-1A Study Area Maintain Local Monitoring and Coordination for Regional Air Quality The jurisdictions should work with NWSSB and continue to monitor applicability of regional air quality rules and regulations or monitor cumulative impacts to regional air quality. Other Partners: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Air Resources Board On-going ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼  January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 43 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other AQ-1B Study Area Air Quality Communications and Outreach The JLUS Partners should coordinate on the development of outreach materials and public programming to enhance community understanding of air quality issues and NWSSB mission impacts. Efforts could include brochures, activity books and games, school presentations, public workshops, and should include information on resources available through SCAQMD. Other Partners: South Coast Air Basin On-going ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ANTITERRORISM / FORC E PROTECTI ON (AT) AT-1 There is an Opportunity to Partner with the Community to Ensure Continued use of the Installation for Parking when the City Has Public Events. The Navy allows cars to park on the installation during the city’s public events throughout the year. Increased security requirements may mean changing the procedures to ensure that the shared service can continue while meeting security requirements. AT-1A Study Area Develop Long Term Parking “Buffer” Solution The City of Seal Beach should consider determining eligibility to use the DoD Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) grant program to construct a permanent, controlled parking area on the installation if deemed compatible with the NWSSB mission. Use could be formalized through NDAA Section 331 authority. Other Partners: Office of Economic Adjustment, DoD IRT Mid-term ◼  Page 44 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other AT-1B NWSSB Develop Event Parking Permit Application and Process The NWSSB should develop a formal procedure for request for on- base parking in support of public events permitted by the City of Seal Beach. Short-term  ◼ AT-2 Security Procedures Related to Civilian Access and Proximity to NWSSB Mission-Critical Resources. The existing NWSSB wharf in Anaheim Bay is adjacent to the only civilian public navigational channel between Huntington Harbour and the ocean. AT-2A Study Area Examine Opportunity to Provide Alternate Entrance NWSSB should explore options for providing a separate channel entrance for civilian vessels until the proposed ammunition pier project is constructed and operational. Other Partners: Orange County, local community partners, Seal Beach Wildlife Refuge Short-term ◼  AT-3 Security Concern Related to Potential Surveillance Vantage Points Outside NWSSB. Specific examples for why this particular challenge is important to address includes a recent experience where encroachment from the construction of a 4-story building overlooking gate operations and the filming of an emergency response exercise from a helicopter had occurred. City planners do not anticipate any changes in development or zoning currently surrounding the Station. Residential zoning has a height restriction of 25 feet (2 stories), which prohibits residents from building a third story addition on their lots. This zoning provision has been in effect since 1974. Therefore, there is very little likelihood that taller, more densely occupied buildings will be constructed near the Station. The usage of recreational drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles, can create opportunities for views into the installation from outside the fence line or through unauthorized overflight. January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 45 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other AT-3A MCAOD Anti-Terrorism / Force Protection Zoning Overlay The City of Seal Beach should consider a zoning overlay around NWSSB that limits the height of developments and certain types of land uses that could allow visual access to the installation. Other partners: land owners Long-term ◼  AT-3B Study Area Plan and Budget for Anti-Terrorism / Force Protection Landscaping The City of Seal Beach should plan and budget for landscaping and enhancement in areas adjacent to the NWSSB perimeter. Plans should be coordinated with NWSSB to ensure features meet DoD ATFP design guidelines. Planting pallets should include native vegetation that is drought and heat resistant and consistent with the installation’s conservation plans. Mid-term ◼  AT-3C MCAOD Amend General Plan for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) The City of Seal Beach should consider amending the General Plan to include policies that support adopting UAV no-fly zones and use requirements in planning documents. This strategy should include an overlay district where the requirements would be applicable. Mid-term ◼ BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BIO) BIO-1 Potential Seal Beach Wildlife Refuge Impacts due to Military Mission Operations, Expansion, or Construction Activities. There is a potential for military mission operations, expansion or construction activities impacting the biological resources that occur in the Seal Beach Wildlife Refuge, which is located on the installation. Page 46 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other BIO-1A Study Area Educate the Community on Biological Stewardship In conjunction with the City of Seal Beach, NWSSB should develop educational materials for the community regarding existing policies that support stewardship of biological resources. This could be done in conjunction with COM 1A. Other: Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge Mid-term  ◼  BIO-2 Concern with Coyote Population in and Around Seal Beach Community Including NWSSB. Coyote activity in and around the City of Seal Beach is causing safety concerns among residents. BIO-2A Study Area Educate the Community on Coyote Behaviors and Best Practices The City of Seal Beach, NWSSB, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should communicate / coordinate with one another to address public concerns regarding coyotes and develop a coyote monitoring and education program. Educational tools for the public should include standardized information on the types of threats and encounters that people experience with urban coyote populations, monitoring protocols, procedures for reporting sightings and encounters, safety tips, and methods to minimize the attraction of coyotes. This information should be included in relevant management plans, disseminated by NWSSB and Seal Beach Wildlife Refuge as an area of interest on their websites, and communicated at public engagements. Other Partners: City of Long Beach Animal Care Services, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Mid-term ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 47 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other COMMUNICATION / COOR DINATION (COM) COM-1 There is a Need for Enhanced Engagement for Sharing Information Regarding Future Changes to the NWSSB Mission. Future changes to the NWSSB mission creates potential engagement opportunities for coordinating and partnering with jurisdictions and organizations to educate the public. There is an opportunity for outreach to enhance communication between City staff and the public which could dispel perceptions that changes in operations at NWSSB could bring larger ships for a prolonged amount of time that would further disrupt the water view shed. COM-1A MCAOD Create a JLUS Implementation Working Group to Oversee Implementation of JLUS Strategy Recommendations Transition the NWSSB Policy and Technical Committees to a JLUS Working Group through a formal resolution. The new group should be responsible for monitoring the achievement of recommended JLUS strategies and act as a forum for continued communication and sharing of information, including current events associated with military compatibility. Jurisdictions should appoint a military liaison to serve on the Working Group, attend jurisdiction meetings on a quarterly basis, and be the point of contact for relevant parties. The resolution should outline: ◼ Roles and responsibilities, including who tracks progress of implementation measures; ◼ Member structure; ◼ Communication plan that describes who communicates with who; and Short-term ◼     Page 48 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other COM-1A (cont’d) ◼ Agenda structure. Other Partners: As Needed COM-1B MCAOD Develop and Pass a City Resolution to Establish Structure and Purpose for the Working Group that will Meet on a Quarterly Basis The cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach and Orange County should work with NWSSB to develop a City Resolution that accepts the JLUS, delineates the roles and responsibilities for each agency regarding collaboration on proposed development and land use planning matters, and establishes quarterly meetings. By resolution, each jurisdiction should appoint a military liaison. At a minimum, the City Resolution should include: ◼ Point of contact and information for each agency, including phone numbers and email addresses; ◼ A communication plan that delineates respective roles in communicating with the base regarding compatibility concerns; ◼ Responsibilities in coordinating on the resolution of compatibility concerns; ◼ Community and military response times; Short Term ◼ ◼ ◼  ◼ January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 49 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other COM-1B (cont’d) ◼ A checklist of triggers for coordination and communication (e.g. flood zone, safety zones, noise zones, height, frequency spectrum); ◼ Procedures for early development review; ◼ Coordination on City sponsored event parking; ◼ Coordination with Public Works Departments for water quality; ◼ Coordination with the Navy for landscaping projects along the fenceline; ◼ Navy representative at the City’s Strategic Planning meetings. Other Primary Partners: Caltrans, utility service providers COM-1C Study Area Develop Educational Brochures Develop educational brochures that highlight community and military compatibility and economic incentives for development and redevelopment, including programs and grants. Brochures can be used to educate property owners, the real estate industry, and the development community on compatibility issues and opportunities to promote community development while supporting the military mission, e.g. Coyote Management Program (see Strategy BIO-1A). On-going ◼ ◼ ◼  Page 50 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other COM-1D Study Area Provide Mutual Briefings To perpetually enhance support and cooperation and to reinforce the partnership between NWSSB and JLUS Study Area jurisdictions, installation leadership should annually present a “state of the installation” briefing to county commissions and city councils. Briefings should include strategic goals, operational changes, and proposed construction projects that may impact the NWSSB JLUS Study Area communities. The jurisdictions should provide annual briefings to NWSSB leadership regarding changes within their communities that may impact the installation, including comprehensive plans, master plans, transportation plans, zoning, development projects, and capital improvement plans. Additionally, a Navy representative should be involved at the City of Seal Beach Strategic Planning meetings. Short-term ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 51 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other COM-1E General Establish a “Good Neighbor Program” In partnership with the City of Seal Beach, NWSSB should consider conducting, twice a year, a Good Neighbor Program where they send out letters to all adjacent property owners inviting them to a NWSSB Neighbor City Hall meeting to provide a platform for two- way communication. The Navy should inform the neighbors of any upcoming mission changes or operations and maintenance events that may impact them. The adjacent property owners can inform the Navy of any concerns or questions they may have. Mid-term  ◼ DUST / SMOKE / STEAM (DSS) DSS-1 NWSSB Out-Leases Over 2,000 Acres of Property in the Safety Buffer Zone for Agricultural Uses, Which has the Potential to Generate Fugitive Dust. NWSSB out-leases over 2,000 acres of property in the safety buffer zone for agricultural uses. DSS-1A MCAOD Consider Adoption of a Dust Control Ordinance The City of Seal Beach, in collaboration with NWSSB, should consider developing and adopting a dust control ordinance, that is compatible with NWSSB, to ensure community activities do not contribute to air pollution in the region. Long-term ◼  Page 52 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other ENERGY DEVELOPMENT (ED) ED-1 Energy Development Coordination. There are no formal procedures for coordinated alternative energy development proposals with the DoD and NWSSB. ED-1A Study Area Consider Adopting Zoning Regulations for Alternative Energy Developments The jurisdictions in the JLUS Study Area should consider adopting regulations for alternative energy developments to minimize impacts on military operations. This will also facilitate long-term economic development associated with the energy industry. Long-term ◼ ◼ ◼ January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 53 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other ED-1B General Coordinate with the DoD Siting Clearinghouse Consider establishing procedures that are compatible with the Navy’s procedures and regulations and that address policies for establishing a guiding framework for communication with the military to promote compatible planning for proposed energy development projects. Such communication should include submission of proposed projects to NWSSB and the DoD Siting Clearinghouse to review each project for military compatibility. Include coordination with the DoD Siting Clearinghouse as part of the MOU between NWSSB and stakeholders that is referenced in Strategy COM-1B. At a minimum, the guiding framework should: ◼ Delineate the area in which communication and coordination on proposed energy development occurs; ◼ Define triggers for communication and coordination, such as the capacity, height of towers, and construction technology of solar panels (e.g. photovoltaic or concentrated solar power); and ◼ Confirm that development has been reviewed by NWSSB and the DoD Siting Clearinghouse with local government permit applications. Note: The DoD Siting Clearinghouse requirements and standards published in Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 211 guide and facilitate the early submission of energy project proposals to the Clearinghouse for military mission compatibility review. Mid-term ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ Page 54 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other FREQUENCY SPECTRUM C APACITY (FSC) FSC-1 Potential for Cell Towers to Impact Frequency. Cell tower permits have been trending upwards in the City of Seal Beach, leading to increased cell tower development in the public right- of-way. This has the potential to lead to frequency conflict or competition. FSC-1A MCAOD Establish Procedures to Avoid Frequency Conflicts NWSSB should coordinate with Orange County and the City of Seal Beach on the review of projects with frequency requirements that could impact communications off-installation. The criteria that trigger coordination include: ◼ Proximity to the NWSSB ◼ Tower height ◼ Power emission from tower sources ◼ Transmitting devices Additionally, NWSSB should develop a formal frequency interference complaints process. Mid-term ◼  ◼ January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 55 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other HOUSING AVAILABILITY (HA) HA-1 Limited Housing Inventory in Seal Beach and Surrounding Communities. In Seal Beach and surrounding communities, there is a lack of moderate-to-low income housing that would support military personnel and civilians, which may be an impediment to retaining and attracting personnel, and thus, affect the mission. HA-1A General Continue to Inform Community of NWSSB Military Personnel and Civilian Housing Needs to Assist in the Development of a General Plan Housing Element NWSSB should continue to work with local communities to provide them information on where civilian personnel that work at NWSSB live and information on future forecasts of personnel housing needs. The information should include the amount of basic allowances for housing within the communities. These projections can inform the cities and counties for the development of a Housing Element in the General Plan that would address workforce housing. On-going ◼   ◼ Page 56 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other INFRASTRUCTURE EXTEN SIONS (IE) IE-1 Opportunity to Codify Early (Prior to Environmental Review) Coordination Between the Navy and the City of Seal Beach Regarding Infrastructure Extensions. The City of Seal Beach provides the installation with utilities and as such should be included in the Navy’s long-range plans for expanding infrastructure. However, there is an opportunity (prior to environmental review) to formalize coordination between the Navy and the city, which can prevent delays in executing certain mission infrastructure expansion. IE-1A Study Area Coordination on Infrastructure Planning Notify and coordinate infrastructure expansion plans with the Public Works Department at the City of Seal Beach and NWSSB. When communities or other service providers move forward with any plans for extending infrastructure near any NWSSB facilities, such as a sewer extension, water redundancy, or power lines, NWSSB shall be notified. The provider should be prepared to discuss alternatives that would help reduce future development along the infrastructure line. Additionally, potential extensions needed on NWSSB should be coordinated with the City. Coordination should be done early in the planning process to optimize compatibility and reduce costs associated with plan changes. On-going ◼ ◼ January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 57 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other LAND / AIR/ SEA SPAC E COMPETITION (LAS) LAS-1 Use of Marina and Waterways for Military Operations and Recreational Activities. The Cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach have abundant natural seaside resources for the community including providing waterways for military operations and resources for water-related recreational activities, e.g. surfing. LAS-1A Study Area Expand Outreach to Boating Community Engage boating community through formal education sessions and leverage the U.S. Coast Guard’s routine notices to mariners to increase awareness of the Anaheim Bay. Outreach could include methods such as: ◼ Increased and enhanced signage: ◼ Engagement with boating community through marinas, boating associations, and boating clubs; and ◼ Expanded radio communications. Other partners: Department of Homeland Security and Coast Guard, local marinas, boating associations, boating clubs, Orange County Sherriff’s Department Mid-term  ◼  Page 58 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other LAS-2 Opportunity to Partner with NWSSB. NWSSB can leverage its size to partner with neighboring communities. A recent example is the community pool agreement with the City of Seal Beach. LAS-2A Study Area Explore Enhanced Use Lease Opportunities If NWSSB land becomes underutilized, consideration could be given for enhanced used opportunities with input from local economic development entities to ensure plans are compatible with community development objectives. These uses should not impede future operational uses or create avoidance areas, nor increase security or costs associated with the mitigation of environmental impacts from land uses. Other Partner: Communities Mid-term ◼ ◼  LAS-2B Study Area Leverage Scale of NWSSB and Explore Partnership Opportunities through the DoD Partnerships Program(s) Installations and communities have taken many different approaches and have applied various legal authorities to develop and implement installation-community partnerships. The legal authorities that are used range from more general IGSA authorities, such as Sec. 331 (superseded by NDAA 2015 Sec. 351), to authorities that are applicable to specific functional areas, such as 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2684 (“Cooperative Agreements for Management of Cultural Resources”). The latter authority allows installations to partner for cultural resource management. Some partnerships are developed through official U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Mid-term ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼  January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 59 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other LAS-2B (cont’d) Service programs, such as an Educational Partnership Agreement (EPA) or a Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) partnership project. Other partnerships are supported at a local level and may be more informal agreements with the community. The nature of the need for a partnership and of the functional or service area determines which types of approaches might be best. Agreement vehicles include: contracts, memoranda of agreement (MOAs), memoranda of understanding (MOUs). Benefits of Partnering include: ◼ Improved military mission and readiness; ◼ Economic benefits, including cost savings, earnings, and cost avoidance; ◼ Improved installation and community operations, facilities, infrastructure, workforce, and services; ◼ Access to additional capacity of resources, skills, expertise, facilities, and infrastructure; ◼ Improved strategic regional collaboration; ◼ Improved government and community relationships; ◼ Enhanced outreach to military personnel and their families and communities; ◼ Energy and environmental benefits; ◼ Facilitator and political help with federal, state, and local governments and other organizations; and ◼ Help maintaining community character and way of life. Page 60 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other LAS-2B (cont’d) It is recommended that NWSSB and partners explore initiatives and opportunities in the following categories, which generate the most costs savings or avoidance: ◼ The installation partner provides a service at a lower cost than the installation had been paying. ◼ The installation stops providing the service (which may include the installation closing a facility) and relies on the partner to provide the service with little to no payment. ◼ The installation leases or sells land or another high-value asset in exchange for monetary or in-kind payments. ◼ The community funds an installation service or the construction of an installation facility. ◼ The installation experiences cost avoidance because the partner provides additional capacity to the installation. Other Partner: Communities, Counties, entrepreneurs through economic development organizations January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 61 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other LAS-3 Proposed Class IV Bike Track Along the South Side of Pacific Coast Highway. Possibly an encroachment concern of incompatible design if not coordinated with NWSSB. LAS-3A Study Area Coordinated Design Review It is recommended that NWSSB and jurisdictions within the agreed upon MCAOD establish formal review and concurrence procedures where any design occurs that could impact NWSSB safety and security. Other Partners: City of Seal Beach, jurisdictions in MCAOD, Caltrans, OCTA, OC Parks Short-term ◼ ◼ ◼  ◼ LAS-4 Operational Concerns Related to Close Proximity of Mission to National Wildlife Area. There is concern that there is potential for reduced operational capacity at the Small Arms Range due to the proximity of a refuge viewing area. LAS-4A Study Area Partner with Other Agencies to Identify Alternate Training Location NWSSB and local and Federal Law enforcement should explore combining training requirements and leveraging their combined scale to establish the equivalent of a corporate membership at a local range. Other Partners: local law enforcement entities Mid-term ◼  Page 62 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other LAS-5 Changes in the Long Beach Breakwater Would Impact Mission Requirements. A feasibility study currently underway considers alternatives that would modify the Long Beach Breakwater. Modification to the breakwater would increase wave action, impacting the Navy’s ability to transfer ordnance at the anchorage. LAS-5A MCAOD Ensure Continued Inclusion of NWSSB Equity in Breakwater NWSSB needs to ensure the Navy’s operational requirements are maintained in any future proposals with the potential to impact the Long Beach Breakwater or other areas within the Port of Long Beach where the Navy operates. Other Partner: Department of the Navy Mid-term ◼ ◼ ◼ January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 63 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other LAS-6 Offshore Oil Development May Impact Navy. The U.S. Secretary of the Interior has announced a plan for the exploration of oil and gas. There is concern that the exploration of oil and gas could lead to offshore development. LAS-6A MCAOD Coordinate with the DoD Siting Clearinghouse NWSSB should consider establishing a procedure that addresses policies or a coordination guiding framework for communication promote compatible planning for proposed energy development projects. Such communication should include the submission of proposed projects to NWSSB, Navy Region Southwest, and the DoD Siting Clearinghouse to review each project for military compatibility. Coordination with the DoD Siting Clearinghouse should be included in the MOU between Navy Region Southwest and stakeholders, as referenced in Strategy COM-1B. At a minimum, this guiding framework should: ◼ Delineate the area in which communication and coordination occurs for proposed energy development; ◼ Define triggers for communication and coordination; ◼ Confirm that local government development permit applications have been reviewed by NWSSB and the DoD Siting Clearinghouse; and ◼ Encourage local jurisdiction to inform the Community Planning Liaison Officer (CPLO) of potential energy development projects. Other Partner: Port of Long Beach Mid-term   ◼  Page 64 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other LAND USE (LU) LU-1 Potential Future Concern About Compatibility of Nearby Future Land Uses. There is a potential future concern about the compatibility of nearby land uses, especially near the wharf area. There is a safety risk element associated with this mission requirement, and as such is required to have land free and clear of safety hazards to facilitate the safe storage, logistics, and transport of munitions. LU-1A MCAOD Early Development Application Review Consider establishing an MOU between NWSSB and the jurisdictions, formalizing a process that provides copies of all conditional use, master plan, subdivision, annexation, etc. submittals located within the MCAOD to be reviewed by NWSSB. Such review periods shall conform to existing community review periods for comment. This supports a proactive approach to identifying potential conflicts early in the proposed development application phase. The MOU should: ◼ Provide technical input and assistance to local jurisdictions to support discussion of projects and potential compatibility issues; ◼ Define project types that require review; ◼ Identify the points of contact for all coordination; ◼ Identify opportunities for appropriate NWSSB personnel to participate in pre-application meetings for significant projects; ◼ Establish a formal procedure for requesting and receiving comments; Short-term ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 65 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other LU-1A (cont’d) ◼ Establish a standard, maximum timeline for responses, keeping in mind mandated review time periods as specified by state law and local procedures; and ◼ Provide notice to the NWSSB on all public hearings regarding projects identified for coordination. While consultation is expected to occur primarily on projects in the defined Study Area MCA, the military / NWSSB should establish contacts and procedures for receiving notices and review opportunities on significant regional projects. LU-2 There is an Opportunity to Codify Military Compatibility Guidance in the City of Seal Beach Planning Documents. The City of Seal Beach General Plan and Zoning Ordinance do not include military compatibility guidance as required by state law, but there is an opportunity to include such guidance when these planning documents are updated. LU-2A Study Area Update Local Jurisdiction Comprehensive Plans to Include Military Compatibility Policies that Promote Compatible Land Uses The JLUS partner jurisdictions should continue to update and adopt a future land use map and supportive goals, objectives, and policies that encourage a compatible land use pattern for new development and appropriate capital improvement investments. Include NWSSB as one of the stakeholders in the development of the plan. On-going ◼ ◼ ◼  Page 66 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other NOISE (NOI) NOI-1 Residential Concern with Noise from Joint Force Training Base Los Alamitos. Noise generated from aviation operations at Joint Force Training Base Los Alamitos are often attributed to the operations at NWSSB. NOI-1A Study Area Continue to Facilitate a NWSSB Outreach Program NWSSB should continue an outreach program to share information with the community. The public outreach program should describe outreach activities, development of informational brochures to be mailed to neighbors and posted on websites (NWSSB and local jurisdictions), identification of a single public relations point of contact for NWSSB and making contact information widely available. It should also include a military and community communication protocol directory that identifies the different level of communication channels between the appointed and elected officials, staff, the general public, and NWSSB. NWSSB should consider hosting regularly scheduled open houses on a semi-annual or annual basis for the public to provide an overview of training activities, construction, or other items of public interest associated with NWSSB. This forum should also allow residents the opportunity to comment on concerns. Open house activities that invite civilians onto NWSSB should be deconflicted with installation activities, such as changes in command or senior leadership and should be coordinated with Joint Force Training Base Los Alamitos. Other Partner: Joint Force Training Base Los Alamitos On-going    ◼  January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 67 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other NOI-2 Concern with Noise Generated Near Liberty Gate on Seal Beach Boulevard from Passenger Pick Ups. The installation gate known as Liberty Gate, located closest to the wharf, exits onto Seal Beach Boulevard, which is a residential street near the Downtown area. There are concerns from residents in the area that noise is generated from rideshare services, and sometimes family or friends of sailors who wait for them by parking along the street in front of nearby homes. NOI-2A Study Area Reconfigure Traffic Pattern and Potential Access to Long Term Parking “Buffer” Solution In concert with AT-1A: The City of Seal Beach should consider developing a rideshare drop- off point and leverage DoD Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) grant program to construct a drop-off point. Use could be formalized through exercising NWSSB NDAA Section 331 authority. This solution could also address Strategy AT-1A. Other Partner: DoD Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) Mid-term ◼ ◼  NOI-2B Study Area Good Neighbor Quiet Zone NWSSB should continue to enforce the quiet zone brief when ships come in. Additionally, NWSSB should educate the community about measures taken to enforce the quiet zone. Short-term ◼ Page 68 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other PUBLIC SERVICES (PS) PS-1 Concern about Beach Erosion. There is a concern about costs associated with continued beach erosion of the City of Seal Beach’s East Beach and Surfside Beach. Regular replenishment of sand (approximately every five years) is required at East Beach at great expense to the City. Previous efforts to resolve the issue with construction of a groin have been unsuccessful. PS-1A Study Area Pursue Grant to Study Cause and Cost-Effective Design of Mitigation Measures (oea.gov) The City of Seal Beach should determine eligibility to obtain an implementation grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) for a study to evaluate wave action and hydrodynamics influenced by marine structures, such as the jetties, to determine feasible measures to mitigate beach erosion. NWSSB will advocate for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to perform the study as the jetties are managed by the installation as Navy property. Other Partners: OEA, USACE Short-term ◼ ◼   January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 69 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other PS-1B Study Area Pursue National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) National Coastal Resilience Grant to Study Cause and Cost-Effective Design of Mitigation Measures (coast.noaa.gov) Projects funded under this national program will provide benefits to communities, as well as for fish and wildlife. In partnership with NOAA, NFWF will make investments to advance identified priorities for restoring and strengthening natural systems so they can protect coastal communities from the impacts of storms and floods and enable them to recover more quickly, while also enhancing habitats for important fish and wildlife populations. NFWF will award up to $30 million in grants to create, expand and restore natural systems in areas that will both increase protection for communities from coastal storms, sea level changes, and coastal erosion and improve valuable habitats for fish and wildlife species. NFWF will invest in projects in two focus areas: Project Planning and Design; Project Implementation. Short-term ◼ Page 70 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other PUBLIC TRESPASSING (PT) PT-1 Concerns about Public Trespassing on NWSSB. There is concern that public trespassing can occur on NWSSB through the fence line and in the channels. PT-1A Study Area Initiate “Eyes On NWSSB” Program Engage local community groups and jurisdictions to work with law enforcement agencies and NWSSB to create a NWSSB Community Watch Program (similar to a Neighborhood Watch), whereby citizens and public safety officers that witness trespassing onto NWSSB inform a designated point of contact at the base. The Navy should provide a phone number for people to call regarding any activity that may impact NWSSB. Other Partners: School districts, willing landowners On-going ◼  January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 71 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other ROADWAY CAPACITY (RC ) RC-1 I-405 Improvement Project. There is pressure from outside entities to utilize Navy land that may appear underutilized. A recent example of this occurred with the I-405 improvement project, which is currently in construction. During the project development, it was determined that the freeway expansion would require an underground high-pressure gas pipelines to be relocated on to adjacent Navy property. RC-1A Study Area NWSSB Should Monitor I-405 Improvement Project Continue to monitor for design changes that may affect the need for additional Navy right-of-way. Other Partners: Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) On-going   ◼ RC-2 Alternative Concepts for Improving Pacific Coast Highway. The Corridor Study for the Pacific Coast Highway Between Avenida Pico and Los Angeles County Line by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) identified six key issues and developed five transportation alternative concepts for improving Pacific Coast Highway. RC-2A Study Area NWSSB Should Monitor OCTA Transportation Initiatives and Alternatives and Ensure Navy Equity NWSSB should continue to monitor OCTA initiatives and potential plans for improvements to Pacific Coast Highway to ensure that there are no encroachments to the NWSSB mission and operations. Other Partners: OCTA, Caltrans On-going  ◼  Page 72 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other RC-3 Traffic Congestion along Westminster Boulevard. Accidents that occur in the community can cause traffic to be rerouted, which affects congestion throughout the region particularly on Westminster Boulevard. For example, when accidents occur on I-405, traffic is rerouted to Westminster Boulevard. Delays in traffic have the potential to impact readiness at NWSSB. RC-3A MCAOD Prepare a Traffic Modeling Study for the Areas Immediately Surrounding NWSSB The City of Seal Beach should determine eligibility for an OEA grant to conduct a comprehensive traffic modeling study for the areas immediately around NWSSB to assess roadway capacity levels for egress and ingress to NWSSB. This should be coordinated with the appropriate jurisdictions. Other Partners: Caltrans, OCTA Mid-term ◼   January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 73 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other RC-4 Traffic Generation on Seal Beach Boulevard. Operations at NWSSB can create truck traffic, due to deliveries, from Seal Beach Boulevard to Westminster Boulevard. RC-4A Study Area Prepare an Intermodal Traffic Study for the Areas Immediately Surrounding NWSSB In concert with Strategy RC-3A above, the City of Seal Beach and NWSSB should coordinate with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the surrounding communities to prepare and develop a comprehensive Intermodal Traffic Study for the areas immediately around NWSSB to assess efficient upgrades (signage and wayfinding, and roadway origin / time studies to assess mitigations to alleviate safety and security concerns with hazardous cargo egress and ingress to NWSSB. Other Partners: Caltrans, OEA Traffic Study, DOT Tiger Grant On-going ◼ ◼  Page 74 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other RC-5 Regional Impacts Due to Traffic Rerouting. Accidents that occur in the community can cause traffic to be rerouted, which affects congestion throughout the region. For example, when accidents occur on I-405, traffic is rerouted to Westminster Boulevard. Delays in traffic have the potential to impact readiness at NWSSB. RC-5A Study Area Prepare Bike / Pedestrian/ Transportation Study for the Areas Immediately Surrounding NWSSB In concert with RC-3 and RC-4 above, the City of Seal Beach and NWSSB should continue to coordinate with relevant transportation partners and the surrounding communities to prepare and develop a comprehensive Bike / Pedestrian / Transit Study for the areas immediately around NWSSB to assess efficient mitigations, enhancements or incentives to alleviate traffic and develop alternative routing scenario planning. Other Partners: Caltrans, OEA Traffic Study, DOT Tiger Grant, OCTA, OC Parks On-going ◼  January 2019 Joint Land Use Study Page 75 Table 2. JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID # Geographic Area Strategy Timeframe City of Seal Beach City of Long Beach Orange County NWSSB Other SAFE TY ZONES (SA) SA-1 Concern Over Errant Vehicles Travelling at High Speed Disregarding Traffic Lights at Kitts Highway and Westminster Boulevard. There is concern about vehicles travelling on Westminster Boulevard disregarding a red or yellow traffic light at Kitts Highway and colliding with Navy trucks transiting through the intersection. SA-1A Study Area Prepare Traffic Safety Study for the Areas Immediately Surrounding NWSSB In concert with RC-3, RC-4, and RC-5 above, the City of Seal Beach and NWSSB should coordinate with Caltrans and the surrounding communities to prepare and develop a comprehensive Intermodal Traffic Safety Study for the areas immediately around NWSSB to assess efficient upgrades (signaling, turning lane enhancements, seismic upgrades for bridges) to alleviate safety and security concerns with hazardous cargo egress and ingress to NWSSB. Other Partners: Caltrans, OEA Traffic Study, DOT Tiger Grant, OCTA On-going ◼ ◼  Page 76 Joint Land Use Study January 2019 This page left intentionally blank. Background Report NWS Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study Background Report Prepared for: City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Prepared by: January 2019 This study was prepared under contract with the City of Seal Beach, with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of the key JLUS partners involved in the development of this study and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. How to Read the JLUS Documents The Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) consists of three separate documents that provide different levels of information. These three documents are: JLUS Background Report The Seal Beach JLUS Background Report provides a detailed technical background of existing conditions within the Seal Beach JLUS Study Area. It is separated out into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction and overview of the project and why it was conducted. Chapter 2 introduces the communities that are within the Study Area and gives an overview of their history and demographic trends, including population, housing characteristics, economic outlook, and future growth and development. Chapter 3 provides an overview of NWSSB and its operational facilities, discusses the installation’s mission and tenants, its strategic and local importance, and facility and training capabilities and operations. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the military footprints that go outside the installation boundaries. Chapter 4 provides an overview of relevant plans, programs, and studies that are tools to address compatibility issues in the JLUS Study Area. Chapter 5 presents the compatibility issues identified and a detailed assessment of each and how it impacts NWSSB and/or the surrounding community. JLUS Report The JLUS Report is a condensed portfolio of the key issues and strategies identified through the NWS Seal Beach JLUS process. The report includes a user‐friendly reference of the Background Report that is accessible and easy‐to‐use for all stakeholders. This report provides a brief discussion on the purpose and objectives of the JLUS, describes the benefit of the JLUS, and provides an overview of the various JLUS partners that assisted in its development. Finally, this document outlines the relevant compatibility issues accompanied by applicable strategies identified in the Implementation Plan and provides summaries of the strategies separated by stakeholder. Executive Summary Brochure The Executive Summary brochure provides a brief overview of the project and highlights the key recommended strategies to address the compatibility issues identified. January 2019 Background Report Policy Committee (PC) The Policy Committee consisted of elected officials from participating jurisdictions, NWSSB leadership, and leaders from participating agencies. The committee was responsible for the direction of the JLUS, preparation and approval of the study design, approval of policy recommendations, and approval of draft and final JLUS documents. The Policy Committee was comprised of the following individuals:  Thomas Moore, Mayor City of Seal Beach  Mike Varipapa, City Council Member City of Seal Beach  Ellery Deaton, City Council Member City of Seal Beach  Schelly Sustarsic, City Council Member City of Seal Beach  Sandra Massa‐Lavitt, City Council Member City of Seal Beach  Jill Ingram, City Manager City of Seal Beach  Tom Modica, Assistant City Manager City of Long Beach  Crystal Landavazo, Interim Community Development Director City of Seal Beach  Diana Tang, Manager of Government Affairs City of Long Beach  Captain Noel Dahlke, Commanding Officer Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Background Report January 2019 Technical Committee (TC) The Technical Committee was responsible for identifying and studying technical issues, providing feedback on report development, and assisting in the development and evaluation of implementation strategies and tools. Membership included area planners, military base planners, business and development community representatives, and other subject matter experts as needed to assist in the development and evaluation of implementation strategies and tools. Items discussed by the TC were brought before the PC for consideration and action. The Technical Committee was comprised of the following individuals:  Crystal Landavazo, Interim Community Development Director City of Seal Beach  Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner City of Seal Beach  David Spitz, Associate Engineer City of Seal Beach  Salim Rahemtulla, Facilities Management Division Director Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach  Jazmin Atencia, Installation Program Integrator Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach  Lindsay Flieger, Environmental Protection Naval Facilities Engineering Command  Andrew Chang, Management Analyst City of Long Beach  Joshua Hickman, Tidelands Program Manager City of Long Beach  Kelly Finn, Community Planning Liaison Officer Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach JLUS Consultant Matrix Design Group, Inc. was the project consultant hired to conduct the JLUS project through coordination with and assistance from the City of Seal Beach, the PC, the TC, the public, and other stakeholders. Celeste Werner, AICP Project Manager Mike Hrapla Deputy Project Manager David Wilder RA, PMP Planning Lead January 2019 Background Report Page i Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.2 What Is a Joint Land Use Study? ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3 JLUS Goal and Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1‐2 1.4 Why Prepare a Joint Land Use Study? .............................................................................................................................................................. 1‐4 1.5 Public Outreach ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1‐4 1.6 JLUS Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1‐10 1.7 JLUS Implementation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1‐10 1.8 JLUS Reports Organization .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1‐10 2. Community Profiles ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2‐1 2.1 Regional Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 2‐2 2.2 Study Area Growth Trends ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2‐4 2.3 Economic Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2‐5 2.4 Current Development Overview in the JLUS Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 2‐13 2.5 Transportation Network ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2‐14 2.6 Beaches and Coastal Resources ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2‐17 3. Military Profile .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1 Installation Setting ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 3‐2 3.2 History of Lands and Operations at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach .......................................................................................................... 3‐5 3.3 NWSSB Economic and Community Benefit ....................................................................................................................................................... 3‐6 3.4 Military Strategic Importance ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3‐8 3.5 NWSSB Mission ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3‐8 3.6 NWSSB Future Mission ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3‐9 3.7 NWSSB Mission Footprint ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3‐10 Page ii Background Report January 2019 4. Compatibility Tools ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4‐1 4.1 Federal Programs and Policies .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4‐2 4.2 Installation Plans ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4‐5 4.3 State of California Legislation ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4‐7 4.4 State of California Plans and Programs ............................................................................................................................................................. 4‐9 4.5 Local Jurisdictions – General Plans ................................................................................................................................................................. 4‐11 4.6 Local Jurisdictions – Zoning ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4‐13 4.7 Local Jurisdictions – Subdivision Regulations ................................................................................................................................................. 4‐13 4.8 Local Jurisdictions – Building Codes ................................................................................................................................................................ 4‐14 4.9 Other Resources .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4‐15 5. Compatibility Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐1 5.1 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐3 5.2 Antiterrorism / Force Protection ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐8 5.3 Biological Resources........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5‐11 5.4 Coordination / Communication ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐17 5.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐19 5.6 Dust / Smoke / Steam ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐20 5.7 Energy Development ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐22 5.8 Frequency Spectrum Capacity ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5‐24 5.9 Frequency Spectrum Impedance / Interference ............................................................................................................................................. 5‐26 5.10 Housing Availability ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐27 5.11 Infrastructure Extensions ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5‐28 5.12 Land / Air / Sea Space Competition ................................................................................................................................................................ 5‐31 5.13 Land Use .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐36 5.14 Legislative Initiatives ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐41 5.15 Light and Glare ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5‐42 5.16 Marine Environments ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐43 5.17 Noise ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐44 5.18 Public Services ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5‐46 5.19 Public Trespassing ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐51 5.20 Roadway Capacity ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐53 January 2019 Background Report Page iii 5.21 Safety .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5‐59 5.22 Scarce Natural Resources ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5‐62 5.23 Vertical Obstructions ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐63 5.24 Vibration ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐64 5.25 Water Quality / Quantity ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5‐65 Figures Figure 1‐1 NWS Seal Beach Location Map ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1‐3 Figure 1‐2 NWS Seal Beach Joint Land Use Study Area ................................................................................................................................................... 1‐11 Figure 2‐1 Population Density, 2000 NWS Seal Beach ....................................................................................................................................................... 2‐6 Figure 2‐2 Population Density, 2010 NWS Seal Beach ....................................................................................................................................................... 2‐7 Figure 2‐3 Single‐family Residential Building Permits Issued in the Study Area, 2007‐2016 ........................................................................................... 2‐12 Figure 2‐4 Multi‐family Residential Building Permits Issued in the Study Area, 2007‐2016............................................................................................ 2‐13 Figure 2‐5 Transportation Network ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2‐15 Figure 3‐1 NWS Seal Beach Setting .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3‐3 Figure 3‐2 NWS Seal Beach Land Use ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3‐4 Figure 3‐3 FY 2017 NWSSB Economic Benefit .................................................................................................................................................................... 3‐6 Figure 3‐4 FY 2017 NWSSB Employment ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3‐7 Figure 3‐5 Military Influence Area (MIA) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3‐11 Figure 3‐6 Seal Beach Anaheim Bay ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3‐13 Figure 3‐7 Barge Transport Area ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 3‐15 Figure 5.0‐1 Compatibility Factors ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5‐2 Figure 5.12‐1 Seal Beach Offshore Anchorage ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐35 Figure 5.13‐1 Zoning Near Ammo Loading and Unloading Area ........................................................................................................................................... 5‐38 Figure 5.19‐1 Navigational Channel in the Anaheim Bay ...................................................................................................................................................... 5‐52 Figure 5.21‐1 Intersection of Westminster Boulevard and Seal Beach Boulevard ............................................................................................................... 5‐60 Page iv Background Report January 2019 Tables Table 1‐1 JLUS Sponsor Participants and Responsibilities ................................................................................................................................................ 1‐5 Table 1‐2 JLUS Policy Committee Participants and Responsibilities ................................................................................................................................. 1‐6 Table 1‐3 JLUS Technical Committee Participants and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................................... 1‐6 Table 2‐1 Population Change 2000‐2010 and Estimates through 2035 ........................................................................................................................... 2‐4 Table 2‐2 Median Household Income: 2000‐2015 ........................................................................................................................................................... 2‐5 Table 2‐3 Labor Force by Jurisdiction: 2011‐2015 ............................................................................................................................................................ 2‐8 Table 2‐4 2011‐2015 Top Employment Industries in Orange County ............................................................................................................................... 2‐8 Table 2‐5 2015 Top Employers in Orange County ............................................................................................................................................................ 2‐9 Table 2‐6 2011‐2015 Top Employment Industries in Seal Beach ..................................................................................................................................... 2‐9 Table 2‐7 2011‐2015 Top Employment Industries in Long Beach .................................................................................................................................... 2‐9 Table 2‐8 Change in Median Monthly Gross Rent between 2000‐2015 ......................................................................................................................... 2‐10 Table 2‐9 Change in Median Monthly Housing Value between 2000‐2015 ................................................................................................................... 2‐10 Table 2‐10 Basic Allowance for Housing, NWS Seal Beach, 2018 ..................................................................................................................................... 2‐11 Table 5.1‐1 Air Quality Information for the JLUS Study Area .............................................................................................................................................. 5‐6 Table 5.1‐2 Top Pollutant Sources for the JLUS Study Area ................................................................................................................................................ 5‐6 Table 5.10‐1 Owner Occupied Unit Value ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5‐27 Table 5.20‐1 LOS Ratings...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐53 January 2019 Background Report v A AB Assembly Bill AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use ZoneAQ Air Quality AT/ FP Antiterrorism / Force Protection B BAH Basic Allowance for Housing BLM Bureau of Land ManagementBLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BSC Building Standards Code C CAA Clean Air Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFCP California Farmland Conservancy ProgramCIP Capital Improvement Program CMLUCA California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst COA Critical Operations Area COM Communication / CoordinationCPLO Community Plans and Liaison Officer CWA Clean Water Act D DoD Department of DefenseDSS Dust / Smoke / Steam E EA Environmental Assessment EAP Encroachment Action Plan e.g. For ExampleEIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection AgencyESA Endangered Species Act FFCC Federal Communications Commission FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FSC Frequency Spectrum Capacity FSI Frequency Spectrum Impedance / Interference FY Fiscal Year vi Background Report January 2019 I I‐ Interstate ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management PlanIGA Intergovernmental Agreements IE Infrastructure Extension J JLUS Joint Land Use Study L LAS Land / Air / Sea Space Competition LCA Land Conservation AgreementLG Light and Glare LMH Lincoln Military Housing LU Land Use M MIA Military Influence Area MLLW Mean Lower Low Water MOA Memorandum of Agreement N NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Policy ActNGO Non‐Governmental Organization NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Noise NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration NWSSB Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach NWR National Wildlife Refuge O O3 Ozone OCOrange County OCTA Orange County Transit Authority OEA Office of Economic AdjustmentOPR Office of Planning and Research P PC Policy Committee PM2.5 Particulate Matter 2.5 PTPublic Trespassing January 2019 Background Report vii R RC Roadway Capacity REPI Readiness Environmental Protection Integration RF Radio Frequency ROD Record of Decision S SB Senate Bill SBNWR Seal Beach National Wildlife RefugeSCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCRMP South Coast Resource Management PlanSDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SIP State Implementation Plan SUA Special Use Airspace T T&E Threatened and EndangeredTC Technical Committee U U.S. United States USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service viii Background Report January 2019 This page intentionally left blank. January 2019 Background Report Page 1‐1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 1‐2 1.2 What Is a Joint Land Use Study? ....................................................... 1‐2 1.3 JLUS Goals and Objectives ................................................................ 1‐2 1.4 Why Prepare a Joint Land Use Study? .............................................. 1‐4 1.5 Public Outreach ................................................................................. 1‐4 1.6 JLUS Study Area ............................................................................... 1‐10 1.7 JLUS Implementation ...................................................................... 1‐10 1.8 JLUS Reports Organization .............................................................. 1‐10 A Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) is a planning process for identifying existing and potential land use compatibility issues and actions that can mitigate those conflicts. A JLUS is built around understanding and collaboration between a community and the military, and it facilitates actions that support both. Military installations are critical to local economies, generating thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in economic activity and tax revenues annually. In the past, incompatible development has been a factor in the loss of training operations and the realignment of mission‐critical components to other military installations. To protect the missions of military installations and the health of the economies and industries which rely upon them, encroachment of incompatible land uses must be addressed through collaboration and joint planning between military installations and local communities. This JLUS strives to mitigate current and future compatibility issues and to strengthen coordination between local community needs and the operational mission at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB). Page 1‐2 Background Report January 2019 1.1 Introduction NWSSB is located in Orange County, California, just southeast of the Los Angeles County line and approximately 25 miles south of Los Angeles (Figure 1‐1). The installation is situated approximately one mile from the City of Long Beach and is directly adjacent to the Cities of Huntington Beach and Westminster. It is immediately adjacent to the City of Seal Beach and the Pacific Ocean. The base includes 5,256 acres of land, marshes, and waterways within its immediate boundaries, as well as multiple nearby detachment areas where military operations are also conducted. NWSSB is integral to the nation’s defense, as well as the vitality of the region. An organized communication effort between the military, the surrounding communities, and other stakeholders that own or manage land, waterways, or other public resources in the area is needed to ensure that future growth around NWSSB is coordinated and compatible with military operational activities. In addition, the military needs to be cognizant of the surrounding communities to minimize issues impacting quality of life. The Department of Defense (DoD) and City of Seal Beach have sponsored the NWSSB Joint Land Use Study to evaluate and help mitigate incompatible resource use and development relating to military assets and operational needs in the area. 1.2 What Is a Joint Land Use Study? A JLUS is a community‐led planning process that identifies compatible land uses and manages growth within and adjacent to active military installations through the collaborative efforts of stakeholders within a defined study area. Stakeholders can include local municipal governments, state and federal officials, residents, business owners, non‐governmental organizations, and the military. These parties convene to identify existing and potential future issues, as well as actions that can eliminate, mitigate or avoid compatibility conflicts. The process is also designed to help establish and encourage a formal, permanent, working relationship between local jurisdictions, agencies, and installations. 1.3 JLUS Goals and Objectives The primary goals of a Joint Land Use Study are to protect the viability of current and future military missions and operations, while simultaneously guiding community growth and development, supporting regional economic viability and environmental health, and protecting public health, safety, and welfare. Three objectives are instrumental in achieving these goals.  Understanding. Convene community and military representatives to identify, confirm, and understand compatibility issues and concerns in an open forum, considering both the community and military perspectives and needs. This includes increasing public awareness, education, and opportunities for input organized in a cohesive outreach program.  Collaboration. Encourage cooperative land use and resource planning by military installations and surrounding communities so that future community growth and development is compatible with the military missions and operations, while seeking ways to reduce operational impacts on land and waterways within the JLUS Study Area.  Actions. Provide a set of mutually supported tools, activities, and procedures that local jurisdictions, agencies, and installations can implement to avoid and mitigate compatibility issues. The actions include operational measures that mitigate installation impacts on surrounding communities, as well as local government and agency protocols that reduce community impacts on military operations. These strategies will help decision makers resolve compatibility issues and prioritize projects within their annual budgeting cycles. January 2019 Background Report Page 1‐3 NWSSBDetachmentFallbrookNaval Weapons StationSeal BeachNWSSB NorcoDetachment7539727914627425413394667133308321717478107170181216312520921466259712623732726113856142134552122111138930241603719024338747624711857173911013952157106058105210110540515Lo s Ang ele sLo s Ang ele sCo un tyCo un tyOra n geOra n geCo un tyCo un tyRiv ers ideRiv ers ideCo un tyCo un tySa nSa nBe rna rd inoBe rna rd inoCo un tyCo un tySa nSa nDie goDie goCo un tyCo un tyVentu raVentu raCo untyCo untyLosAngelesSan DiegoLancasterRiversideVictorvilleNWS Seal BeachLocation MapLegendNaval Weapons Station Seal BeachCityCountyInterstateUS HighwayState HighwayRailroadsWater Body015510MilesSource: USGS 2016, US Census TIGER 2016.Figure 1-1 Page 1‐4 Background Report January 2019 1.4 Why Prepare a Joint Land Use Study? Military installations and nearby communities are separate jurisdictions with clear physical boundaries, but the natural and manmade resources such as land, airspace, water, and infrastructure that each needs and uses puts entities in close proximity to one another and typically requires resource sharing. The overlap in resource usage has sourced many positive interactions among local jurisdictions, agencies, and the military, but the activities of one entity can also negatively impact others in unforeseen ways. As communities expand due to population growth and market demands, current land use approval processes and zoning allowances may locate development closer and closer to military installations and their operations and training areas, increasing the likelihood of compatibility issues. Uncoordinated, incompatible development can initiate or exacerbate land use conflicts and other compatibility issues, referred to as “encroachment.” Encroachment can have negative impacts on community safety, economic development, and the sustainability of military activities and readiness. Encroachment on military readiness is currently one of the military’s greatest operational challenges. Recognizing the close relationship that should exist between installations and adjacent communities, the Department of Defense (DoD) Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) implemented the Compatible Use Program to mitigate existing and future conflicts and to enhance communication and coordination among all affected stakeholders. The program allows the OEA to work with local jurisdictions to co‐sponsor Joint Land Use Studies as the first step toward addressing compatibility issues between installations and communities and sustaining both military missions and local development. The key to a successful JLUS is a collaborative partnership where both the military and surrounding communities provide relevant information and express their concerns relating to mission impact. The surrounding jurisdictions also share their plans and any established processes that address incompatible development and yet allow for economic progress. Integrating military and community perspectives can highlight constraints on, and opportunities for, stakeholders and increase transparency regarding any conflicting interests. 1.5 Public Outreach The JLUS process was designed to create a locally relevant document that builds consensus and garners stakeholder support. To achieve these goals and objectives, the process included a public outreach program that provided a variety of participation opportunities for interested parties. Stakeholders An early step in any planning process is the identification of stakeholders. Stakeholders can include individuals, groups, organizations, and governmental entities interested in, affected by, or affecting the outcome of the land use study. Involving stakeholders early in the process is essential to identifying, understanding, and resolving their most important issues through the development of integrated strategies and actions. Collaborative planning among military installations, local jurisdictions, and agencies protects the long-term viability of existing and future military missions. Working together also enhances local economies and industries before incompatibility becomes an issue. January 2019 Background Report Page 1‐5 Stakeholders identified for the NWSSB JLUS included, but were not limited to:  Local jurisdictions (City of Seal Beach, City of Long Beach and Orange County);  Department of Defense (including OEA representatives) and the NWSSB;  Local, regional, and state planning, regulatory, and land and waterway management agencies;  Landholding and regulatory federal agencies;  The public (including residents and landowners);  Environmental advocacy organizations;  Non‐governmental organizations (NGOs); and  Other special interest groups (including local educational institutions and school districts). JLUS Committees The development of the JLUS was guided by two committees made up of personnel from the cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach and NWSSB. The two committees were the Policy Committee (PC) and the Technical Committee (TC). JLUS Policy Committee (PC). The PC consisted of elected officials and leadership from participating jurisdictions and leadership from NWSSB. The PC was responsible for the direction of the JLUS, preparation and approval of the study design, approval of policy recommendations, and approval of draft and final JLUS documents. JLUS Technical Committee (TC). The TC was responsible for identifying and studying technical issues, providing feedback on JLUS documents, and assisting in the development and evaluation of implementation strategies and tools. Membership included area planners, military base planners, and other subject matter experts from participating jurisdictions. Items discussed by the TC were brought before the PC for consideration and action. Both PC and TC members served as liaisons to their respective stakeholder groups, conveying committee activities and other information to their organizations and constituents and, in turn, relaying stakeholder comments and suggestions back to the committees for consideration. Policy Committee members were encouraged to set up meetings with their organizations and/or constituents to facilitate stakeholder input. The NWSSB sponsors, committee participants, and their various responsibilities are identified in Tables 1‐1 through 1‐3. Table 1‐1. JLUS Sponsor Participants and Responsibilities Participants Responsibilities  City of Seal Beach  Office of Economic Adjustment  Coordination  Accountability  Grant management  Financial contribution Page 1‐6 Background Report January 2019 Table 1‐2. JLUS Policy Committee Participants and Responsibilities Participants Responsibilities City of Seal Beach  Mike Varipapa, Mayor  Ellery Deaton, City Council Member  Thomas Moore, City Council Member  Schelly Sustarsic, City Council Member  Sandra Massa‐Lavitt, City Council Member  Jill Ingram, City Manager  Crystal Landavazo, Interim Community Development Director  Policy direction  Study oversight  Study Monitoring Report adoption City of Long Beach  Tom Modica, Assistant City Manager  Diana Tang, Manager of Government Affairs NWSSB  CAPT Noel Dahlke, Commanding Officer Table 1‐3. JLUS Technical Committee Participants and Responsibilities Participants Responsibilities City of Seal Beach  Crystal Landavazo, Interim Community Development Director  Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner  David Spitz, Associate Engineer  Identify issues  Provide expertise to address technical issues  Evaluate and recommend implementation actions to the PC  Provide draft and final report recommendations to the PC City of Long Beach  Andrew Chang, Management Analyst  Joshua Hickman, Tidelands Program Manager NWSSB  Salim Rahemtulla, Facilities Management Division Director  Kelly Finn, Community Planning Liaison Officer  Jazmin Atencia Installation Program Integrator  Lindsay Flieger, Environmental Protection, Naval Facilities Engineering Command January 2019 Background Report Page 1‐7 Committee meetings were held throughout the process to ensure the JLUS identified and appropriately addressed local issues. The meetings are summarized below.  Project Kick‐Off / Meeting #1. This meeting served as the initial kick‐off for the Technical Committee and was held at the City of Seal Beach Fire Station #48 on January 18, 2017. The Matrix project team provided an overview of the JLUS process, the NWSSB mission, and information on the issues related to compatibility that would be evaluated in the JLUS. In addition, the committee members were invited and encouraged to share their input on potential JLUS issues using an interactive audience response system that displayed real time results. The JLUS Overview/Compatibility Factors information sheet (see below) was distributed at this meeting.  Tiger Team. Matrix’s approach to data collection was augmented via a week‐long “Tiger Team” effort on the week of January 18, 2017 to complement data provided or collected by request. During this site visit, Matrix conducted individual and small group interviews with identified community stakeholders (local elected officials, regional planning agencies, special district staffs, other community and business leaders), as well as in‐depth interviews with NWSSB leadership and staff.  Follow‐on Meeting. Matrix prepared for and facilitated a JLUS follow‐on meeting with the City of Long Beach on August 7, 2017 after the municipality initially delayed the project for six months. This meeting was designed to reconfirm projects goals and objectives in anticipation of re‐energizing the project in early 2018.  TC Meeting #2. Matrix prepared for and facilitated a meeting with the JLUS Technical Committee on Thursday, January 11, 2018 at the City of Seal Beach Fire Station #48. Matrix facilitated the meeting by providing TC members information about the compatibility issues that had been identified to date, committee members’ roles and responsibilities, key milestones, and the need for comments on the basic framework of the JLUS Background Report. The framework was provided as a working draft for the committee to see the direction of the report and to better understand the JLUS process.  PC Meeting #2. Matrix prepared for and facilitated a meeting with the JLUS Policy Committee on Thursday, January 11, 2018 at the City of Seal Beach Fire Station #48. The Matrix team provided committee members with information about the compatibility issues that had been identified to date, discussions that had occurred during the second Technical Committee meeting, roles and responsibilities, and key milestones. The PC members identified several new compatibility issues that Matrix developed into issue statements.  TC Meeting #3. Matrix prepared for and facilitated a meeting with the JLUS Technical Committee on Thursday, April 5th, 2018 at the City of Seal Beach Fire Station #48. Matrix facilitated the meeting as a workshop, providing information about the compatibility issues that had been identified and copies of Fact Sheet #2: Strategy Toolbox Brochure (see below). Committee members then provided their perspectives and technical insights on practical approaches for addressing known issues.  PC Meeting #3. Matrix prepared for and facilitated a meeting with the JLUS Policy Committee on Friday, April 6th, 2018 at the City of Seal Beach Fire Station #48. Matrix provided committee members information about the Technical Committee’s progress and copies of Fact Sheet #2: Strategy Toolbox Brochure.  PC Meeting #4. The fourth PC meeting was held on January 16, 2019 when Matrix presented the Draft JLUS Report with recommended strategies for mitigating compatibility issues. The report had been drafted and revised based on previous input of Page 1‐8 Background Report January 2019 committee members and then released to the public for a comment period. The project team summarized public feedback and solicited further input from PC members.  Joint TC / PC Meeting #5. Matrix presented the final JLUS Report during the fifth joint committee meeting, including all comments and revisions as garnered in previous tasks and as approved by the PC. In addition to the meetings summarized above, a series of public workshops were held throughout the study period. These workshops provided an opportunity to exchange information with the greater community regarding compatibility issues and efforts to resolve them by NWSSB and other entities. Each workshop included a traditional presentation, as well as a “hands on,” interactive exercise that allowed the public to participate in the development of the study. Participants helped identify issues that needed to be addressed in the JLUS and provided input on proposed mitigation strategies. The public workshops are described below.  Public Workshops #1. This meeting served as the initial kick‐off for public engagement and was held at the City of Seal Beach Fire Station #48 on January 11, 2018. The primary goal was to explain the purpose and function of the JLUS, provide an overview of the military operations at NWSSB, introduce project participants, share the JLUS approach, and discuss the JLUS goals. No members of the public attended the first meeting, so Matrix worked with the Policy Committee to develop new strategies to increase public engagement, including changing the venue for Public Workshop #2 and adding a workshop (#2a) focused on smaller groups.  Public Workshops #2. As there were no public attendees at Workshop #1, this meeting served as the project kick‐off for the public and was held at the Marina Center and Fire Station #48 on April 4‐5, 2018. The meeting included a traditional presentation that summarized the project, followed by an interactive working session for local residents. Attendees were given copies of Fact Sheet #1: JLUS Overview/Compatibility Factors and the opportunity to provide input on known issues through an interactive survey and mapping station.  Public Workshops #2A. At the request of one of the PC members, a smaller gathering was schedule to allow for one‐on‐one engagement. The contents of the meeting were the same as Public Workshop #2.  Public Workshops #3. The third public meeting was held at Fire Station #48 January 15, 2019. Matrix presented the Draft JLUS with recommendations and encouraged attendees to provide feedback during the meeting via comment cards, through the project website comment submission system, or directly to the City of Seal Beach JLUS Project Manager. The Matrix project team made direct contact with meeting attendees in order to solicit input and answer questions. Public Outreach Materials Fact Sheet #1 JLUS Overview / Compatibility Factors. This fact sheet was developed at the beginning of the JLUS process to describe the OEA Compatible Use Program, JLUS objectives, the importance of partnering with NWSSB, and the various ways that the public could provide input during the project. The fact sheet also defined the compatibility issues that would be analyzed during the study and a map of the study area. The fact sheet was made available at the public workshops, as well as posted on the website for download. January 2019 Background Report Page 1‐9 Fact Sheet #2 Strategy Toolbox Brochure. The Strategy Toolbox Brochure was prepared for the second public workshop. JLUS strategies include a variety of actions that local governments, military installations, agencies, and other stakeholders can implement to promote compatible land use planning. This brochure provided an overview of the strategy types that could address compatibility issues surrounding NWSSB’s assets. Electronic Blasts (e‐Blasts). Throughout the JLUS process, Matrix maintained a list of individuals who expressed interest in being notified of project events via email. Individuals signed up for email notifications at public workshops and on the project website, and Matrix informed these parties of upcoming meetings. key project events, such as the release of draft and final JLUS Reports were highlighted. Matrix also provided copies of e‐mail announcements to the City of Seal Beach to disseminate through e‐mail lists maintained by the City or City Council. Flyers. Matrix prepared a flyer for each public meeting that the City of Seal Beach could post at strategic locations in the community to announce upcoming meetings. NWSSB Fact Sheet #1: JLUS Overview/Compatibility Factors, Page 1 Page 1‐10 Background Report January 2019 NWSSB JLUS Project Website A project website was developed and maintained to provide stakeholders, the public, and media representatives easy access to project information for the duration of the project. Information on the website included program points of contact, schedules, documents, maps, public meeting information, and survey. Areas of the website also allowed site visitors to comment on the project and sign‐up for email notifications regarding project events. The project website is located at www.sealbeachjlus.com. NWS Seal Beach JLUS Website (www.sealbeachjlus.com) 1.6 JLUS Study Area The JLUS Study Area depicted in Figure 1‐2 is designed to include land and waterways near NWSSB where community uses and activities may impact current or future military operations or where uses and activities may be impacted by military operations. 1.7 JLUS Implementation It is important to note that once the JLUS process is completed, the final document is not a single, binding plan adopted by all participants, but rather a set of recommended strategies to be used by the military, local jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations in the NWSSB JLUS Study Area to guide future planning efforts. Acceptance of the study by stakeholders (e.g., committees, jurisdictions, and the public) will confirm their collective support for the implementation efforts that have been identified and recommended. For instance, local jurisdictions may use strategies in the JLUS to guide future subdivision regulation amendments, growth policy updates, and zoning amendments or to assist in the review of development proposals in the JLUS Study Area with some confidence outcomes will be compatible with NWSSB operations and missions. NWSSB can also use the JLUS to coordinate with local jurisdictions on future projects and optimize internal planning for compatibility. 1.8 JLUS Reports Organization The following is a brief overview of the organization of the NWSSB JLUS reports, including the contents of the Executive Summary brochure, the JLUS Report, and each chapter of the Background Report. January 2019 Background Report Page 1‐11 PacificOceanNaval Weapons StationSeal BeachLongBeachSealBeachLos AlamitosReserve Centerand Air StationCoast Guard StationLos Angeles-Long Beach39195542391229072747173919190576055105710405Lo sLo sAn ge lesAn ge lesCo un tyCo un tyOra n ge Co un tyOra n ge Co un tyLos AngelesAnaheimArtesiaBellflowerBreaBuena ParkCarsonCerritosComptonCosta MesaCypressDowneyFountainValleyFullertonGarden GroveHawaiianGardensHuntingtonBeachLa HabraLa HabraHeightsLakewoodLa MiradaLaPalmaLosAlamitosLynwoodNewport BeachNorwalkOrangeParamountPlacentiaSanta AnaSanta FeSpringsSignalHillSouth GateStantonWestminsterWhittierNWS Seal BeachJoint Land Use StudyStudy AreaLegendNaval Weapons Station Seal BeachStudy AreaLong BeachSeal BeachOther CityCountyOther Military InstallationInterstateState HighwayMajor RoadRailroadsSeal Beach National Wildlife RefugeWater BodyWetlands021MilesSource: USGS 2016, US Census TIGER 2016.US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017.Figure 1-2 Page 1‐12 Background Report January 2019 JLUS Executive Summary Brochure An Executive Summary Brochure was prepared in conjunction with the final JLUS Report. This graphic‐intensive brochure provides a brief overview of the JLUS project and process and highlights the major compatibility issues and recommended strategies for addressing them. The brochure also includes maps where strategies apply. JLUS Report The JLUS Report summarizes the content of the Background Report and presents the recommended set of strategies for avoiding or mitigating compatibility issues in the study area. The report provides information about the purpose, objectives, and overall benefit of a JLUS and an overview of the various partners that assisted in developing the NWSSB JLUS. The report also includes information on the communities in the Study Area, an overview of the military mission and its operational areas, key compatibility tools, and an overview of the compatibility issues assessed in the JLUS process. The heart of the JLUS Report is the recommended strategies that were developed through the NWSSB JLUS process to address each of these issues. Background Report The JLUS Background Report is a detailed document that includes information about the communities within the JLUS Study Area, the military, the tools available to both local communities and the military, and a compatibility assessment for all identified compatibility issues. This report provides supporting information and serves as a supplementary reference to the JLUS Report. Chapter 1: Introduction. Chapter 1 provides an introduction and overview of the NWSSB JLUS. The chapter describes the strategic and local importance of the military installation, working relationships between the installation and local communities, the background, intent, and objectives that were used to guide development of the JLUS, the JLUS study area, the project stakeholders, public outreach methods, and the premise for implementation. The introduction also reviews the document structure. Chapter 2: Community Profile. Chapter 2 introduces the communities that are within the JLUS Study Area and provides an overview of their history and current demographics, including population, housing characteristics, economic outlook, and past, present, and future trends of growth and development. The chapter also provides an overview of the transportation system within the JLUS Study Area. Chapter 3: Military Profile. The military profile chapter describes NWSSB operations and influence within the JLUS Study Area. A brief history and discussion of the installation is presented, including the organizations at the base. This chapter identifies the military operational footprint, as well as current and possible future missions in the JLUS study area to show how the military operations could impact, or be impacted by, the surrounding communities. Maps showing the various footprints of NWSSB are provided to illustrate the geographic extent of these impacts. Chapter 4: Existing Compatibility Tools. This chapter details the existing plans, programs, and studies as of June 2018 that can help address compatibility issues in the study area. The applicable tools are reviewed in order to set a baseline for the evaluation of each tool relative to the compatibility issues that are identified and described in Chapter 5. Chapter 5: Compatibility Assessment. Compatibility, in relation to military readiness, can be defined as the balance or compromise between community needs and interests and military needs and interests. Chapter 5 presents the compatibility issues that were identified for the NWSSB JLUS study area based on input from the PC, TC, and members of the public, on reviews of existing plans and technical reports, and on the evaluations of the JLUS project team. The compatibility issues are organized and discussed in terms of 25 compatibility factors. January 2019 Background Report Page 2‐1 2.1 Regional Overview ............................................................................ 2‐2 2.2 Study Area Growth Trends ................................................................ 2‐4 2.3 Economic Overview ........................................................................... 2‐5 2.4 Current Development Overview in the JLUS Study Area ................ 2‐13 2.5 Transportation Network ................................................................. 2‐14 2.6 Beaches and Coastal Resources ...................................................... 2‐17 This chapter provides information about the surrounding communities that participated in the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB) Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), as well as information about Orange County, in order to depict the broader civil context in which the study was completed. Capturing and describing certain demographic characteristics of local jurisdiction provides a baseline from which informed decisions can be made when assessing compatibility strategies. More specifically, the information should allow stakeholders to understand population and development trends that have the potential to affect the installation’s future. This information is intended to be considered with other factors to help decision makers generate coherent, informed planning policies and decisions about future development and economic growth of the communities they represent before compatibility issues arise. The objective of this chapter is to foster an understanding about the types of activities occurring “outside the fence” when considering future missions and operations. Information presented includes population growth, economic development, housing, and transportation within the region to better understand the communities within the JLUS Study Area, their relationship to NWSSB, and potential encroachment issues between the communities and the military. Page 2‐2 Background Report January 2019 Sunset at Seal Beach, California Pier Photo Credit: Getty Images 2.1 Regional Overview NWSSB is located along the coast of southern California in Orange County. The installation is located in the city of Seal Beach, which is between the city of Huntington Beach to the southeast and the city of Long Beach to the northwest. The closest major cities include Los Angeles, California, 25 miles to the north; and San Diego, 100 miles to the south. The region is shown on Figure 1‐1 in the Introduction Chapter of this report. Community Profiles Orange County Orange County is located along California’s southern coastline, just south of Los Angeles County and north of San Diego County. It covers approximately 948 square miles, including over 40 miles of coastline. The 2016 population was approximately 3.2 million people, making it the third most populated county in California. It is also one of the most densely populated areas of the state. In 1889, the California legislature divided Los Angeles County into two counties, thereby establishing Orange County. Orange County is characterized by its history, recreational and tourist attractions—including beaches and parks—and its diverse economy. Orange County is a charter county and is governed by a board of supervisors elected from five districts within the county. The districts vary in size; however, they all have approximately 600,000 residents. Each year, a board chair and vice‐chair are selected from current board members. The board also appoints a county executive officer who acts as the chief administrative officer for the county. Orange County, California Gateway January 2019 Background Report Page 2‐3 City of Seal Beach City of Seal Beach City Hall The City of Seal Beach is located along the southern Pacific Coastline of California in Orange County. In 2016, Seal Beach had a population of 24,924. The City comprises 13.1 square miles, 11.3 of which is land and 1.8 of which is water. The surrounding cities are the City of Long Beach to the northwest, the City of Huntington Beach to the southeast, the City of Westminster to the east, Los Alamitos to the north, and Garden Grove to the northeast. The City of Seal Beach was incorporated in 1915 and quickly became a popular destination for beach recreation. The City is characterized by 1.5 miles of beach extending from 1st Street through Surfside Avenue. The City is a charter city, operating under a City Council‐City Manager form of government with five council members. The Mayor of Seal Beach is selected from among the council members on an annual basis. City of Long Beach The City of Long Beach is located northwest of the City of Seal Beach, also along the Pacific Coast, in Los Angeles County. It is approximately 22 miles south of the City of Los Angeles. The City has an area of 51.4 square miles, of which 50.3 square miles is land and 1.1 square miles is water. In 2016, the City had a population of 479,756. Long Beach was incorporated in 1888 and has had a history of beach recreation and tourism prior to World War II—it was a booming beachfront property area and vacation destination. After the war and when the San Pedro Bay Breakwater was installed, the city experienced a decline in tourism due to the lack of surf resources and the damages sustained by winter storms. Now, it is a beachfront and tourist destination and drawing millions of visitors each year. The City of Long Beach operates under a City Council–City Manager form of government. There are currently nine elected city council members and a mayor that is elected through a city‐wide election. All elected officials, including the mayor, serve four‐year terms. City of Long Beach City Hall Photo Credit: Wayne Lorentz Page 2‐4 Background Report January 2019 2.2 Study Area Growth Trends The following section provides population growth, housing, median home values, and economic growth trends for the JLUS Study Area. These trends illustrate the type of growth which has occurred in the region surrounding NWSSB and so what may be anticipated in the future. The information also provides valuable insight regarding where potential incompatibilities between NWSSB and the surrounding communities may develop. Population Trends and Projections The population data used in Table 2‐1 is based on information obtained from the State of California Department of Finance and U.S. Census Bureau data. Population projections show the overall population trends in the JLUS Study Area which informs future planning and infrastructure investments. The table shows the 2000 and 2010 census totals and percentage change in populations of jurisdictions within the JLUS Study Area. The table also shows the percentage change from the 2010 census total to the 2016 population counts. The following is an overview of key findings from the census data:  The population within the JLUS Study Area is steadily growing, with the population of both cities increasing at similar rates from 2010 to 2016.  The City of Seal Beach has experienced growth of 3.13 percent from 2010 to 2016.  The City of Long Beach has also experienced growth from 2010 to 2016, with a 3.79 percent increase in population.  Orange County has grown 5.76 percent from 2010 to 2016.  Orange County’s growth rate from 2010‐2016 exceeds the growth rate of the State of California, which may indicate development pressure in the county. Table 2‐1. Population Change 2000‐2010 and Estimates through 2035 Jurisdiction Population, 2000 Population,2010 Percentage Change, 2000‐2010 Population, 2016 Percentage Change, 2010‐2016 Estimated Population,2020 Estimated Population,2035 Estimated Percentage Change, 2016‐2035 California 33,873,086 37,253,956 9.98% 39,255,883 5.37% 40,719,999 45,521,334 15.96% Orange County 2,846,289 3,010,232 5.76% 3,194,024 6.11% 3,260,659 3,504,411 9.72% City of Seal Beach 24,157 24,168 0.05% 24,924 3.13% 25,000 24,800 ‐0.50% City of Long Beach 461,522 462,257 0.16% 479,756 3.79% 491,000 534,100 11.33% Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, E‐8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2000‐2010. Sacramento, California, 2012; State of California Department of Finance, Total Estimated and Projected Population for California and Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2060 in 5‐year Increments, 2017; Southern California Association of Governments 2012 – 2035 RTP (2020 and 2035 Projections for the cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach) January 2019 Background Report Page 2‐5 City population growth estimates were prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments. These projections were provided in 15‐year increments, from 2020 through 2035, and are shown in Table 2.1. The population projections show positive growth for the City of Long Beach. It is projected that Long Beach will grow by 11.33 percent between 2016 and 2035. It is projected that Seal Beach will experience a slight decline in population of approximately 0.05 percent. Orange County is projected to grow by 9.72 percent between 2016 and 2035. In addition to population estimates and projections, population density is a tool for understanding growth in the JLUS Study Area as it identifies were concentrations of people are located and thus, where there may be issues related to military compatibility. Population density is the amount of people per square mile who live within a defined geographic area. Figures 2‐1 and 2‐2 show the population density for the NWSSB JLUS Study Area in 2000 and 2010. Orange County is a densely populated county due, in part, to its idyllic location on the Pacific Ocean and the traditionally strong economic environment in Southern California. 2.3 Economic Overview Economic Growth Trends Historically, the economic engine of southern California, specifically Orange County, has been a combination of manufacturing, tourism, and service industries. NWSSB has a strong economic footprint in the City of Seal Beach, providing 3,132 jobs and a direct payroll of $52 million reported in the 2017 NWSSB Economic Impact and Community Involvement Report. Table 2‐2 shows the median household income from 2000 to 2015. The JLUS study area has experienced strong increases in median income in all jurisdictions, consistent with statewide increases between the years 2000 and 2015. More specifically, all jurisdictions show a 30 percent or greater change in median income over this time period, with the City of Long Beach exceeding a 40 percent growth rate. Table 2‐2. Median Household Income: 2000–2015 Jurisdiction Median Income, 2000 Estimated Median Income, 2011‐2015 Percent Change 2000‐2015 California $47,493 $61,818 30.2% City of Seal Beach $42,079 $55,270 31.3% City of Long Beach $37,270 $52,783 41.6% Orange County $58,820 $76,509 30.0% Sources: Selected Economic Characteristics, American Community Survey, 2000; Selected Economic Characteristics, American Community Survey 5‐year Estimates, 2011‐2015 Page 2‐6 Background Report January 2019 PacificOceanNaval Weapons StationSeal BeachLongBeachSealBeach39195542391229072747173919190576055105710405Los AngelesAnaheimArtesiaBellflowerBreaBuena ParkCarsonCerritosComptonCosta MesaCypressDowneyFountainValleyFullertonGarden GroveHawaiianGardensHuntingtonBeachLa HabraLa HabraHeightsLakewoodLa MiradaLa PalmaLos AlamitosLynwoodNewport BeachNorwalkOrangeParamountPlacentiaSanta AnaSanta FeSpringsSignalHillSouth GateStantonWestminsterWhittierPopulation Density, 2000NWS Seal Beach LegendPopulation Per Square Mile00 - 1,0001,010 - 2,5002,510 - 5,0005,010 - 20,000>20,000Naval Weapons Station Seal BeachCity BorderCountyInterstateState HighwayRailroadsWater Body021MilesSource: US Census 2000.Figure 2-1 January 2019 Background Report Page 2‐7 PacificOceanNaval Weapons StationSeal BeachLongBeachSealBeach39195542391229072747173919190576055105710405Los AngelesAnaheimArtesiaBellflowerBreaBuena ParkCarsonCerritosComptonCosta MesaCypressDowneyFountainValleyFullertonGarden GroveHawaiianGardensHuntingtonBeachLa HabraLa HabraHeightsLakewoodLa MiradaLa PalmaLos AlamitosLynwoodNewport BeachNorwalkOrangeParamountPlacentiaSanta AnaSanta FeSpringsSignalHillSouth GateStantonWestminsterWhittierPopulation Density, 2010NWS Seal BeachLegendPopulation Per Square Mile01 - 1,0001,010 - 2,5002,510 - 5,0005,010 - 20,000>20,000Naval Weapons Station Seal BeachCity BorderCountyInterstateState HighwayRailroadsWater Body021MilesSource: US Census 2010.Figure 2-2 Page 2‐8 Background Report January 2019 Table 2‐3 shows the local labor force for the JLUS Study Area jurisdictions from 2011‐2015, as derived by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS). BLS defines “employed” as a person of 16 years of age or older in the civilian, non‐institutional population who worked within seven days of the data collection. Unemployment is less than the national unemployment rate (5.2 percent) during this period in all jurisdictions in the JLUS Study Area with the exception of the City of Long Beach, which had an unemployment rate of 10.2 percent. Table 2‐3. Labor Force by Jurisdiction: 2011‐2015 Jurisdiction Labor Force Armed Forces Employed Unemployed Percentage Unemployed California 30,312,429 132,008 17,246,360 1,891,081 6.2% City of Seal Beach 10,845 133 10,105 607 2.8% City of Long Beach 243,527 368 217,300 25,589 10.6% Orange County 1,635,634 2,108 1,508,753 124,773 5.0% Source: Selected Economic Characteristics, American Community Survey 5‐year Estimates, 2011‐2015 Orange County The diverse nature of employment in Orange County is represented in Table 2‐4. The top employers are manufacturing, health care / social services, retail, professional/scientific, hospitality, and education, although many other sectors are represented in the County. These industries account for similar shares of the Orange County workforce, based on the percentage of workforce that is employed in each sector ranging from a high of 13 percent in manufacturing to a low of 8 percent in education. Table 2‐4. 2011‐2015 Top Employment Industries in Orange County Employment Industry Number Employed Percent of Workforce Manufacturing 196,193 13.0% Healthcare / Social Service 168,265 11.1% Retail 165,228 11.0% Professional / Scientific 132,925 8.8% Accommodation / Food Service 121,464 8.1% Education 120,148 8.0% Source: Selected Economic Characteristics, American Community Survey 5‐year Estimates, 2011‐2015 Table 2‐5 lists the six employers with the most employees living in Orange County. Disney is the largest single employer in the county with 27,000 employees. The University of California (UC) at Irvine employs over 22,000 people, while the healthcare sector employs 12,227 workers at St. Joseph’s Health and 7,000 workers at Kaiser Permanente. Boeing and Wal‐Mart round‐out the list with 6,890 and 6,000 employees, respectively. January 2019 Background Report Page 2‐9 Table 2‐5. 2015 Top Employers in Orange County Employer Number Employed Economic Sector Disney 27,000 Arts/Entertainment UC Irvine 22,385 Education St. Joseph Health 12,227 Healthcare Kaiser Permanente 7,000 Healthcare Boeing 6,890 Manufacturing Wal‐Mart Stores 6,000 Retail Source: 2015 Orange County Business Journal Book of Lists City of Seal Beach As in other jurisdictions in the JLUS study area, the top employment industries in the City of Seal Beach are also diverse (Table 2‐6). Healthcare/social service, education, professional/scientific, manufacturing, and retail are represented. The financial/insurance sector rounds out the list of top employers. Table 2‐6. 2011‐2015 Top Employment Industries in Seal Beach Employment Industry Number Employed Percentage of Workforce Healthcare/Social Service 1,418 14.0% Education 1247 12.3% Professional/Scientific 1061 10.5% Manufacturing 967 9.6% Financial/Insurance 679 6.7% Retail 623 6.2% Source: Selected Economic Characteristics, American Community Survey 5‐year Estimates, 2011‐2015 City of Long Beach The top industries in the City of Long Beach are provided in Table 2‐7. They are very similar to the Orange County top industries, only varying in the percentage of workers that each employ. The spread is also slightly larger, ranging from a high of 13.3 percent for healthcare/social service to a low of 6.6 percent for professional/scientific. Table 2‐7. 2011‐2015 Top Employment Industries in Long Beach Employment Industry Number Employed Percentage of Workforce Healthcare/Social Service 29,013 13.3% Retail 22,600 10.4% Manufacturing 22,371 10.3% Education 20,008 9.2% Accommodation/Food 17,474 8.0% Professional/Scientific 14,236 6.6% Source: Selected Economic Characteristics, American Community Survey 5‐year Estimates, 2011‐2015 Housing Trends Housing trends are an important indicator of economic activity and vitality that demonstrate population growth or decline relative to new residential construction within an area. These trends also represent market decisions relative to home ownership versus property rental and provide important indicators of the affordability of residential dwellings for military personnel. Table 2‐8 shows the change in median monthly gross rent for the state and study area jurisdictions between 2000 and 2015. Page 2‐10 Background Report January 2019 Table 2‐8. Change in Median Monthly Gross Rent between 2000‐2015 Jurisdiction 2000 Median Rent 2011‐2015 Median Rent Percentage Change 2000‐2015 California $747 $1,255 68.01% Orange County $923 $1,548 67.71% City of Seal Beach $1,036 $1,601 54.54% City of Long Beach $639 $1,122 75.59% Sources: U.S. Census, 2000. Historical Census of Housing Tables, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk; U.S. Census 2011‐2015 Median Gross Rent https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/guided_search.xhtml NWSSB family housing is provided by Public‐Private Venture Partnership with Lincoln Military Housing (LMH). LMH provides housing for both officers (detached single family homes) and enlisted members (apartment style homes). There are 107 homes available for rent on NWSSB. The base does not have temporary quarters, temporary lodging, a transient facility, or Space A facility, and makes use of local resources to provide these services. Trends in housing values help illustrate the changes in land and home values relative to market fluctuations and may indicate development activity or inactivity, as well as the migration patterns of populations. Table 2‐9 shows changes in the value of housing in the study area and in the state, at large, from 2000 to 2015. Table 2‐9. Change in Median Housing Value between 2000‐2015 Jurisdiction 2000 Median Housing Value 2011‐2015 Median Housing Value Percentage Change 2000‐2015 California $211,500 $385,500 82.27% Orange County $270,000 $553,600 105.04% City of Seal Beach $363,500 $300,400 ‐17.36% City of Long Beach $210,000 $431,300 105.38% Sources: U.S. Census, 2000. Historical Census of Housing Tables, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk; U.S. Census 2011‐2015 Median Values Owner Occupied Housing, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/guided_search.xhtml The state’s median housing value has increased by 82 percent in the last 15 years. Orange County and the City of Long Beach had the highest rate of increase in median home value at approximately 105 percent. The State of California had an increased rate of 82 percent in the median home value, which is 20 percent less than in both Orange County and the City of Long Beach. This suggests that there has been a lot of residential development in the study area, and that it is a desirable area to purchase a home. The City of Seal Beach is the only jurisdiction in the JLUS Study Area that has experienced a decline in median home values at ‐17percent. Table 2‐10 shows 2017 BAH rates based on military personnel grade/rank and whether or not they have dependents. This information helps to notify the community regarding the housing needs of military personnel. January 2019 Background Report Page 2‐11 Table 2‐10. Basic Allowance for Housing, NWSSB, 2018 Grade Rank With Dependents Without Dependents E1 Seaman Recruit (SR) $2,739.00 $2,067.00 E2 Seaman Apprentice (SA) $2,739.00 $2,067.00 E3 Seaman (SN) $2,739.00 $2,067.00 E4 Petty Officer Third Class (PO3) $2,739.00 $2,067.00 E5 Petty Officer Second Class (PO2) $2,928.00 $2,382.00 E6 Petty Officer First Class (PO1) $3,168.00 $2,568.00 E7 Chief Petty Officer (CPO) $3,276.00 $2,748.00 E8 Senior Chief Petty Officer (SCPO) $3,279.00 $2,979.00 E9 Master Chief Petty Officer (MCPO); Command Master Chief Petty Officer $3,543.00 $3,048.00 W1* Warrant Officer (WO1) $3,180.00 $2,676.00 W2 Chief Warrant Officer (CWO2) $3,324.00 $2,976.00 W3 Chief Warrant Officer (CWO3) $3,465.00 $3,057.00 W4 Chief Warrant Officer (CWO4) $3,576.00 $3,192.00 Table 2‐10. Basic Allowance for Housing, NWSSB, 2018 (continued) Grade Rank With Dependents Without Dependents W5 Chief Warrant Officer (CWO5) $3,699.00 $3,294.00 O1E Ensign (ENS) $3,297.00 $2,928.00 O2E Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG) $3,441.00 $3,033.00 O3E Lieutenant (LT) $3,591.00 $3,162.00 O1 Ensign (ENS) $2,958.00 $2,544.00 O2 Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG) $3,165.00 $2,865.00 O3 Lieutenant (LT) $3,459.00 $3,078.00 O4 Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) $3,744.00 $3,279.00 O5 Commander (CDR) $3,948.00 $3,342.00 O6 Captain (CAPT) $3,987.00 $3,450.00 O7 Rear Admiral (RDML) (lower half) $4,020.00 $3528.00 *The grade of Warrant Officer (W‐1) is no longer in use. W‐5 was established in the Navy in 2002 Sources: https://www.dodhousingnetwork.com/navy/nws‐seal‐beach/bahrates Page 2‐12 Background Report January 2019 Building Permits The rate of housing development is a strong indicator of the overall rate of development taking place in a region, which may result in incompatible land uses relative to military operations. An analysis of the number of building permits issued can be a good indicator of the growth of a community. Records since 2007 show how the construction of housing in the JLUS Study Area responded to growth and the economic recession during the last decade. The data for the following building permit evaluation was taken from the U.S. Census State of the Cities Data Systems Building Permits Database, 2007 – 2016. Figure 2‐3 shows the number of single‐family residential building permits that were issued from 2007 through 2016. Orange County has experienced a significant increase in the development of single‐family residences, while the county experienced a decline during the Great Recession. Nevertheless, single‐family residential building permits have gradually increased in the county, indicating the demand for single family homes exceeds the demand levels that existed prior to the 2007‐2009 recession. The Cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach issued about the same number of single‐family residential building permits, but neither city has issued amounts comparable to Orange County. Figure 2‐3. Single‐family Residential Building Permits Issued in the JLUS Study Area, 2007‐2016 Source: State of the Cities Data Systems, Building Permits Database, 2007 – 2016, https://socds.huduser.gov/permits/ January 2019 Background Report Page 2‐13 The recession in Orange County adversely impacted the issuance of multi‐family residential permits, which dropped below 1,000 in 2009 (Figure 2‐4). The City of Long Beach permitted some multi‐family residences, but not as many as Orange County. Since the recession, multi‐family residential construction has surpassed pre‐recession activity levels in Orange County, but has not reached pre‐recession levels in the City of Long Beach. Figure 2‐4. Multi‐family Residential Building Permits Issued in the JLUS Study Area, 2007‐2016 Source: State of the Cities Data Systems, Building Permits Database, 2007 – 2016, https://socds.huduser.gov/permits/ 2.4 Current Development Overview in the JLUS Study Area Land uses throughout the JLUS Study Area range from numerous urban to residential and recreational land uses. Agricultural land use is present in some isolated, unincorporated areas of Orange County. This section discusses types of land use in the immediate vicinity of NWSSB. North The area to the north of the NWSSB includes a golf course, park space, and some residential neighborhoods. The area to the north is built out much like the areas to east, south, and west. East The eastern boundary of the installation is also the eastern limit of the City of Seal Beach. The City of Westminster is directly to the east and the City of Huntington Beach is to the southeast. These areas are characterized by residential and some industrial land uses. South The area to the south of NWSSB is characterized by recreational beaches and other portions of the Pacific Ocean coastline. The Navy has completed an environmental assessment for the construction and operation of a new ammunition pier in this area. This action will likely involve short‐term impacts, however coordination with the City should avoid or minimize long‐term impacts to community activities. The City participated in the environmental assessment public involvement process. Page 2‐14 Background Report January 2019 West The area to the west is characterized by the high density residential development named Leisure World, a nationally recognized retirement community, as well as other low and high density residential uses, schools, and industrial sites. Open space separates the industrial sites from residential developments. There are no known large land developments proposed for this area. 2.5 Transportation Network The transportation network in the JLUS Study Area is planned by several agencies, including the City of Seal Beach. The Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) is the primary agency administering the multi‐modal transportation network in the JLUS study area. The Authority was established in 1991 through the consolidation of seven transportation agencies. The OCTA is comprised of a 17‐member board of directors, with the California Department of Transportation district director serving as an 18th member in an ex‐officio capacity. The OCTA has the following responsibilities:  Provide transportation services enabling the mobility of residents and visitors throughout the county.  Provide countywide bus and paratransit service, MetroLink rail service, the 91 Express Lanes toll facility, as well as freeway, street, and road improvement projects.  Administer motorist aid services and the Share the Ride commuting options programs for individuals and employers; regulate taxi operations. The City of Seal Beach Department of Public Works collaborates with the OCTA on projects. The City has also established a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) that identifies major infrastructure projects on the 5‐year planning horizon, as well as funding sources for each project. The transportation network in the JLUS Study Area is illustrated on Figure 2‐5. Highways Interstate 405 (I‐405), also known as the northern part of the San Diego Freeway, is a major North‐South thoroughfare that runs along the western and southern parts of the Greater Los Angeles Area. The highway starts at the City of Irvine and runs northward to near the City of San Fernando. It borders the NWSSB on the north side of the installation. According to the OCTA, I‐405 was constructed as a bypass off of I‐5, but has become the most congested highway in Orange County. OCTA has started construction on several improvements along the I‐405 corridor where it passes through the study area, including the addition of one general purpose lane and two HOV “express” lanes for both directions of travel, which would help reduce travel time. Interstate 5 (I‐5) is a major north‐south highway that runs parallel with I‐405, but is situated approximately six miles further inland to the east. Interstate 5 begins at the San Ysidro border crossing on the United States‐Mexico border and runs north through the State of California and into the State of Oregon, connecting all major cities along its route. Interstate 5 is one of the most used highways in California and connects San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Redding, California. It also indirectly connects the cities of Oakland and San Francisco in conjunction with the State Highway system. Interstate‐605 (I‐605), also known as the San Gabriel River Freeway, is a major 27‐mile, north‐south highway that connects the Cities of Seal Beach and Irwindale. January 2019 Background Report Page 2‐15 PacificOceanNaval Weapons StationSeal BeachLongBeachSealBeach39195542391229072747173919190576055105710405Lo s Ang ele sLo s Ang ele sCo un tyCo un tyOra n ge Co un tyOra n ge Co un tyLos AngelesAnaheimArtesiaBellflowerBreaBuenaParkCarsonCerritosComptonCosta MesaCypressDowneyFountainValleyFullertonGarden GroveHawaiianGardensHuntingtonBeachLa HabraLa HabraHeightsLakewoodLa MiradaLaPalmaLos AlamitosLynwoodNewport BeachNorwalkOrangeParamountPlacentiaSanta AnaSanta FeSpringsSignalHillSouth GateStantonWestminsterWhittierTransportation NetworkLegendInterstateState HighwayMajor RoadRailroadsLong Beach AirportNaval Weapons Station Seal BeachLong BeachSeal BeachOther CityCountyWater Body021MilesSource: USGS 2016, US Census TIGER 2016.Figure 2-5 Page 2‐16 Background Report January 2019 Interstate‐710 (I‐710), also known as Long Beach Freeway, is a north‐south highway that runs for 23 miles from the City of Long Beach to Valley Boulevard, which is just north of I‐10 and near the boundary between the cities of Alhambra and Los Angeles. Interstate‐710 is an auxiliary highway that follows the course of the Los Angeles River. There are several state routes, or state highways, in the JLUS Study Area that provide mobility through the county and cities, as well as the western and coastal area of California. The state routes that are located within the JLUS Study Area include:  State Routes 1, 19, 22, 47, and 91 Public Transit The OCTA provides bus transit in all 34 cities in Orange County (OC). The OCTA operates 531 vehicles and maintains numerous local bus routes. Countywide express routes provide transit from county to county. Other routes link to the MetroLink (see details in the Rail Section). There are several local bus routes that provide service to the City of Seal Beach, including Bus Route 1, 21, 42, and 72. The OCTA transit countywide and intra‐county services has documented over 47 million boardings in 2015. A ridership survey that was conducted in 2014 indicated that 76 percent of riders use the bus 4 days a week, with approximately 53 percent using the bus to travel to and from work. The survey also indicated 90 percent of riders are satisfied with the service. The OCTA offers numerous opportunities for riders to use the bus services. The OC bus system uses texting to inform riders when the next bus will come to their stop and sends rider alerts to relay bus detours and other important information. Rail The OCTA operates the MetroLink Rail, an eight‐line system that assists riders who travel from county to county. The MetroLink Rail serves the counties of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino. The OCTA established a program to help riders connect to destinations by permitting the use of MetroLink tickets to connect to local transit for free. Air The Long Beach Airport is the only airport located within the JLUS study area, as illustrated in Figure 2‐5. There are additional airports that serve Orange County outside of the study area, including John Wayne Airport and Fullerton Municipal Airport. John Wayne Airport is the only commercial service international airport in Orange County; it is owned and operated by Orange County. The airport is located between the cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach, approximately 35 miles south of the City of Los Angeles. The service area includes all of Orange County, which includes more than 3 million people residing in 34 cities and other unincorporated areas. John Wayne Airport is a 15‐20‐minute drive from NWSSB. John Wayne Airport has two runways—Runway 2L/20R and Runway 2R/20L. Runway 2L/20R is an asphalt runway that measures 5,701 feet in length and 150 feet in width. Runway 2R/20L is an asphalt runway that measures 2,887 feet in length and 75 feet in width. Long Beach Airport is a 1,166‐acre site that has five runways. The longest (Runway 12/30) is an asphalt runway that measures 10,000 feet in length and 200 feet in width. The airport is situated about halfway between the major business and tourism areas of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, with over 100 acres of the property dedicated to business parks. This airport is approximately 8 miles north‐northwest of NWSSB. January 2019 Background Report Page 2‐17 The Long Beach Airport is a major hub for both corporate activity and general aviation. The airport provides commercial services, including passenger and cargo transport. The other runways are:  Runway 7L/25R is an asphalt runway that measures 6,192 feet in length and 150 feet in width.  Runway 7R/25L is an asphalt runway that measures 5,423 feet in length and 150 feet in width. The Long Beach Airport also operates and maintains six helipads. Helipad 1, 2, and 4‐6 are asphalt runways that measure20 feet by 20 feet. Helipad 3 is also made of asphalt and measures 300 feet long by 35 feet wide. Fullerton Municipal Airport is a self‐supporting general aviation airport that does not receive any funds from the City of Fullerton. It is located in central Orange County, adjacent to I‐5 and SR‐91 near Knott’s Berry Farm, and six miles from Disneyland. The airport is approximately 19 miles north‐northeast of NWSSB. Fullerton Municipal Airport has one asphalt runway (R6/24) that measures 3,121 feet long and 75 feet wide. There is also one concrete helipad that measures 37 feet by 37 feet. 2.6 Beaches and Coastal Resources Cordgrass at Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge The City of Seal Beach and the military base are home to the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), which is administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Seal Beach NWR was established in 1972 after legislation was approved by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Nixon, authorizing the Refuge on NWSSB. The Seal Beach NWR is a 965‐acre natural resource site located on NWSSB; it is a protected resource for the California least tern and the light‐footed Ridgeway’s rail. The Seal Beach NWR is also a critical stop for the Pacific Flyover, as migratory birds use the refuge as a stopover. The Seal Beach NWR encompasses saltwater marsh in the Anaheim Bay estuary. This ecology supports numerous species throughout the year. Page 2‐18 Background Report January 2019 The JLUS Study Area is also characterized by nationally recognized beaches and beach amenities. The Seal Beach Pier is known for its sunsets and wildlife, including dolphins, that can be observed and enjoyed by both everyday residents and summer visitors. San Gabriel River at Seal Beach, California The City of Seal Beach and surrounding area have a long history with recreation and tourism associated with its beaches. The beaches have had a significant economic impact on the city and region as a vacation destination during the summer season. The beaches consist of estuary sediments that are deposited in jetty environments in which beach erosion is a major concern. Mitigating the depletion of sands and changes in coastal profiles is crucial to preserving the viability of these ecologies and the security of the recreational and tourism industries in the area. The characteristics of the communities surrounding NWSSB are important to consider when assessing existing and potential encroachment issues between the community and the military. Encroachment issues are further explored in Chapter 5 Compatibility Assessment. January 2019 Background Report Page 3‐1 3.1 Installation Setting ............................................................................ 3‐2 3.2 History of Lands and Operations at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach ............................................................................. 3‐5 3.3 NWSSB Economic and Community Benefit ...................................... 3‐6 3.4 Military Strategic Importance ........................................................... 3‐8 3.5 NWSSB Mission ................................................................................. 3‐8 3.6 NWSSB Future Mission ..................................................................... 3‐9 3.7 NWSSB Mission Footprint ............................................................... 3‐10 This military profile provides an overview of Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach’s (NWSSB) history, its location (setting) in Orange County, its economic and strategic importance, and a general description of the operations conducted there. Identifying and describing the various activities performed on the installation and in the surrounding communities, both ashore and afloat, offers valuable insight into the importance of NWSSB as a national strategic asset and as a part of the fabric of Orange County. The purpose of providing this information is to enable stakeholders to make informed decisions about future development and economic growth within communities and institutions proximate to NWSSB that could potentially impact the viability and future role of the installation. Page 3‐2 Background Report January 2019 3.1 Installation Setting NWSSB is located in the northwest corner of Orange County, California, approximately 25 miles south of Los Angeles on the Pacific Coastline. The Mediterranean climate and coastal resources in the area are a major impetus for development, with Orange County being the third‐most populous county in California. The location is also ideal for executing naval missions that are critical for our nation’s defense. The Naval Weapons Station is the only active‐duty military base in Orange County, and one of only two active‐duty military installations in the Los Angeles / Orange County basin. Figure 3‐1, NWSSB Installation Setting, provides a map view of the installation relative to major population centers and geography in which it is situated. Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach NWSSB includes roughly 5,256 acres of marsh and uplands that extend southeastward from the Pacific Ocean at Anaheim Bay (Figure 3‐1). Anaheim Bay is a 7‐mile‐long harbor and wetland complex, but the term is most often used in reference to the deep‐water Navy harbor that provides ship access to NWSSB at the installation’s western limit. Huntington Harbour serves small, private vessels to the southeast, and Bolsa Bay serves conservation and recreation needs further southwards. The Naval Weapons Station is adjacent to several communities. The City of Seal Beach borders the installation on the north, west, and southwest. The City of Westminster borders NWSSB on the east, and the City of Huntington Beach borders NWSSB to the east, southeast, and south. The seaside City of Long Beach, a major participant in the NWSSB JLUS, is approximately 7 miles northwest of the installation. The Naval Weapons Station is neatly bounded by major thoroughfares that connect the base and local communities to each other and to the region at large, including Seal Beach Boulevard to the west, I‐405 and SR 22 to the north, and Bolsa Chica Road to the east. Westminster Boulevard bisects the station from east to west between I‐405 and the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Coast Highway (SR 1), a National Scenic Byway, also transects the southwestern portion of the base as it spans the Anaheim Channel. Land use around NWSSB is primarily residential, single‐family housing. Many residential areas are adjacent to the installation, including Heron Pointe, immediately west of the base in Seal Beach, Leisure World retirement community and College Park East in north Seal Beach, as well as Sunset Beach and other residential developments in Huntington Beach. The historic gated community of Surfside is located just southeast of the narrow peninsula that extends around and forms the Inner Harbor of Anaheim Bay. Non‐residential land use is associated with the Joint Forces Training Base‐Los Alamitos to the north of NWSSB, the Boeing facility to the east and west, and the Sunset Aquatic Regional Park to the south. Other commercial and industrial land use is scattered throughout the area, including oil extraction sites to the west. Areas with highly restricted land use that falls under conservation mandates include the Bolsa Chica Conservancy and the Bolsa Bay State Marine Conservation Area at Bolsa Bay and the 965‐acre Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge that lies within installation boundaries (see Section 3.5). Figure 3‐2, NWSSB Land Use, shows the different land use areas at NWSSB. January 2019 Background Report Page 3‐3 AnaheimBayLos AngelesLos AngelesCountyCountyOrange CountyOrange CountyEdinger AveBolsa AveValleyViewStBolsa Chica RdStudebaker RdBolsa Chica StLampson AveSeal Beach BlvdWestminster Blvd22221405GardenGroveHuntingtonBeachWestminsterLong BeachSeal BeachNWS Seal BeachSettingLegendHelipadGateHousing / LodgingOther BuildingSeal Beach National WildlifeRefugeNaval Weapons Station SealBeachCity BorderCountyInterstateState HighwayMajor Road0¼MilesSource: NWS Seal Beach, 2017. USGS 2016,US Census TIGER 2016.Figure 3-1 Page 3‐4 Background Report January 2019 Los An gele sLos An gele sCount yCount yOrang e Co untyOrang e Co untyEdingerAveBolsaAveValleyView StBolsa Chica RdLampson AveStudebaker RdBolsa Chica StSeal Beach BlvdWestminster Blvd22221405GardenGroveHuntingtonBeachLong BeachSeal BeachNWS Seal BeachLand UseLegendLow Intensity Use/Open AreaMaintenance/ProductionMixed Use (Research, Testing, &Evaluation Area)Mixed Use (Housing/CommunitySupport, Administration, Medical)Seal Beach National Wildlife RefugeOrdnance StorageOperationsSupplyGateNaval Weapons Station Seal BeachCity BorderCountyInterstateState HighwayMajor RoadInstallation RoadWater Body0¼MilesSource: NWS Seal Beach, 2017. Figure 3-2 January 2019 Background Report Page 3‐5 3.2 History of Lands and Operations at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach NWSSB has played host to several significant events in our nation’s and in Orange County’s history, from its origins during World War II to helping put a man on the moon. The history of NWSSB has provided the framework for the installation today. The following sections describe the history of the installation. 1930s – 1940s NWSSB has its beginnings under another name. Construction began on an installation that was then known as the United States Naval Ammunition and Net Depot (NAND) in February of 1944. The NAND had two key missions: storing and loading ammunition for United States (U.S.) naval ships and providing anti‐submarine/anti‐torpedo nets for ports and harbors. Main Gate circa 1950s Source: Historic California Posts, Camps, Stations and Airfields http://www.militarymuseum.org/NSWSealBeach.html, 2017 1950s – 1990s In January 1954, the first guided missile service unit was established at NAND. In July 1956, a deep channel was dredged to allow easy wharf‐side loading for ships. In September 1962, the name was changed to NWSSB to reflect the existing mission of storing and loading ammunition and a new mission that included the assembly, testing, and maintenance of weapons systems. In the 1960s, NWSSB was instrumental in the Space Race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It was at NWSSB where, in 1967, North American Aviation (now the Boeing Company) built the second stage of the Saturn V launch vehicle for the Apollo space program. In 1972, President Richard Nixon designated a 920‐acre parcel of Navy land located in Orange County near the Orange County/Los Angeles County border to help preserve natural habitat. This would become known as the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. The base is also home to the National World War II Submarine Memorial West. Dedicated in 1977, the memorial pays tribute to over 3,000 sailors who died in service on submarines, mostly during World War II. The site is open to the public during daylight hours. 2000s – Today The installation continues to provide weapons storage, loading, maintenance, and assessment support for the United States Pacific Fleet. The facilities also support U.S. Coast Guard vessels and U.S. Marine Corps units stationed afloat and ashore. Page 3‐6 Background Report January 2019 3.3 NWSSB Economic and Community Benefit NWSSB provides employment in Orange County for more than 1,316 personnel who work for, or are stationed at, the base, including active duty/reserve military and DoD civilian contractors. In fiscal year (FY) 2017, NWSSB contributed $739 million in economic benefit to the local and regional economy, primarily through the purchase of goods and services (indirect and induced) and in salaries (payroll). Military contributions also included $23 million in state and local tax revenues. Figure 3‐3 illustrates the NWSSB economic benefit to the region. In addition to the millions of dollars generated through various activities (i.e. operations and contracts), NWSSB has provided a stable source of civilian employment through economic booms and recessions. The base supports 3,132 jobs, including 1,316 military, and 433 civilian direct‐duty positions, and 1,383 additional jobs related to operations, payroll, and other activities. Figure 3‐4 shows the percentage of employees in each of the four major categories as provided by NWSSB. Figure 3‐3. FY 2017 NWSSB Economic Benefit Source: Partners for a Compatible Future, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, 2017 $91,400,000 Industry Output$38,900,000 Direct Payroll Expenditures$5,900,000 State and Local Tax Revenues January 2019 Background Report Page 3‐7 Figure 3‐4. FY 2017 NWSSB Employment Source: Partners for a Compatible Future, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, 2017 Community Benefit and Involvement In addition to the economic benefit generated by NWSSB, the installation supports surrounding communities in a number of different ways. In FY2010, the NWSSB Fire Department responded to 83 off‐base emergencies, including 68 medical emergencies, 2 vehicle accidents, 2 hazardous material incidents, 1 fire alarm activation, and 10 structure fires. The support for emergency services is provided through a mutual aid agreement between the Navy and the City of Seal Beach. Installation personnel also engage in activities throughout the JLUS study area, providing invaluable services to local communities and residents. Some of the resources that NWSSB and Navy and DoD civilian personnel that work there have contributed through community action include: Annual Memorial Day ceremony at the station’s World War IISubmarine Memorial,Monthly public tours of the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge,Volunteers and equipment for community events, including holidayparades, national nights out, and other neighborhood activities,Volunteers for a wide range of community initiatives, including beachcleanups, veterans and handicapped services, and a longstanding“Partnership in Education” with neighboring McGaugh ElementarySchool, andGolfing facilities and resources for PGA and Tiger Woods Foundationclinics that support the Cerritos Mentally Challenged Youth Council,Orange County Blind Youth Association, and regional VeteransAdministration wounded warrior programs.Military42%Civilians14%Other jobs generated by operations, payroll, spending44% Page 3‐8 Background Report January 2019 3.4 Military Strategic Importance NWSSB is the Navy’s primary West Coast ordnance storage, loading, and maintenance installation. The base provides the facilities and other resources that allow a variety of tenants to conduct operations and to fulfill their respective missions in support of U.S. national security. Vision The NWSSB vision is to be the model for shore‐based infrastructure support, seamlessly enabling tenant commands to excel in serving the Pacific Fleet while embracing a culture of continuous improvement, transparency, and execution. 3.5 NWSSB Mission The mission of NWSSB is to provide shore‐based infrastructure support for the Navy’s ordnance mission and other fleet support activities. The station is the Pacific Fleet's primary ordnance logistics base, and supplies munitions to a majority of the Fleet's surface vessels. As such, operations at NWSSB primarily focus on the receipt, storage, segregation, and issue of munitions, including onloading and offloading of munitions to and from ships and ammunition barges. In support of these duties, NWSSB operates 121 ammunition storage magazines, an ammunition wharf, and four ammunition barges. The base supplies munitions to the Marine Corps, supports the Navy's only intermediate‐level maintenance facility for standard surface‐to‐air missiles, and operates one of only four small arms ranges supporting the Third Fleet. NWSSB achieves its mission through mastery of ordnance management, maintenance, and technical support, complemented by highly skilled people, unique resources, and strategic seaward proximity to the Pacific Fleet. Tenants at NWSSB The installation currently has a variety of tenants that operate on the base in support of national security and serve as additional assets in fulfilling the NWSSB mission. Tenants include:  5th Battalion, 14th Marine Regiment (Marine Forces Reserves)  Branch Medical Clinic, Port Hueneme  Fleet Logistics Center San Diego (FLCSD)  Hewlett Packard (HP)  Coastal Riverine Squadron (CORIVRON) Eleven (U.S. Naval Reserve)  Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)  Naval Exchange (NEX) Port Hueneme  Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Public Works Department Seal Beach  Naval Recruiting Command, Los Angeles  Naval Recruiting Command, San Diego  Naval Reserve Recruiting Command, Detachment One  Naval Surface Warfare Center, Corona Division, Detachment Seal Beach  Naval Munitions Command Pacific, CONUS West Division  Naval Munitions Command Pacific, CONUS West Division Unit Seal Beach  Sea‐Air Federal Credit Union  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) January 2019 Background Report Page 3‐9 Naval Munitions Command Pacific, CONUS West Division Naval Munitions Command Pacific, CONUS West Division (CONUS West) is the largest tenant at NWSSB and provides command, control, and staff for all CONUS West Detachments and Units. Naval Munitions Command Pacific, CONUS West Unit Seal Beach conducts inspections, and performs wharf‐side munitions loading and unloading of surface combatants and medium‐deck amphibious assault ships. CONUS West also maintains and repairs certain weapons systems, including standard and tomahawk missiles, and lightweight torpedoes. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge The Naval Weapons Station maintains the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, a preserve important to Southern California’s natural ecosystem. The 965‐acre salt marsh and upland habitat includes one of the last undeveloped coastal areas in Southern California and is the only national wildlife refuge within a five‐county area. It is located entirely within installation boundaries. Station command has protected the area from encroachment since 1969, when the wetlands were initially designated as a Navy Preserve. President Nixon signed Public Law 92‐408 in 1972 to formally establish the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. The preserve is now jointly managed by the Department of the Navy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is considered an important NWSSB mission. The Seal Beach wetlands provide an important habitat for many endangered and threatened bird species. The refuge is managed specifically for the protection of two of them: the California least tern, which nests on a man‐made island once used for rocket testing during the Apollo space program, and the light‐footed Ridgeway’s rail, which nests on special rafts constructed and maintained by the USFWS and many local volunteers. The refuge is open to the public by appointment and for walking tours on the last Saturday of every month, except December. 3.6 NWSSB Future Mission The U.S. Department of the Navy proposes to construct an approximately 1,100 foot by 125 foot replacement ammunition pier and associated waterfront facilities at NWSSB. The action would include dredging to accommodate the proposed pier, turning basin, and a public navigational channel to Huntington Harbour. As of this writing, the Navy is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) as the lead agency in the federal undertaking, with the U.S. Coast Guard as a cooperating agency, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. If the Navy decides to proceed with the ammunition pier/facilities project, construction would proceed at some point in the future. The proposed action is needed because the existing wharf is past its design life, limiting NWSSB’s ability to meet its assigned mission. Specifically, the proposed action is needed because:  The existing wharf was built before the introduction of modern seismic (earthquake) codes. In a major earthquake, underlying soils may not support the wharf structure, and the wharf could collapse.  The existing wharf and turning basin are too small to support large general‐purpose amphibious assault ships such as Landing Helicopter, Assault (LHA) and Landing Helicopter, and Docks (LHD)‐type vessels. Currently, these vessels must be loaded with ammunition at high cost, using helicopters offshore of MCB Camp Pendleton.  The existing wharf is too small to support the loading of more than one medium (destroyer‐sized) ship at a time. This limits the station’s ability to support the Pacific Fleet as it grows and may impede the Navy’s ability to quickly send many ships overseas during a conflict.  The existing wharf is adjacent to the only civilian public navigational channel between Huntington Harbour and the ocean. This presents significant security challenges for the Navy and leads to regular bay closures that impact civilian boaters. Page 3‐10 Background Report January 2019 The USS Denver docked at NWSSB Anaheim Bay to have ammunition loaded 3.7 NWSSB Mission Footprint The Military Influence Area (MIA) is a planning tool to maintain operational capability, promote awareness of military activities to surrounding communities, and establish requirements for designated areas. The MIA is the area that is susceptible to a combination of effects from different military operations or activities. It is comprised of the individual “footprints” of different mission operations and provides an wholistic view of the entire area impacted by a military installation. Examples of factors accounted for in developing the MIA may include the impacts of noise, traffic congestion, land development, use of airspace and water resources, etc. The NWSSB MIA is identified in the installation’s Encroachment Action Plan (EAP) and is used in coordination with local jurisdictions as a notification boundary and as a land‐use overlay in their relevant administrative and planning documents. The NWSSB Community Plans and Liaison Officer (CPLO) requests notification of development applications that are proposed within the MIA boundaries, so that development applications of interest to NWSSB can be tracked and follow‐up actions can be implemented. The CPLO may also coordinate directly with jurisdictions to help anticipate, identify, and reduce incompatible development within the MIA. Figure 3‐5 depicts the NWSSB MIA. NWSSB Operational Footprints Mission activities conducted on and around NWSSB can generate potential impacts on surrounding community areas should incompatible land uses be permitted and/or approved for development. Examples of these potential community impacts may include maritime congestion, local development constraints, etc. Conversely, the military mission is susceptible to hazards and other incompatibilities created by certain types of civilian development or activities, such as maritime congestion (e.g. Anaheim Bay), poor air quality, etc. Understanding the overlapping spatial patterns of impacted areas, or “mission footprints”, is essential for promoting compatible and informed land use decisions. The mission footprint is largely defined by three major classes of activities:  Transportation of Equipment and Materials,  Equipment and Materials Storage, and  Maritime Resources Use. Relative to these activities, there are several operational mission elements that play a key role in the installation’s viability for sustaining current and future operations and that are primary consideration in defining the NWSSB mission footprint. These elements are listed below and described in more detail in the remainder of this chapter.  Equipment/Material Transport Corridors  Equipment and Materials Storage  Explosives Safety Zones January 2019 Background Report Page 3‐11 Lo s Ang ele sLo s Ang ele sCo un tyCo un tyOra n geOra n geCo un tyCo un tySeal BeachLong BeachLong Beach Breakwater221911605405Los CoyotesDiagonalLos AlamitosBroadwayOcean2ndWarnerBolsa Chica4thBellflowerRedondoLampsonAthertonAnaheimCherryKatellaStudebaker7thSeal BeachWestminsterWillowCypressGardenGroveHuntingtonBeachRossmoorBolsa Bay StateMarineConservation AreaMilitary InfluenceArea (MIA)LegendMilitary Influence Area Explosives AnchorageSeal Beach Naval WeaponsStationLong BeachSeal BeachOther CityCountyInterstateState HighwayMajor RoadRailroadsWater Body0¾¼½MilesSource: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), 2017. Chart 18749.NWS SB, 2017.Figure 3-5 Page 3‐12 Background Report January 2019  Anaheim Bay and Facilities  Jetties, Wharf, and Berthing areas,  Harbors  Mooring Area  Inner and Outer Approach Channels  Long Beach Harbor Explosives Anchorage Transport Corridors The Naval Weapons Station uses local roadways for military transport of equipment and materials to and from the base to strategic locations. Additionally, the corridors are used to transport equipment and materials from the NWSSB port to ships (both to load and unload equipment and materials). Due to the multiple users of local roadways, NWSSB and local jurisdiction coordination is important to ensure adequate levels of service during transport activities. Equipment and Material Storage The largest mission‐related land use at NWSSB is associated with the rows of equipment/material storage facilities and the open space needed to buffer them from other land uses. Historically, this area has been primarily utilized for agricultural purposes, which has resulted in the preservation of large contiguous areas of open space. The installation is surrounded by fully developed cities and yet contains some of the last undeveloped land in the City of Seal Beach and in northern Orange County. Therefore, NWSSB property has often been perceived as “under‐utilized” land, subject to development interests, including utility and infrastructure expansion projects. 1 Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter I (7–1–12 Edition) Section 110.215 Anaheim Bay and Facilities Anaheim Bay Harbor is classified1 as a Naval Explosives Anchorage. The Anaheim Bay is a strategic asset and has a critical operational footprint within NWSSB. Anaheim Bay is composed of several facilities and buildings that support the operational activities of the NWSSB mission. The Anaheim Bay area can be separated into four different categories:  Wharf, berth areas,  Jetties,  Mooring areas, and  Channels. Figure 3‐6 shows most components of the NWSSB Anaheim Bay. Anaheim Bay is divided into an inner and outer deep‐water harbor. The 96‐acre inner harbor is natural but dredged to maintain a minimum operational depth that allows Navy ships to use the bay. Wharf and Berth Facilities The total berthing capacity at NWSSB is an existing 1,000‐foot wharf with 850 feet of berthing. This wharf is currently undergoing an EA of proposed alternative improvements to restore its capability. Jetties The 94‐acre outer harbor is man‐made, protected by two converging stone jetties (east and west), and maintained to a depth of 43 feet. The west jetty is 3,500 feet long, and the east jetty is 3,950 feet. The west and east jetties are composed of stone and extend 20 feet below the mean lower low water (MLLW) level. The jetties’ purpose is to protect the outer harbor and mooring areas. January 2019 Background Report Page 3‐13 Seal BeachExplosivesAnchorageExplosivesAnchorageEast JettyWestJettyOuter Approach Channel(Up to 800' Wide)Inner Approach Channel(Up to 400' Wide)InnerHarborInnerHarborWest Mooring AreaEast Mooring AreaOuter HarborSeal BeachAnaheim BayLegendPublic Navigation ChannelRestricted AreaApproach ChannelExplosives AnchorageJetty / Jetty Access AreaDocks and WharfsSeal Beach Naval WeaponsStationSeal BeachRoadWater Body01,000FeetSource: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), 2017. Chart 18749.Matrix Design Group, 2017.Figure 3-6 Page 3‐14 Background Report January 2019 The anchorage ground is defined as the waters of Anaheim Bay Harbor, between the east side of the entrance channel and the east jetty, and the west side of the entrance channel and the west jetty. West and East Mooring Areas There are two mooring areas—west and east—located within the jetties. The west mooring area is maintained at an operational depth of 25 feet MLLW. The east mooring area is maintained at an operational depth of 25 feet MLLW. The mooring areas are represented on Figure 3‐6. Inner Approach Channel The Inner Approach Channel extends 1,600 feet offshore starting from the outer end of the jetties and varies in width from 400 feet to 800 feet, as illustrated on Figure 3‐6. The Inner Approach Channel is maintained to an operational depth of 41 feet below the MLLW level. Outer Approach Channel The Outer Approach Channel begins at the end of the Inner Approach Channel and extends 3,100 feet offshore at a width of approximately 800 feet. It is maintained at an operational depth of 39 feet below MLLW. This channel is also illustrated on Figure 3‐6. Anchorages There are two explosives anchorages that are located in Anaheim Bay. These are located on both sides of the Inner Approach Channel and are shown on Figure 3‐6. Long Beach Harbor Explosives Anchorage The Long Beach Harbor Explosives Anchorage, D‐8, is located approximately 2.3 miles from Anaheim Bay, at the Long Beach Breakwater that is located in the East San Pedro Bay and represented on Figure 3‐7. The operations and mission at NWSSB are important to understand in order to guide compatible growth surrounding the installation. Encroachment issues between the community and NWSSB are further explored in Chapter 5 Compatibility Assessment. January 2019 Background Report Page 3‐15 Lo s Ang ele sLo s Ang ele sCo un tyCo un tyOra n geOra n geCo un tyCo un tySeal BeachLong BeachOuterNavigationalChannelInnerNavigationalChannelLong Beach BreakwaterBolsaChica RdLos Coyotes DiagonalLos Alamitos BlvdBroadwayOcean Blvd2nd StWarner AveBolsa Chica St4th StBellflower Blvd Redondo AveLampson AveAtherton StAnaheim StCherry AveKatella AveStudebaker Rd7th StSealBeachBlvdWestminsterBlvdWillow St221911605405CypressGardenGroveHuntingtonBeachRossmoorBolsa Bay StateMarineConservation AreaBarge Transport AreaLegendBarge Transport AreaApproach ChannelMilitary Influence AreaSeal Beach Naval WeaponsStationLong BeachSeal BeachOther CommunityCountyInterstateState HighwayMajor RoadWater BodyBolsa Bay State MarineConservation Area01¼½¾MilesSource: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), 2017. Chart 18749.NWS SB, 2017.Figure 3-7 Page 3‐16 Background Report January 2019 This page intentionally left blank. January 2019 Background Report Page 4‐1 4.1 Federal Programs and Policies .......................................................... 4‐2 4.2 Installation Plans ............................................................................... 4‐5 4.3 State of California Legislation ........................................................... 4‐7 4.4 State of California Plans and Programs............................................. 4‐9 4.5 Local Jurisdictions – General Plans ................................................. 4‐11 4.6 Local Jurisdictions – Zoning ............................................................. 4‐13 4.7 Local Jurisdictions – Subdivision Regulations ................................. 4‐13 4.8 Local Jurisdictions – Building Codes ................................................ 4‐14 4.9 Other Resources .............................................................................. 4‐15 There are several existing compatibility tools available to jurisdictions and the military that are designed to address compatibility, either directly or indirectly. This chapter provides an overview of existing compatibility tools (plans and programs) that are currently utilized or applied, as of June 2018, to evaluate and address compatibility issues in the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB) Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) area. Three types of planning tools are evaluated: permanent, semi‐permanent, and conditional. Permanent planning tools include acquisition programs, both fee simple purchase of property and the purchase of development rights. Semi‐permanent tools include regulations and policies such as zoning ordinances, general plans, and adopted legislation. Conditional tools include memoranda of agreement (MOA), intergovernmental agreements (IGA), and other policy documents that can be modified. In this chapter, key plans and programs that have been prepared and/or adopted at the federal, state, and local levels are identified and discussed by level of government. The chapter concludes with an overview of other resources that may be consulted to assist the communities with compatibility planning. The overview of programs already undertaken by NWSSB includes a discussion of the installation’s 2014 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP), 2012 Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP), and an updated 2017 Installation Development Plan. Page 4‐2 Background Report January 2019 4.1 Federal Programs and Policies Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1963 is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources to control air pollution. Under the CAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established limits on six criteria pollutants through the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). To protect public health and public welfare, the CAA also gives EPA the authority to limit emissions of air pollutants from sources like chemical plants, utilities, and steel mills. Under the federal law, states are required to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that outline how they will control air pollution under the CAA. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) administers the policies established under the CAA and the EPA relative to air quality in the JLUS study area. The SCAQMD monitors air pollutants and manages and enforces air pollution regulation standards for Orange County. Air quality districts at non‐attainment for pollutants may have to enact certain measures to bring the district back into attainment with air quality standards, which may restrict NWSSB’s ability to perform mission critical activities. More information on air quality impacts at NWSSB can be found in Section 5.1. Air Quality. Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 governs the management of water resources and addresses the control and monitoring of water pollution in the U.S. The purpose of the CWA is to eliminate the release of toxic substances and other sources of water pollution to ensure that surface waters meet high quality standards. In doing so, the CWA authorizes local governments to prevent the contamination of nearshore, underground, and surface water sources. All public entities are required to comply with the CWA, including NWSSB, local governments, and community service districts. Water quality is crucial for maintaining adequate water supplies to the base for both human consumption and other uses. Department of Defense Conservation Partnering Initiative In 2003, Congress amended Title 10 U.S.C. Sections 2684a and 2692a (P.L. 107‐314) of the National Defense Authorization Act to allow the DoD to partner with other federal agencies, states, local governments, and conservation‐based, non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) to set aside lands near military bases for conservation purposes to prevent incompatible development from encroaching on, and interfering with, military missions. This law provides an additional tool to support smart growth, conservation, and environmental stewardship for both military installations and surrounding areas including nearby communities. Implementation of the Conservation Partnering Initiative on land surrounding NWSSB would help create a buffer of undeveloped lands and/or waterways between the installation and surrounding communities, thereby protecting missions from incompatible development, as well as local areas from the negative impacts of military activities. All parties would enjoy the benefits of open space, more generally. More information on land use can be found in Section 5.13, Land Use. Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 established a program for the conservation of threatened and endangered (T&E) plants and animals and their habitats. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are the lead implementing agencies of the ESA. The ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with the USFWS and/or the NOAA Fisheries Service, to ensure that actions they “authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species.” The law also prohibits any action that causes a taking of any listed species of endangered plant, fish, or wildlife. January 2019 Background Report Page 4‐3 The protection of T&E species and their habitats on and around NWSSB can inhibit mission capabilities and flexibility by restricting the use of land, water, and/or air resources. The integration of ESA requirements into compatibility planning is critical for both existing and future listings. More information on sensitive biological resources can be found in Section 5.3. Biological Resources. Draft South Coast Resource Management Plan The Draft South Coast Resource Management Plan (SCRMP) was developed and is administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The SCRMP guides the management of surface and subsurface BLM land located in five southern counties in California—San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles. National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 stablished as U.S. policy the protection and enhancement of the environment and requires federal agencies to analyze and consider the potential environmental impacts of their actions. The purpose of NEPA is to promote informed decision‐making by federal agencies by making detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts of federal undertakings available to both agency leaders and the public. All projects receiving federal funding, including military projects, require NEPA compliance and documentation that can serve as a valuable planning tool for local officials. Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) help determine the potential impacts of proposed military actions or operations, including their effects on surrounding communities and their municipal policies, plans, and programs. An EA is used to determine if impacts are significant, in which case an EIS and subsequent Record of Decision (ROD) for the project proposal are required. NEPA mandates that the military analyze the impacts of its actions and operations on the environment, including surrounding civilian communities. Inherent in this analysis is an exploration of methods to reduce any adverse environmental impacts. The EIS is a public process that encourages participation by the community and all affected or interested stakeholders. Ensuring NEPA documentation is easily accessible to all parties enables a better dialog concerning future and compatibility planning. This tool is highlighted as a mechanism of coordination and communication in Section 5.7 and 5.11. National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of a proposed project on properties listed, or eligible to be listed, in the National Register of Historic Places. Because project proposal is not part of the JLUS process, the focus is on the review of known resources instead of the potential effects of a specific action. The location of cultural resources on or near NWSSB may require avoidance or other mitigation to protect resources. However, no cultural resources issues were identified based on the input of JLUS committee members and public participants. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Per the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into U.S. waters. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man‐made ditches. According to the law, individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit. However, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. Diminished water quality on base can cause certain areas to be closed for environmental restoration, which limits the area that NWSSB can use for mission critical activities. Page 4‐4 Background Report January 2019 NWSSB takes water quality very seriously and has a goal of zero discharge during stormwater events. NWSSB complies with all requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater program and reports each year in an Annual Report submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. NWSSB continually evaluate existing outfalls that discharge into Anaheim Bay and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge and are currently assessing whether new retention basins and other Best Management Practices can be constructed / implemented to further prevent off‐side stormwater discharges. Noise Control Act of 1972 The Noise Control Act of 1972 determined that noise which is not adequately controlled has the potential to endanger public health and welfare. It states that all Americans are entitled to an environment free from noise that can jeopardize their general health and quality of life. Along with state, local, and territorial governments, actions from the federal government were needed to ensure that the objectives of the Act were met. Concurrently, military installations were experiencing the impacts from encroaching urban development located adjacent to their boundaries and the resulting complaints regarding noise from military flight operations. The DoD responded by establishing the Installation Compatible Use Zone program (now AICUZ program). The Noise Control Act and AICUZ program are important because encroachment and increased population near military installations often creates compatibility issues. As communities grow, it is important that the military installation, developers, and the affected communities work together to mitigate the issue of noise and to develop ways of coexisting compatibly. Additionally, the State of California stipulates that local jurisdictions address noise in their general plans. Noise created by activity at NWSSB may be heard by sensitive receptors in surrounding communities. Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration To implement the authority provided by the DoD Conservation Partnering Initiative (see above), the DoD established the Readiness Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) program. This initiative enables DoD to work with state and local governments, NGOs, and willing landowners to limit encroachment and incompatible land use. The REPI program enables NWSSB to meet environmental protection goals (coastal resilience, habitat restoration, water quality and supply improvement, etc.) and encroachment prevention goals with its conservation partners. Program funds are used to support a variety of DoD partnerships that promote compatible land use. By relieving encroachment pressures, the military can test and train in a more effective and efficient manner. By preserving the land surrounding military installations, habitats for plant and animal species are conserved and protected. The REPI website (www.repi.mil) has a wide variety of additional resources that can be used by military installations, local governments, and other entities to collaborate on potential REPI partnerships. These include:  Collaborative Land Use Planning: A Guide for Military Installations and Local Governments  Commander’s Guide to Community Involvement  Commander’s Guide to Renewable Energy  Working with Conservation Districts: A Guide for Military Installations  Working with Land Trusts: A Guide for Military Installations and Land Trusts  Working with Local Governments: A Practical Guide for Installations  Working with Regional Councils: A Guide for Installations January 2019 Background Report Page 4‐5  Working with State Legislators: A Guide for Military Installations and State Legislators  Collaborative Land Use Planning: A Guide for Military Installations and Local Governments Safe Drinking Water Act The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the primary federal law that ensures the quality of drinking water in the United States. The Act authorizes the EPA to establish national health‐based drinking water standards to protect against both naturally‐occurring and man‐made water contaminants. The SDWA applies to every public water system in the U.S. and requires all operators to comply with the primary standards. Clean drinking water is important to maintain basic daily activities at NWSSB. The Sikes Act The Sikes Act requires the DoD to develop and implement Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs) for military installations across the U.S. INRMPs are prepared in cooperation with the USFWS and state fish and wildlife agencies to ensure consistency between military and public practices regarding fish, wildlife, and habitat needs. The Sikes Act requires INRMPs to be reviewed at least every 5 years with the USFWS and the states in which the installation is located. The DoD Instruction 4715.3 and the Navy’s Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual 1 guide the Navy’s implementation of the Sikes Act and specifically the development of INRMPs. The NWSSB completed an INRMP in January 2014, which addresses natural resources management at the installation. In doing so, the installation is better equipped to balance the management of natural resources and the installation mission. More 1 OPNAVINST 5090.1B, Change 2 2 The Secretary of the Instruction (SECNAVINST) 4000.35, Department of the Navy Cultural Resources Program, August 17, 1992; Chief of Naval Operations Instruction information on natural resources at NWSSB can be found in Section 5.3. Biological Resources. 4.2 Installation Plans Draft Environmental Assessment for the Ammunition Pier and Turning Basin Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (April 2017) The April 2017 Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Ammunition Pier and Turning Basin NWSSB is an assessment of alternative plans for the construction of a new ammunition pier that the Navy is conducting under NEPA regulations. The purpose of the EA is to assess and compare the possible environmental impacts of building a new pier, turning basin, and associated waterfront facilities in different locations. The Navy has indicated the need for the project is to address the increase in the number of Navy ships on the West Coast that is anticipated due to the movement of naval forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific theatre. By 2020, approximately 60 percent of U.S. naval forces will be based in the Pacific, up from 40 percent a decade earlier. The EA identifies three alternative building sites, as well as a no action alternative, and evaluates various factors, including air quality, safety, and security, to identify the alternative that will have the least amount of impact on the environment. The Final EA is expected in spring 2019. Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan There are two instructions 2which establish Navy policy for the protection of cultural resources and that assign Navy responsibilities pursuant to historic preservation laws and regulations through the preparation of Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plans. Corresponding DoD 3Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5090.1B: Chapter 23, Historic and Archeological Resources Protection, November 1, 1994. 3 DoD Instruction 4715.16 Page 4‐6 Background Report January 2019 requires compliance with federal statutory and regulatory requirements for cultural resources management. The Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan helps to balance the protection of cultural resources on base and the needs of the military to carry out mission‐critical activities on the landscape. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, California The NWSSB Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) is a long‐term planning document that guides the management and use of natural resources at NWSSB. An INRMP is required by the Sikes Act to be implemented on all DoD installations that contain significant natural resources. Specific goals of the INRMP include:  Manage natural resources to ensure sustainability of all ecosystems within the installation;  Ensure no net loss of the capability of installation lands to support the DoD mission;  Conserve and rehabilitate natural resources on military installations;  Sustain multipurpose use of the resources and public access to military installations to facilitate the use of those resources;  Participate, as appropriate, in regional ecosystem initiatives; and  Demonstrate conservation benefits for species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The INRMP also specifically addresses compatibility and encroachment issues for current land uses and activities that take place at NWSSB. The INRMP establishes active management policies so that mitigation is ongoing. Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Installation Development Plan The NWSSB Installation Development Plan (IDP) addresses regional land and facility requirements from a functional point of view and provides land use recommendations. The Plan identifies and provides guidance on infrastructure, various resources, base goals, and an overall mission statement. Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Encroachment Action Plan The Encroachment Action Plan (EAP) identifies encroachment issues internal to the installation. Encroachment issues due to community activities outside the installation are also identified in this report. The current NWSSB EAP Executive Summary states: The most significant mission compatibility concerns at NWSSB relate to real property development and other non‐Navy activities within our MIA. Land uses and other issues that may not be compatible with Navy operations at NWSSB include:  Competition for Land, Airspace or Sea Space  Air Quality Regulations  Urban Development  Maritime Issues  Endangered Species  Transportation January 2019 Background Report Page 4‐7 The challenges that the installation faces can impede its ability to operate and ultimately jeopardize the viability of NWSSB's mission. The Navy and its partners in the community have an opportunity to properly manage future growth and development cooperatively for the benefit of all. 4.3 State of California Legislation California has a history of collaboration with the military; this section provides an overview of related legislation. At times, compatibility requires legislation to ensure notification, awareness, and review that are inherent in the development process. Compatible growth is related to military training and balanced growth. Assembly Bill 1108 (2002) California Assembly Bill (AB) 1108 (Chapter 638, Statutes of 2002) amends the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and mandates CEQA lead agencies notify military installations when a project meets certain criteria. The purpose of AB 1108 is to ensure the military is aware of proposed projects that could potentially impact military operations. AB 1108 amends CEQA to provide military agencies with early notice of proposed projects within two miles of installations, training routes, and special use airspace. Military installations must provide local planning agencies relevant information such as land use needs and boundary lines for critical operations and impact areas, as well as a viable point of contact. Local lead agencies must, in turn, give notice to military installations of proposed projects within those boundaries, if: (1) a project includes a general plan amendment, (2) a project is of statewide, regional, or area‐wide significance, or (3) a project must be referred to the Advisory Land Use Committee (ALUC) or similarly designated body. The CEQA provision allows military installations early input on local projects so that potential conflicts can be identified, evaluated, and addressed proactively. Assembly Bill 2641 The Native American Human Remains and Multiple Human Remains legislation (Chapter 863, Statutes of 2006) amends the Public Resources Code relating to burial grounds. The law authorizes the creation of a commission to prevent damage to Native American burial grounds or places of worship. The bill requires meaningful discussion between landowners and the descendants of those whose remains are found to ensure the remains are treated according to tribal preferences during development activities. The commission must contact the most likely descendants of Native American remains in the event of notification of discovery from a county coroner. The landowner and federal and state governments must also ensure that the area surrounding human remains is not disturbed or damaged until consultation with descendants has taken place and their recommendations considered. To protect sites where remains have been identified, the landowner must: record the site with the commission, use an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement, or, record a document with the county in which the property is located. California Clean Air Act In 1988, the California General Assembly passed the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) that furthers the mission of the Federal CAA. The CCAA establishes the authority for air pollution control districts or air quality management districts to implement the necessary measures to maintain and/or restore air quality to the state air quality standards for air pollutants. In addition, the CCAA established requirements for district plans or measures to provide an assurance that the district plans or measures will achieve the state standards for air pollutants. For example, the CCAA requires district plans or measures to achieve an annual, five percent emission reduction, or the measures and plans must include all feasible measures that could achieve such reduction, which must be implemented on an expeditious schedule. Page 4‐8 Background Report January 2019 Per the CCAA, district plans must include the following statement regarding areas that are in serious nonattainment: No net increase in emissions from new and modified stationary sources; and best available retrofit technology for existing sources. The CCAA directly applies to the NWSSB JLUS study area because the area is in extreme nonattainment for ozone (O3) and serious nonattainment for particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5). For more information about the air quality, see Section 5.1. Air Quality. California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act of 1976 established provisions for guiding and regulating land uses in and around a shoreline. The Act defined the goals and policies for coastal management, set the boundaries of the State’s coastal zone, and created mechanisms such as the Coastal Commission to implement the coastal management program. California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 to protect the environment by requiring public agencies to analyze and disclose the potential environmental impacts of proposed land use decisions. CEQA is modeled after the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Fulfilling NEPA compliance obligations will also fulfill CEQA compliance obligations. It is specifically designed that way. All of these laws are nested: fulfillment of cultural resources clearance under NEPA can be achieved through compliance actions for Section 106 of the NHPA. Fulfilling compliance obligations under NHPA will fulfill compliance obligations under state historic preservation laws The purpose of CEQA is to inform agency decision‐makers and the public about the potential environmental effects of proposed activities. Using this information, decision makers can identify ways that environmental impacts can be avoided or significantly reduced. Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Act Under this act, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) have broad authority to perform water quality regulatory oversight with the goal of preserving and enhancing all beneficial uses of the state’s water. Senate Bill 18 2004 California Senate Bill (SB) 18 (Chapter 904, Statutes 2004) established the Native American Heritage Commission to prevent severe and irreparable damage to Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or shrines located on public property. This legislation also provides for the maintenance of a contact list that includes federally‐recognized California Native American tribes and non‐federally recognized California Native American tribes who have the authority to acquire and hold conservation easements. SB 18 requires all planning agencies to refer to and provide involvement opportunities for California Native American tribes regarding proposed actions that could affect them. Prior to the adoption or amendment of a city or county general plan, the jurisdiction must consult with California Native American tribes to preserve specified places, features, and objects located within the jurisdiction. Senate Bill 1462 (2004) SB 1462 (Chapter 906, Statutes of 2004) expanded the requirements for local governments to notify military installations of proposed development and planning activities. This statute states that: “prior to action by a legislative body to adopt or substantially amend a general plan, the planning agency shall refer the proposed action to the branches of the Armed Forces when the proposed project is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation, beneath a low‐level flight path, or within Special Use Airspace (SUA)....” January 2019 Background Report Page 4‐9 The purpose of SB 1462 is to require public agencies to provide a complete copy of a development application for any proposed development located within 1,000 feet of a military installation, SUA, or low‐level flight path. It authorizes any branch of the United States Armed Forces “to request consultation” to avoid potential conflict and to discuss “alternatives, mitigation measures, and the effects of the proposed project on military installations.” SB 1462 also requires military review of proposed actions that potentially impact installation operations and missions. This allows the military the opportunity to comment on proposed development and express concerns with potential impacts on the installation. Senate Bill 1468 (2002) SB 1468 (Chapter 971, Statutes of 2002) requires the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to provide guidance on incorporating military installation compatibility into a general plan and on how a general plan should consider the impact of civilian growth on readiness activities at military bases, installations, and training areas. The statute includes the following methods to address military compatibility in a general plan: In the land use element, consider the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and operating and training areas, when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses covered by the general plan for land or other territory adjacent to those military facilities, or underlying designated military aviation routes and airspace. In the open‐space element, open‐space land is defined to include areas adjacent to military installations, military training routes, and restricted airspace. In the circulation element, include the general location and extent of existing and proposed military airports and ports. SB 1468 is part of a state policy package to promote the development of a partnership between communities and the military that allows for collaboration on land use compatibility issues. The OPR encourages local jurisdictions near military installations and under military training routes or restricted airspace to incorporate the above items into their general plans. Local governments are not currently required by law, however, to incorporate the SB 1468 military compatibility guidance in their general plans. The bill specifies that if a funding agreement is reached between OPR and the military to support planning efforts, the inclusion of military compatibility issues in a general plan would become mandatory. 4.4 State of California Plans and Programs California Advisory Handbook for Community and Military Compatibility Planning The requirement for a compatibility handbook was established in Government Code §65040.9, which directed OPR to prepare, “an advisory planning handbook for use by local officials, planners, and builders that explains how to reduce land use conflicts between the effects of civilian development and military readiness activities....” The Handbook was updated in 2016 and designed to serve as a resource to help develop processes and plans that would sustain local economies, safeguard military readiness, and protect the health and safety of residents living near military bases. The handbook is a useful tool for developing a JLUS, as it describes in detail the different compatibility issues that should be explored and the types of compatibility tools available to address the identified issues. The handbook can be found at: http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/2016_CA_Handbook_Final.pdf. Page 4‐10 Background Report January 2019 California Coastal Management Program The California Coastal Management Program is a combination of federal, state, and local planning and regulatory authorities who implement land use controls for land, air, and water resources along the coast. The California Coastal Management Program comprises three agencies:  The California Coastal Commission,  The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and  The California Coastal Conservancy. These three agencies are responsible for the management, protection, restoration, and enhancement of the California coastal resources of various segments of the coastline. These agencies fulfill their responsibilities through a variety of actions, including planning, permitting, and non‐regulatory measures. Specifically, the California Coastal Commission manages development along the California coast. The California Coastal Conservancy purchases, protects, restores, and enhances coastal resources and provides access to the shore. The Coastal Program is governed primarily by the California Coastal Act, McAteer‐Petris Act, and Suisan Marsh Preservation Act. The California Coastal Commission's planning area—or coastal zone—extends 1,000 yards, or slightly more than half a mile, inland from the mean high tide line. However, in significant coastal estuary and recreational areas, the coastal zone can extend inland to the first major ridgeline, or five miles from the mean high tide line, whichever is less. The coastal zone extends less than 1,000 yards, or slightly less than half a mile, in developed urban areas. The Coastal Commission reviews activities that affect the coastal zone, regardless of their location. California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) protects and preserves sensitive native species and their habitats. The Act allows for an incidental take of a listed endangered species or its habitat to a lawful development project. It is based in the principles and efficacy of early consultation to avoid adverse impacts to such species and their environment and to develop mitigation planning in projects that will allow for the recovery of endangered species and essential habitats. Coordination and a CESA Incidental Take Permit must be obtained from the Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to construction. The Act can limit NWSSB from conducting or introducing certain missions if an endangered species is present on base and requires extensive management measures. More information on biological resources can be found in the Biological Resources Section. California Farmland Conservancy Program The California Farmland Conservancy Program (CFCP) of 1995, authorized by the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 2, is a statewide grant program that supports and encourages local government agencies and eligible non‐profit organizations to preserve California’s leading industry—agriculture. The CFCP program enables local government agencies to preserve California’s valuable land assets by placing farmlands into agricultural conservation easements. The easements are essentially deed restrictions that limit development within the easements, while preserving the natural environment, either for scenic views or for commercial agriculture uses. These easements renew annually unless the landowner or the government agencies opt for non‐renewal, making it a non‐permanent conservation. There is no minimum number of years required to remain in the program, and many parcels remain in the agriculture land use category in perpetuity, even when the land changes ownership. An alternative option to this program is a permanent agricultural conservation easement, in which lands are designated agricultural in perpetuity. January 2019 Background Report Page 4‐11 California Land Conservation Act / Williamson Act The California Land Conservation Act, or the Williamson Act, was enacted in 1965 under Governor Pat Brown to preserve and protect California’s leading agriculture industry. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of designating certain parcels of land for only agriculture use or open space. This designation results in lower property tax assessments for landowners and a state subsidy for local governments to cover foregone tax revenues associated with private landowner participation. A Land Conservation Agreement (LCA) through the Williamson Act allows for a reduced tax assessment during the period of time the agreement is in effect. The agreements renew automatically unless the property owner requests termination. Where LCAs include lands that are designated for agricultural use and/or for speculative use, the agreements automatically terminate in 10 years. (earlier if findings are made and repayment of taxes is made). California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst The California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst (CMLUCA) was developed by OPR to assist the development community and local governments in determining if a project affects military training areas and airspace. The CMLUCA is a mapping tool that identifies where a project is, relative to the nearest military installation. This mapping application enables users to assess compliance with state legislation that requires the development community and local government agencies to notify the military of any project that may affect military readiness. 4.5 Local Jurisdictions – General Plans Local plans and programs can greatly influence and enhance compatibility planning. Of these, a community’s general plan provides the foundational policy against which all local planning activities are guided (see diagram). California state law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan, “for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning” (§65300). The general plan must cover, but is not limited to, seven specified planning elements (land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety), as well as identify the goals, policies, and programs that the city or county will implement to manage future growth and land uses. The general plans of the local jurisdictions in the NWSSB JLUS study area are critical, in that they provide policy guidance on compatibility. Incorporation of specific policies on compatibility is important for developing a robust approach to compatibility planning. The existing general plans address several compatibility topics; others will be identified as part of the JLUS assessment (see Chapter 5 for more details). Page 4‐12 Background Report January 2019 City of Seal Beach The 2003 City of Seal Beach General Plan is the policy guide that is used in determining the appropriate physical development and character of the city. The General Plan was designed to preserve and enhance the small‐town rural character of the city, while understanding and providing for balanced land use to become a self‐sufficient community. The General Plan addresses the following elements: land use, circulation, open space/recreation/conservation, safety, housing, noise, cultural resources, and growth management. Goals, programs, objectives, and policies pertaining to NWSSB are included in the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element is divided into five Planning Areas that are based on the character and specific land uses of the planning area, at large. Planning Area 5 is the area that contains the goals and policies related to NWSSB. Although not exhaustive, the following list of goals and policies that help NWSSB are a good measure of the city’s current military compatibility planning.  Support the Station’s mission by providing needed facilities that will allow for future expansion requirements. Priority should be given to those functions most directly related to the Station’s primary mission.  Establish a logical and functional land use plan that maximizes the utilization of real estate, improves installation efficiency, promotes land use compatibility, and permits future expansion.  Consult in the development of each site in a way that is compatible with the surrounding community and that recognizes all natural and man‐made constraints.  Anticipate encroachment pressures, including pressures that may compromise mission effectiveness, before events occur. City of Long Beach The 1973 City of Long Beach General Plan is the policy document that guides the city’s development in an orderly pattern. While the Plan was originally adopted in 1973, there have been several updates in recent years, including a Land Use Element update in February 2017. The General Plan addresses the following elements: historic preservation, open space, housing, air quality, mobility, land use, seismic safety, local coastal program, noise, public safety, conservation, and scenic routes. There are no goals, policies, or objectives in the General Plan that specifically promote military compatibility planning or coordination. Orange County The 2005 Orange County General Plan is the blueprint for growth for the county. The Plan has been updated several times in the past 12 years due to dramatic changes and growth in the county. The County General Plan provides guidance for unincorporated county areas that are mostly located in the southernmost portion of the county, with some unincorporated “islands” spread throughout the northern and central portion. The County General Plan addresses the following elements: land use, transportation, public services and facilities, resources, recreation, noise, safety, housing, and growth management. There are no goals, policies, or objectives in the County General Plan that promote military compatibility guidance. However, the Plan recognizes the military indirectly through the provision of a transportation network that includes roadways, airports, and airspace. There are no policies that formalize the provision of the transportation network needed and utilized by the military. The Land Use Element was last updated in 2015, and the Transportation Element was last updated in 2012. January 2019 Background Report Page 4‐13 4.6 Local Jurisdictions – Zoning Zoning ordinances (also referred to as zoning or development codes) are used to regulate the types of land use within a jurisdiction. A zoning ordinance is the principal tool used to implement a general plan. While a general plan provides broad policy direction on land use, a zoning ordinance provides the specific rules under which land can be developed and used. These rules include standards for building setbacks, height restrictions, lot coverage, and design requirements. Adoption of a zoning ordinance, zoning changes, or amendments requires review at a public hearing. City of Seal Beach The City of Seal Beach’s zoning code provides the regulations that implement the policies and guidance established in the city’s general plan. The city’s zoning code establishes five zoning districts:  Chapter 11.2.05 Residential Districts (there are six residential zoning districts)  Chapter 11.2.10 Commercial and Mixed‐use Districts  Chapter 11.2.15 Light Manufacturing and Oil Extraction Districts  Chapter 11.2.20 Public and Semi‐public Facilities Districts  Chapter 11.2.25 Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Districts City of Long Beach The City of Long Beach’s zoning code provides the regulations for implementing the policies and guidance that are established in the city’s general plan. The city’s zoning code establishes 39 zoning districts and 3 overlay districts, including a height limit overlay district. Orange County The Orange County zoning ordinance establishes the orderly development of the county, per state and federal laws. The comprehensive ordinance establishes 33 zoning districts in the unincorporated county area and further specifies that cities and other jurisdictions will establish zoning regulations for their respective political subdivisions. An evaluation of the county zoning ordinance identified the following items related to military compatibility:  The county requires developers of wind turbines and telecommunications towers to comply with state law. The law, in turn, requires coordination with the military if a proposed development is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation. 4.7 Local Jurisdictions – Subdivision Regulations Subdivision regulations control the division of property and detail the location of individual parcels/lots, road rights‐of‐way, and easements. Local jurisdictions will typically have a subdivision ordinance that guides the review and approval of new subdivisions based on the State’s Subdivision Map Act (commencing at Government Code Section 66410). The Map Act allows for two types of ‘maps’, or subdivisions: parcel maps that can be divided into fewer than five lots (with certain exceptions) and subdivision or tract maps that can be divided into five or more lots. City of Seal Beach The City of Seal Beach last amended their subdivision regulations in 2008. The Seal Beach City Council has the authority to enforce standards by regulating requests for development or redevelopment of land subdivisions. This coordination assures that development within the city is orderly, healthful, efficient, and economical. A review of the subdivision regulations has identified the following concerns related to military compatibility: Page 4‐14 Background Report January 2019  The subdivision regulations do not include provisions for lighting standards,  The subdivision regulations do not include notification of military personnel when proposed developments may affect the station. City of Long Beach The City of Long Beach adopted their subdivision regulations in 1983. The Long Beach City Council also retains the authority to enforce standards by regulating requests for development or redevelopment of land subdivisions. This coordination assures that development within the city is orderly, healthful, efficient and economical. A review of the subdivision regulations has identified the following concerns related to military compatibility:  The subdivision regulations do not include provisions for lighting standards,  The subdivision regulations do not include notification of military personnel. Orange County Orange County last amended their subdivision regulations in 2015. The Orange County Board of Supervisors has the authority to enforce standards through the regulation of requests for development or redevelopment of land subdivisions, to assure that development within the city is orderly, healthful, efficient, and economical. A review of the subdivision regulations has identified the following concerns related to military compatibility:  The subdivision regulations do not include notification of military personnel, and  The subdivision regulations do not include noise or air safety disclosure related to military operations and training. 4.8 Local Jurisdictions – Building Codes Building codes are ordinances/regulations that control the design, construction process, materials, alteration, and occupancy of any structure in order to insure human safety and welfare. They include both technical and functional standards for the variety of structures. City of Seal Beach The City of Seal Beach has adopted the International Building Code for property maintenance, building, mechanical, plumbing, and codes; however, the international codes do not contain provisions specific to military compatibility, such as sound attenuation requirements for noise from external building sources. City of Long Beach The City of Long Beach has adopted the 2017 California Building Standards Code (BSC). The California BSC contains 12 codes for the various elements of buildings:  Part 1 California Administrative Code,  Part 2 California Building Code,  Part 2.5 California Residential Code,  Part 3 California Electrical Code,  Part 4 California Mechanical Code,  Part 5 California Plumbing Code,  Part 6 California Energy Code, January 2019 Background Report Page 4‐15  Part 7 (Currently Vacant),  Part 8 California Historical Building Code,  Part 9 California Fire Code,  Part 10 California Existing Building Code,  Part 11 California Green Building Standards Code, and  Part 12 California Reference Standards Code. Orange County Orange County has adopted the following building codes on the dates specified:  Building Code – California Building Code 2016, California Residential Code 2013.  Energy Code – California Energy Code 2016 and California Green Building Standards Code 2016, adopted and amended by Ordinance No. 16‐018 on November 22, 2016.  Plumbing Code – CPC 2016, adopted and amended by Ordinance No. 16‐019 on December 17, 2013.  Mechanical Code – California Mechanical Code 2016, adopted and amended by Ordinance No. 16‐020 on December 17, 2013.  Electrical Code – California Electrical Code 2016, adopted and amended by Ordinance No. 16‐021 on December 17, 2013.  Fire Code – California Fire Code 2016, adopted and amended by Ordinance No. 16‐022 on December 17, 2013.  Beginning on January 1, 2017, the OC Development Services, Building and Grading Plan Check section is required by state law to enforce the 2016 Edition of California Building Standards Codes (a.k.a., Title 24 of the California Codes of Regulations). All permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2017 will be required to meet these new 2016 CA Building Standards Codes. 4.9 Other Resources In the interest of land use compatibility between the military and the local community, the DoD Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) and other public interest groups, such as the National Association of Counties (NACo), have prepared educational documents and videos that educate and inform the public about encroachment issues and methods that can be used to address existing or future compatibility concerns. Five resources that have been published to inform the public on land use compatibility are identified below. Guides The Practical Guide to Compatible Civilian Development near Military Installations (July 2007), OEA This guide offers general information on community development and civilian encroachment issues. The guide can be found at: http://www.oea.gov/. Joint Land Use Study Program Guidance Manual (November 2006) This manual provides guidance on the JLUS program, process, and efforts to support compatible development. This manual can be obtained on the OEA web site at the following address: http://www.oea.gov/. Page 4‐16 Background Report January 2019 Encouraging Compatible Land Use between Local Governments and Military Installations: A Best Practices Guide (April 2007), NACo This guidebook presents case studies of best practices between the military and communities that include communication, regulatory approaches, and Joint Land Use Studies. The guide can be accessed on the NACo web site at the following address: http://www.naco.org/. State Policy Options: A Report of the National Conference of State Legislatures Task Force on Military and Veterans Affairs (January 2012) This report provides state legislators and legislative staff information about the range of policy options available to them to sustain their neighboring military installations and associated testing and training operations. It is designed to encourage a greater understanding of the roles that state legislators, local government officials, land conservation organizations, and the military play in managing development near military bases and in protecting natural resources and the health and safety of citizens. This report can be accessed at the following internet address: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/environ/ NCSL_State_Policy_Options_020112_FINAL.pdf. Collaborative Land Use Planning: A Guide for Military Installations and Local Governments, International City / County Management Association and the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech This guide provides essential observations about land use policy and procedures, discusses critical questions, and suggests model practices for military commanders to build stronger relationships with local policymakers and planning officials. This guide can be accessed at the following location: https://www.fedcenter.gov/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=7667&destination=ShowItem. Working with Local Governments: A Practical Guide for Installations, (May 2012), International City / County Management Association and the National Association of Counties This guide provides a primer on how local governments operate and what installation personnel can do to engage state and local governments in dialogue on compatibility issues. The guide can be accessed at: https://www.fedcenter.gov/_kd/Items/actions.cfm? action=Show&item_id=6203&destination=ShowItem. Commander’s Guide to Community Involvement (August 2012), Range Commanders Council Sustainability Group This guide provides tools for proactively addressing compatibility concerns, with a focus on outreach, land use, urban sprawl, and sustainability issues. The guide includes the latest trends and approaches in community involvement best practices and highlights case studies. This guide can be accessed at: http://www.repi.mil/Portals/44/ Documents/Primers/Primer_CommunityInvolvement.pdf. Local Sustainability Partnering Innovation Lab: Military‐Community Partnering for Sustainability at the Local Level (February 2011), Association of Defense Communities (ADC) This document presents the findings and lessons learned from an “innovation laboratory” that was conducted at the 2011 Association of Defense Communities Winter Conference. The document reports on this interactive, facilitated, discussion exercise by focusing on Camp Bullis, San Antonio, Texas as a case study of the collaborative community and military efforts that can address local and regional sustainability. This document can be accessed at: http://www.defensecommunities.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/03/ADC‐Local‐Sustainabilty‐Innovation‐Lab‐Final‐After‐Action‐Report.pdf. January 2019 Background Report Page 4‐17 Installation‐Community Partnerships: A New Paradigm for Collaborating in the 21st Century, Journal of Defense Communities The article explores the changes that are prompting military and community leaders to take a closer look at partnerships and provides a template for assessing the success of a prospective collaboration. Two case studies are presented — the arrangement under which the city of Monterey, Calif., provides all facility maintenance at the Presidio of Monterey; and the enhanced use lease at Nellis Air Force Base that resulted in the city of North Las Vegas building a $25 million fitness center for the Air Force. This article can be accessed at: http://www.defensecommunities.org/wp‐content/uploads/2012/07/ P4_BAH_Journal_final.pdf. The Base of the Future: A Call for Action by States and Communities (April 2016), Association of Defense Communities This article examines the common concerns that all bases share with their local hosts and proposes a uniform approach in advising defense communities and states in the development of their own policies regarding adaptation and resilience when dealing with infrastructure, service, and economic changes inside and outside the fenceline. Five key concerns are discussed: economic development and community planning, expanded sharing of services and infrastructure, mission capability and natural resource conservation, and military involvement and engagement for policy and legislation. This article can be accessed at: http://defensecommunities.org/wp‐content/uploads/2015/01/The‐Base‐of‐the‐Future_v5.pdf. Strengthening National Defense: Countering Encroachment through Military‐Community Collaboration (2009), National Academy of Public Administration This report discusses the significant and growing challenges to military readiness created by nearby civilian community growth and proposes recommendations for increased collaboration among key stakeholders—local and state governments, non‐profit organizations, the Military Services and installations, and other federal agencies—in order to creatively and effectively address these complex and critical issues. This report can be accessed at the following internet address: https://ciaonet.org/attachments/26009/uploads. Videos The Base Next Door: Community Planning and the Joint Land Use Study Program, OEA This informative video discusses the issue of encroachment near military installations from nearby urban development. This video can be accessed on the official OEA YouTube channel at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UiyWDgLeJM. Managing Growth, Communities Respond, OEA This video highlights the lessons learned from three communities (Kitsap Naval Base in Bangor, Washington; Fort Drum in Jefferson County, New York; Fort Leonard Wood in Pulaski County, Missouri) that have successful programs for managing growth near their respective military installations. This video can be accessed on the official OEA YouTube channel at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rea6d3bDp3c. The tools in this chapter can help to address various compatibility concerns. They are further explored in Chapter 5 Compatibility Assessment and are recommended for strategy implementation in Chapter 6 Implementation Plan. Page 4‐18 Background Report January 2019 This page intentionally left blank. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐1 5.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................ 5‐3 5.2 Antiterrorism / Force Protection ..................................................... 5‐8 5.3 Biological Resources ...................................................................... 5‐11 5.4 Coordination / Communication ..................................................... 5‐17 5.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................... 5‐19 5.6 Dust / Smoke / Steam .................................................................... 5‐20 5.7 Energy Development ..................................................................... 5‐22 5.8 Frequency Spectrum Capacity ....................................................... 5‐24 5.9 Frequency Spectrum Impedance / Interferance ........................... 5‐26 5.10 Housing Availability ........................................................................ 5‐27 5.11 Infrastructure Extensions ............................................................... 5‐28 5.12 Land / Air / and Sea Space Competition ........................................ 5‐31 5.13 Land Use ......................................................................................... 5‐36 5.14 Legislative Initiatives ...................................................................... 5‐41 5.15 Light and Glare ............................................................................... 5‐42 5.16 Marine Environments .................................................................... 5‐43 5.17 Noise .............................................................................................. 5‐44 5.18 Public Services ................................................................................ 5‐46 5.19 Public Trespassing .......................................................................... 5‐51 5.20 Roadway Capacity .......................................................................... 5‐53 5.21 Safety ............................................................................................. 5‐59 5.22 Scarce Natural Resources .............................................................. 5‐62 5.23 Vertical Obstructions ..................................................................... 5‐63 5.24 Vibration ........................................................................................ 5‐64 5.25 Water Quality / Quantity ............................................................... 5‐65 Compatibility, in relation to military readiness, can be defined as the balance or compromise between community needs and interests and military needs and interests. The goal of compatibility planning is to promote an environment where both community and military can coexist successfully. A number of factors influence whether community and military plans, programs, and activities are compatible or in conflict. To provide a comprehensive assessment of potential compatibility issues, this JLUS process looked at 25 compatibility factors (topics). This set of factors, listed on Figure 5.0‐1, was used to help characterize compatibility issues. This chapter provides an assessment of the relevant compatibility factors and identified issues. This assessment provides the framework for the recommended strategies presented in the JLUS Report. Page 5‐2 Background Report January 2019 Figure 5.0‐1 Compatibility Factors Methodology and Evaluation During the preparation of the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB) JLUS, the Policy Committee (PC), the Technical Committee (TC), and the public provided assistance in the identification of compatibility issues to be addressed in the JLUS using the list of 25 compatibility factors. Input on issues was derived from meetings and workshops (more detail on the committees and the meetings / workshops held can be found in Chapter 1). In addition, issues were evaluated and refined based on review of existing compatibility tools that are available to each jurisdiction within the JLUS Study Area. Evaluation and Analysis The issue statements identified by the described process formed the structure of the compatibility assessment in this chapter. The following chapter is divided into sections covering each compatibility factor, and under each factor are one or more compatibility issues. For each factor, the section starts with a description of the factor and a set of key terms that are useful for understanding the discussion presented. For some factors that are more technical in nature, like Safety (Section 5.11), there is a section titled Technical Background that provides a brief overview of the general concept (for instance, what is safety and how is it measured). Following Key Terms and Technical Background is the discussion of the issues identified. For each issue, there is a general background on the issue presented, an assessment of current planning tools and their effectiveness that apply to the issue, and the key findings from the assessment. The intent is to provide an adequate context for the discussion of issues and to ultimately develop strategies to address each issue. As such, it is not designed or intended to be used as an exhaustive technical evaluation of existing or future conditions within the JLUS study area. Report Of the 25 standard compatibility factors, the following factors determined not to be applicable in the NWSSB JLUS Study Area:  Cultural Resources  Frequency Spectrum Interference / Impedance  Legislative Initiatives  Light and Glare  Marine Environments  Scarce Natural Resources  Vertical Obstructions  Vibration  Water Quality / Quantity January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐3 5.1 Air Quality Air quality is defined by six air pollutants that are regulated at the federal and state level. For compatibility, the primary concerns are pollutants that limit visibility (such as particulates, ozone, etc.) and potential non‐attainment of air quality standards that may limit future changes in operations at the installation or in the area. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the principal federal agency responsible for air quality management in the United States (U.S.). Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA sets ambient air quality standards and oversees related planning, permitting, compliance and enforcement. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) require states and delegated local agencies to submit an implementation plan to the U. S. EPA demonstrating their ability and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce air quality standards. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 C.F.R. part 50) for six criteria pollutants. Air quality control regions are classified either “attainment” or “nonattainment,” according to whether or not the ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants exceed the NAAQS. There is also a “maintenance” classification for regions that have transitioned from nonattainment to attainment. Federal nonattainment designation categories are Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, and Extreme. In addition to the NAAQS for criteria pollutants, national standards exist for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), which are regulated under Section 112(b) of the 1990 CAA Amendments. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulate HAP emissions from stationary sources (40 CFR Part 61). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state regulatory authority that provides oversight and direction to local air pollution control districts (APCDs) through informational, technical, and financial assistance. Its advisory and technical assistance comprises information on numerous air quality topics including but not limited to air pollution and health, air pollution sources, effects and ways to control. In addition, the agency offers financial assistance to the local APCDs. These financial programs are in partnership with the local APCDs, which implements the programs. CARB has the authority set air quality standards that are stricter than the federal standards, but cannot establish standards that are less restrictive. Locally, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the local air quality authority that establishes local air quality regulations, monitors local air pollutants in the region that includes Orange County, Seal Beach and NWSSB. SCAQMD’s mission is to undertake all necessary steps to protect public health from air pollution, with sensitivity to the impacts of its actions on the community and businesses. NWSSB recognizes the importance of clean air within the South Air Coast Basin. The installation reviews all projects and proposals to evaluate potential air emissions generated and whether an air permit is required. The portions of the project that are not subject to permit requirements, such as ships, tactical vehicles, and construction operations, are further evaluated to ensure they comply with General Conformity Applicability thresholds, which are among the lowest in the nation in the South Coast Air Basin. If the thresholds are exceeded, the project will go through a conformity determination, where emission offsets would need to be provided or the project scaled back. The purposes of this analysis to ensure the action does not negatively affect the region's air quality. To account for future growth, the installation develops emission growth projections. This projection data is submitted to SCAQMD to help with air quality modeling and planning and to ensure future projects comply with General Conformity requirements. The installation is being pro‐active to reduce vehicle emissions. In FY16, the installation replaced 17 gasoline government vehicles with all‐electrical cars and electrical charging stations were installed in two locations. Off‐road vehicles and cranes are also being replaced with cleaner burning diesel engines. For CY18, the installation is looking to install two, Level 2 charging stations that will allow personal owned vehicles (POV) to charge on base and Page 5‐4 Background Report January 2019 encourage workers to purchase electrical vehicles for commuting to and from work. Furthermore, the government encourages van pools usage with six van pools transporting employees to places such as Riverside and San Diego counties. Each year the installation contributes a monetary fee to the SCAQMD Rule 2202 that funds green procurement programs within the South Coast Air Basin. Key Terms Attainment Area. An attainment area is a geographic area that meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for a criteria pollutant. Criteria Pollutants. The criteria pollutants are the six principle pollutants harmful to public health and the environment for which the Environmental Protection Agency has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The pollutants are: carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Design Value. A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given location relative to the level of the NAAQS. Emissions Averaging Period. Emissions monitoring generally involves a specific averaging period. The averaging time refers to the period of time which data are averaged. Common averaging times for air quality standards include 1‐hour, 8‐hour, 24‐hour, and annual average. Exceedance. An exceedance occurs when a measured air pollution level exceeds criteria prescribed by the Environmental Protection agency or the California Air Resources Board. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The NAAQS are standards for outdoor air pollutants established by the Environmental Protection Agency under authority of the Clean Air Act. Nonattainment Area. A nonattainment area is a geographic area where air pollution levels persistently exceed NAAQS, or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that fails to meet standards. Designating an area as nonattainment is a formal rulemaking process made by the Environmental Protection Agency, typically only after air quality standards have been exceeded for several consecutive years. Ozone (O3). Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas with direct health effects on humans, including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Ozone is created when hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides released from vehicles and industrial sources react in the presence of sunlight. Because ozone requires sunlight to form, it occurs in concentrations considered serious primarily between the months of April and October. Particulate Matter (PM). Particulate matter consists of fine metal, smoke, soot, and dust particles suspended in the air. Particulate Matter is measured by two sizes: Course particles (PM10), or particles between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter in size, and fine particles (PM2.5), or particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. ug/M3. Micrograms per cubic meter is used to measure the concentration of an air pollutant in a cubic meter of air. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐5 ISSUE AQ-1 There is a Concern about Air Quality in the JLUS Study Area Limiting Mission Operations and/or Community Activities. The JLUS Study Area within the South Coast Air Basin is in extreme nonattainment for ozone (O3); serious nonattainment for particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5); and a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter 10 (PM10). These air pollutant classifications can potentially have a constraining impact on both military operations and community activities, including construction and transportation operations. Compatibility Assessment Orange County including the JLUS Study Area has been determined by the EPA to be Extreme nonattainment area for the 2008 8‐hour ozone standard. While the 2015 ozone rule has been finalized, the EPA has not yet finalized non‐attainment designations. The revised designations under the 2015 standard are expected to be complete in late 2017 (see FR Doc. 2017–16806 Filed 8–9–17). In any case the region will still be classified non‐attainment for ozone. The County is also classified as Serious nonattainment for PM2.5 under the 2012 standards and maintenance for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and PM10 (1987 standard). Table 5.1‐1 shows historical ozone and PM2.5 from 2012 through 2016. Exceedances of the federal ozone standard ranged from a high of three in 2016 to a low of one in 2013 and exceedances of the state standard ranged from seven in 2016 to two in 2013. PM2.5 exceedances of the federal standard ranged from six in 2014 to one in both 2013 and 2016. The severity of the exceedances varied by year with the highest ozone level recorded in 2013 at .100 ppm and the lowest in 2013 and 2016 at .078 ppm. The severity of the PM2.5 exceedances ranged from 56.2 ug/m3 in 2014 to 37.8 ug/m3 in 2013. The region is also in a maintenance classification for PM10, CO and NO2 having transitioned from nonattainment to attainment. NWSSB are under regional thresholds for the Title V/SQMD program and minimally contribute to air pollutants in the region. Table 5.1‐2 provides a summation of the top air quality pollution sources in the South Coast Air Basin. On‐road motor vehicles account for the majority of carbon monoxide emissions for the area with 1323.8 tons emitted per day. A number of factors can influence air quality in a region. These include the variety of emission sources and types of pollutants emitted, topographic conditions, weather, and other factors. For areas where criteria pollutants that exceed federal or state air quality standards, being in a nonattainment area can potentially cause delays, impede or reduce military operations and community activities due to the quality of air and its impact on human health and the environment. Additional air quality regulations are developed and enforced in regions that are nonattainment for the NAAQS. Permits and funding for important infrastructure can be delayed or denied in nonattainment areas, or perhaps be issued subject to control measures that may increase the costs and timeline of project implementation and facility / equipment operation. Community and military sources of dust and air pollutants can also limit the opportunities for new military missions to be realigned to NWSSB. An air quality regulation that is unique to California coastal areas where ships make port calls is the California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirement that container, refrigerator and passenger ships limit auxiliary engine operation while in berth. Typically, these ships use auxiliary engines to produce needed power, but in doing so generate emissions from the engines that generate the power. Effective in 2017, per Section 93118.3, Title 17, Chapter 1, Subchapter 7.5, California Code of Regulations (CCR), ships at berth must obtain at least 70 percent of their power from a grid‐based shore power source and reduce operation of ship auxiliary engines; or use an alternative control technology to reduce air emissions from engine powered generators. The intent is to reduce PM and NOx emissions from operation of the diesel fueled engines. Page 5‐6 Background Report January 2019 Table 5.1‐1. Air Quality Information for the JLUS Study Area Year Particulate Matter 2.5 Ozone Max 24‐Hour PM2.5 Level (μg /m3) State Annual Average PM2.5 Level (μg /m3) # Days Exceeding Federal PM2.5 Standard Highest Measured 8‐hour Ozone Level Days Exceeding 2008 Federal Ozone 8‐hour Standard # Days Exceeding CA State 8‐hour Ozone Standard Standard N/A 12 μg/m3 35 μg/m3 N/A .075 ppm .070 ppm 2016 44.45 9.47 1 .078 3 7 2015 45.8 9.38 3 .082 2 8 2014 56.2 10.53 6 .088 2 6 2013 37.8 10.09 1 .078 1 2 2012 50.1 10.81 4 .100 2 3 Source: SCAQMD Historical Air Quality Data; http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air‐quality‐data‐studies/historical‐data‐by‐year All data from North Orange County or Central Orange County locations Table 5.1‐2. Top Pollutant Sources for the JLUS Study Area Pollution Source Total Organic Gases (TOG) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) CO NOX SOX PM PM 10 PM 2.5 NH3 Fuel Combustion 52.5 11.3 48.6 45.1 6.8 5.9 5.7 5.6 9.0 Waste Disposal 646.2 12.6 1.0 2.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 5.3 Cleaning and Surface Coatings 82.4 34.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.5 1.5 1.4 0.4 Petroleum Production and Marketing 79.9 29.0 5.1 1.3 2.1 2.6 1.7 1.5 0.2 Industrial Processes 11.9 10.1 0.5 0.4 0.3 15.9 10.8 6.3 8.7 Solvent Evaporation 119.9 101.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Miscellaneous Processes 53.3 13.3 54 20.6 0.5 174.9 92.6 28.4 37.9 On‐Road Motor Vehicles 176.0 157.3 1323.8 318.7 2.0 28.1 27.5 14.5 18.1 Other Mobile Sources 111.1 98.4 680.1 125.9 4.6 8.8 8.4 7.1 0.1 Total 1333.1 468.1 2113.1 514.3 16.8 238.0 148.4 65.1 81.1 Source: California Air Resources Board (https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2017/emseic1_query.php?F_DIV=0&F_YR=2012&F_SEASON=A&SP=SIP105ADJ&F_AREA=AB&F_AB=SC&F_DD=Y) Note: All emissions are represented in Tons per Day. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐7 SCAQMD provides Air Alerts to keep residents apprised of current air quality hazards, particularly for young children, older people or individuals with respiratory issues. SCAQMD also offers various incentives to community residents to take actions to reduce harmful air emissions. One example is a lawn mower rebate program for purchasing electric lawn mowers to help reduce summertime smog (ozone). The agency also offers information on using various products such as paint and cleaners, which emit lower (or zero) levels of pollutants. Emissions from vehicles is one of the largest sources of pollution in southern California and in an effort to help residents switch to electrical vehicles, SCAQMD provides financial help with installing electrical vehicle charging equipment. SCAQMD also has programs for businesses and local governments to reduce air pollution in the region. Businesses may be eligible for financial assistance for retrofitting engine for heavy duty on‐road vehicles as well as regulatory assistance for small businesses. Local governments can obtain planning assistance from SCAQMD using tools that help with low emission vehicle procurement to identifying funding sources for initiatives that help reduce air emissions. Findings  The JLUS Study Area, including Orange County, the City of Seal Beach and NWSSB are located in the SCAQMD classified as nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5 by the EPA and CARB.  The SCAQMD region is Extreme nonattainment for ozone (2008 8‐hour standard) and Serious nonattainment for PM2.5 (2012 standard).  Air quality data from 2012 through 2016 show periodic exceedances of both federal and state standards for ozone and PM2.5.  Facilities and industries in regions classified as nonattainment for criteria pollutants, including ozone and PM2.5 are typically subject to more onerous regulatory requirements in regards to permitting and operating air emission sources.  Potential impacts can range from delays in permit approvals, additional implementation and operating costs, and in some extreme cases inability to expand operations or carry out certain activities.  The SCAQMD provides various support programs and incentives to residents, businesses and local governments to help ensure people are aware of air quality hazards and ways to reduce harmful emissions. Page 5‐8 Background Report January 2019 5.2 Antiterrorism / Force Protection Antiterrorism / Force Protection (AT) relates to the safety of personnel, facilities, and information on an installation from outside threats. Security concerns and trespassing can present immediate compatibility concerns to installations. Due to current world conditions and recent events, military installations are required to meet more restrictive standards to address AT issues. These standards include increased security checks at installation gates and physical changes to enhance security (such as new gate / entry designs). ISSUE AT-1 There is an Opportunity to Partner with the Community to Ensure Continued use of the Installation for Parking when the City Has Public Events. The Navy allows cars to park on the installation during the city’s public events throughout the year. Increased security requirements may mean changing the procedures to ensure that the shared service can continue while meeting security requirements. Compatibility Assessment According to the Navy, security is an increasing encroachment challenge that could have significant implications for NWSSB missions if not adequately managed. The most significant security concerns for NWSSB are the perimeter fence condition and civilians trespassing on the installation and or in the waterways around Anaheim Bay and Seal Beach NWR. A concern at NWSSB is breaches of the installation fence and security related to opening the installation to the public during large public events requiring parking access to the installation. Findings  Public parking on the installation has potential security concerns. ISSUE AT-2 Security Procedures Related to Civilian Access and Proximity to NWSSB Mission-Critical Resources. The existing NWSSB wharf in Anaheim Bay is adjacent to the only civilian public navigational channel between Huntington Harbour and the ocean. The primary concerns associated with the uncontrolled Anaheim Bay are the potential security impacts, seaside breaches, and the impacts to the commercial and recreational boaters in the area. This can potentially delay military operations and adversely impact civilian use of the navigational channel by closing off the channel for periods of time to facilitate the security of the military operations occurring in this area. Additionally, the wharf is more than 50 years old and has numerous issues making it undesirable for future waterfront operations. Compatibility Assessment The shore‐line infrastructure at NWWSB directly supports the mission requirements of the installation’s tenants. An increase in the number of Navy ships on the west coast is expected due to relocation of ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific. According to the Installation Development Plan, the number of ships homeported in the region is expected to increase by 30 percent by 2024. The operations at the wharf area currently limited to one ship evolution. Based on the projected increase in ship loading, a dual ship evolution will be needed. The current wharf design capacity is for 50 evolutions annually. By 2020, the number of ordnance loading events is expected to increase to 88 evolutions annually. The wharf area of the installation will need to undergo renovations in the near future to support expanding missions at the installation. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐9 Findings  NWSSB has an uncontrolled entry point at Anaheim Bay.  NWSSB has an uncontrolled entry point leading to Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge.  The wharf will need to be renovated / expanded to help support expanding missions at the installation. ISSUE AT-3 Security Concern Related to Potential Surveillance Vantage Points Outside NWSSB. Specific examples for why this particular challenge is important to address includes a recent experience where encroachment from the construction of a 4-story building overlooking gate operations and the filming of an emergency response exercise from a helicopter had occurred. City planners do not anticipate any changes in development or zoning currently surrounding the Station. Residential zoning has a height restriction of 25 feet (2 stories), which prohibits residents from building a third story addition on their lots. This zoning provision has been in effect since 1974. Therefore, there is very little likelihood that taller, more densely occupied buildings will be constructed near the Station. The usage of recreational drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles, can create opportunities for views into the installation from outside the fence line or through unauthorized overflight. Immediately surrounding the installation are areas zoned for light manufacturing, commercial, open space, and residential. All of these zoning districts have height restrictions that would not provide views of NWSSB with the exception of light manufacturing. In this zone, a structure is allowed to be 75 feet tall (7 stories) if it is located on a site of more than 10 acres. The area zoned light manufacturing however, is largely developed and it is unlikely that any structure will be built in this area that would cause an encroachment concern. California Government Code §65352 (a)(5) and (6)(a), §65940, and §65944 require municipal governments to notify the military of development projects when located within 1,000 feet of an installation, when within special use airspace, or beneath low‐level flight paths. Compatibility Assessment The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act (FMRA) of 2012 authorized the integration of unmanned aerial systems (UASs) into national airspace by December 2015. The intent of this provision is to allow unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for search and rescue events, disaster relief, humanitarian efforts, and security. The act also requires hobbyist operators to contact air traffic control and / or airport management if they are operating within a 5‐mile radius of a local airport. Additionally, the FAA has designated NWSSB as a no‐fly zone for drones. This means any UAS flight operation must be pre‐approved by the installation. NWSSB has instruction for proper use of UASs. Recreational UAS flights on installation are not authorized, with the exception of base housing. Recreational flights are authorized inside the confines base housing common areas only (e.g., skate park, tennis courts when not in use, field areas). Operators should be mindful of neighbor’s safety and privacy by remaining clear of all housing, vehicles, and other personal property. Flight paths are not to cross onto the base at any time and should remain below 400 feet. In the event of unauthorized UAS operations, the security department and Command Duty Officer (CDO) will be notified immediately. The security department and CDO will determine how to resolve the situation. The base PAO will ensure that an active and continuous public affairs effort is conducted to inform the public of the base policy for unauthorized UAS use as well as how the public should respond upon discovery of unauthorized U AS operations. As necessary, the PAO will convey the base Page 5‐10 Background Report January 2019 UAS operations policy to the local communities in conjunction with FAA Public Affairs Office guidance when feasible. Findings  Building heights nearby NWSSB are likely not going to be a concern for encroachment.  NWSSB lies within a 5‐mile arc of the Los Alamitos Joint Base airfield and therefore UAS operations require prior notification.  The FAA has designated NWSSB as a no‐fly zone for drones and any UAS flight operation must be pre‐approved by the installation.  Recreational UAS flights on installation are not authorized, with the exception of base housing.  In the event of unauthorized UAS operations, the security department and CDO will determine how to resolve the situation. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐11 5.3. Biological Resources Biological resources include federal and state listed species (threatened and endangered species) and the habitats they exist in or utilize. These resources may also include areas such as wetlands and migratory corridors that are critical to the overall ecosystem. The presence of biological resources may require special development considerations and should be included early in the planning process. Key Terms Endangered Species. Plant or animal species that have a very small population and are at greater risk of becoming extinct. The presence of threatened and endangered species may require special development considerations, could halt development, and could impact the performance of military missions. ISSUE BIO-1 Potential Seal Beach Wildlife Refuge Impacts due to Military Mission Operations, Expansion, or Construction Activities. There is a potential for military mission operations, expansion or construction activities impacting the biological resources that occur in the Seal Beach Wildlife Refuge, which is located on the installation. NWSSB is the only active military installation that contains a National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) entirely within the base boundaries. In 1969 the Navy set aside land as a Navy Preserve at NWSSB. In 1972 the land was officially established as the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (Seal Beach NWR) which currently operates under the administrative jurisdiction of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Refuge consists primarily of salt marsh wetlands and upland habitat. The wetlands are important habitat for the endangered California least tern and light‐footed Ridgway’s rail, and also provides quality habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and other water birds. The Refuge also serves as a stopover and wintering habitat for thousands of birds that migrate up and down the Pacific Flyway each year. Wildlife at the Seal Beach NWR includes various species such as peregrine falcons, ospreys, grey smooth‐hound sharks, round stingrays, green sea turtles, as well as monarch and painted lady butterflies. Public access to the Seal Beach NWR is managed because it is on an active military installation. There are escorted tours and special events on a periodic basis that allows for the general public to visit the site. There are several partners that assist the USFWS with the ongoing work at the Refuge including the NWSSB and the Friends of Seal Beach NWR. In 2012 the USFWS prepared a Conservation Plan to provide long range guidance for the management of the Seal Beach NWR. The Plan outlined four primary goals:  Support recovery and protection efforts for the federally and state listed threatened and endangered species and species of concern that occur within the Seal Beach NWR.  Protect, manage, enhance, and restore coastal wetland and upland habitats to benefit migratory birds, as well as other native fish, wildlife, and plant species.  Enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of the Refuge’s biological and cultural resources through outreach opportunities and quality wildlife‐dependent recreation, including wildlife observation, environmental education, and interpretation.  Further strengthen the management partnerships between the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge and Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, while preserving our respective missions. While all these goals are important, the last goal is of interest as it relates to the issue of impacts on the Seal Beach NWR by Naval operations or potential impacts on the NWSSB mission from USFWS activities. Page 5‐12 Background Report January 2019 Seal Beach NWR protects a portion of the historical Anaheim Bay salt marsh complex Source: Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, May 2012 Maintaining a strong partnership where coordination and communication is at the forefront is the keystone to the future success of both the NWSSB and NWR missions. An example of this partnership, the USFWS coordinated closely with NWSSB in developing the Refuge Conservation Plan (RCP) and the US Navy coordinated closely with Seal Beach NWR in the development of the Installation Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) both of which provide a framework for managing natural resources within the respective properties. Additionally, the NWSSB Installation Development Plan requires that all projects be reviewed for potential impacts to Natural Resources and the NWR. Buffer zones for the NWR are included for any potential project and consultations with the USFWS and/or NOAA/NMFS are required for any project that has the potential to impact endangered species. Monthly coordination meetings between the Navy and Refuge staff provide opportunities to discuss potential impacts of planned projects/activities. The cooperation and communication goes beyond planning and involves implementation actions that are of interest to both organizations such as facility security, pesticide use, environmental restoration activities, endangered species management and cultural resources management actions. The Seal Beach RCP also called for developing an memorandum of understanding (MOU) that describes when and to what extent project coordination would occur between NWSSB and Seal Beach NWR, as well as identify Seal Beach NWR proposals as falling into one of three categories: actions that require no involvement by the Navy; actions that require informing the Navy of a proposed activity or action; and actions that require concurrence from the Navy. In 2014 NWSSB prepared an INRMP that discussed the MOU between NWSSB and Seal Beach NWR and indicated it was in draft form but not yet finalized at that time. The INRMP highlights the importance of no loss of mission capability resulting from the implementation of the INRMP, but it also emphasizes the importance of the installation natural resources as it relates to mission sustainability. Natural resources at NWSSB provide a unique opportunity to protect the installation mission by providing natural areas that help buffer the mission footprint. In addition, the natural resource areas including the Seal Beach NWR can provide relief from intense encroachment that is present in this region of southern California. The NWSSB INRMP vision goal is: This INRMP will provide the guidelines, means, and mechanism for assuring long‐term sustainability and vitality of both the military mission and ecological health of NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach's natural resources. This will be accomplished such that natural resource protection, restoration, and enhancement can proceed consistent with and unhindered toward internal, National Wildlife Refuge, and regional ecosystem management goals for these lands and waters, without current or future compromise or loss to the military mission. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐13 All available Navy and non‐Navy resources, the consensus of resource agencies and the public, and effective communication will be employed to secure seamless management across jurisdictions for the benefit of healthy and sustainable land use, habitats, wetlands, and populations of endangered, threatened, and management focus species. Source: Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Final, January 2014 Encroachment in the form of development is a constant threat to military installations and missions around the country and the Refuge and the installation are in a position to partner together to manage encroachment to the benefit of both their missions. It is important to note that NWSSB provides a “land buffer” for the Seal Beach NWR and that without the installation, the underlying land would likely have been heavily developed. Any significant development would likely have a negative impact on the Refuge. Findings  The Seal Beach NWR is entirely contained with the boundary of the NWSSB.  The Seal Beach NWR includes wetland salt marshes which are important habitat for the endangered California least tern and light‐footed Ridgway’s rail, and also provides quality habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and other water birds.  In 2012 the USFWS prepared a Refuge Conservation Plan that includes a goal of a continued partnership with NWSSB.  The 2014 NWSSB INRMP recognizes the importance of managing natural resources for the benefit of the naval mission at the installation.  The partnership between NWSSB and the Seal Beach NWR provides a unique opportunity for both organizations to work jointly to the benefit of both their missions.  The NWSSB provides a buffer for the Seal Beach NWR by preventing potential development that would likely negatively impact the Refuge. ISSUE BIO-2 Concern with Coyote Population in and Around Seal Beach Community Including NWSSB. Coyote activity in and around the City of Seal Beach is causing safety concerns among residents. Coyotes living in urban areas of southern California have become an unwelcome fact of life for both urban and suburban population areas. According to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), coyote interactions with humans and their pets has been on the increase in southern California. These interactions can include people being bitten and pets being injured or killed. Concerns about coyotes living near people and communities are not new. In 2004, a report titled “Coyote Attacks: An Increasing Suburban Problem” was published by UC Davis that outlined an increase in aggressive coyote behavior toward humans from 1988 to 2003 in southern California. CDFW data for Orange County has shown an increase of reported coyote bites from 3 in 2012 to more than a dozen in 2016. Page 5‐14 Background Report January 2019 A coyote seen near wetlands outside of Seal Beach Source: Los Angeles Times A primary reason for an increase of coyote and human interaction (or any wildlife for that matter) is due to expanding development into areas that had been previously left undeveloped and where coyotes and their prey were prevalent. As regions in Orange County continued to develop, an environment was created that helped certain wildlife flourish including those that the coyote typically preys on. Coyotes are nocturnal and are an important piece to the larger ecosystem in southern California. As they hunt in these areas, they come in contact with humans more often and the coyotes can become less afraid of them (as with most wildlife, the coyote’s natural instinct is to fear man). In addition, human behavior, such as feeding the animals (intentionally or unintentionally) increases the likelihood of interactions and potential problems. Seal Beach and the surrounding communities are not immune to the problem and have been wrestling with the issue for many years. In 2015 the City of Seal Beach adopted a Coyote Management Plan intended to provide a management strategy for dealing with coyotes in the City. The basis of the plan provides a 3‐pronged approach for coyote management:  Education. The education of city staff and residents is one of the most critical aspects of the plan. The goals of educating people include ensuring residents understand what attracts coyotes and how to decrease those attractants; taking steps to increase pet safety; and to try and reshape coyote behavior through hazing. Paramount in this effort to educate is being aware of normal coyote behavior and people having reasonable expectations of dealing with a wild animal.  Enforcement. Enforcing state laws related to coyotes and holding residents accountable for violating those laws, particularly as it relates to feeding wild animals. In this case feeding coyotes or wild animals that coyotes prey on creates a significant problem.  Response. The Coyote Management Plan outlines a four‐tiered response that is implemented when there are coyote and human interactions. The tiering levels (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green) considers the coyote behavior, the type of interaction, and the level of aggressiveness in determining an appropriate response. NWSSB manages wildlife pursuant to the INRMP. Maintaining a self‐sustaining coyote population was prescribed in the Endangered Species Management and Protection Plan (EIS 1990, ROD 1991); this action was intended to counter artificially reduced populations of native coyote that helped manage populations of non‐native red fox and other known predators of endangered species, including the California least tern and the light‐footed Ridgway’s rail. The City of Seal Beach contracts with the City of Long Beach Animal Care Services for responding to animal control needs including instances where coyotes are injured or acting aggressively, and public safety is a concern. A focus of the response is to take action that minimizes impacts to wildlife while ensuing public safety. The City and is support staff must comply with all state and federal laws regarding wildlife management. California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 251.1 does prohibit the harassment, of nongame bird or mammals which is generally defined as an January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐15 intentional act that interferes with an animal's normal behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. This is important from both a State and City perspective as it relates to feeding of wild animals. While coyotes typically feed on small mammals and other wildlife, they are opportunists as well and will take advantage of easily available sources of food and water. The CDFW provides public outreach materials that emphasizes the importance of not feeding coyotes and guidance for residents to take the following proactive steps:  Put garbage in tightly closed containers that cannot be tipped over.  Remove sources of water, especially in dry climates.  Bring pets in at night, and do not leave pet food outside.  Put away bird feeders at night to avoid attracting coyote prey including rodents.  Provide secure enclosures for rabbits, poultry, etc.  Pick up fallen fruit and cover compost piles. Another key technique in managing coyotes that is highlighted in both CFDW guidance and the Seal Beach Coyote Management Plan is referred to hazing. Hazing is basically taking actions that will cause coyotes to be afraid of humans and uncomfortable in situations when people are nearby. It basically causes the coyote to revert to its natural state of being fearful of people. Hazing involves acting aggressively towards the coyote by yelling, throwing objects, looking directly at the animal and using posture that makes a person look as large as possible. Hazing activities must be regular and consistent for coyote behavior towards humans to change and to be installed in their offspring. Under California law, coyotes have no special protection and can be killed or trapped as long as no associated local, state or federal laws are violated. A significant problem in managing coyotes through more direct means such as killing them is that the species will reproduce quickly when adequate food, water and suitable habitat is available. Coyotes will migrate into available areas from other locations, so managing by individual locations may have limited results. Coyotes cannot be relocated without specific approval from CDFW, so moving them out of one area and placing in other locations is not generally an option. According to the 2015 NWSSB Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) coyotes have historically had a presence on the installation and was the dominant predator up until the 1990’s when non‐native species including the red fox and feral cat assumed that role. According to the INRMP, NWSSB supports a resident coyote population of about one dozen animals. This does not include transient populations of coyotes that may be in the area. The INRMP states that the coyote population “may swell considerably” when non‐resident coyotes transit the installation. NWSSB does take necessary actions to manage nuisance or aggressive coyotes in accordance with state / federal regulations. Hunting and trapping of wildlife including coyotes is not authorized on NWSSB, however coyotes can be killed or relocated on‐site in accordance with California State law or relocated off‐site with permission from CDFW. Coyotes can also pose a threat to endangered species, in particular the California Least Tern, on NWSSB and the Seal Beach NWR. The Seal Beach NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) does note the presence of coyotes on the Refuge. The CCP also states that in accordance with the 1991 USFWS / Navy Endangered Species Management and Protection Plan, a key goal that was established and achieved was the reestablishment of a healthy coyote population. The coyote is considered an important species to help maintain a healthy predator balance on the Seal Beach NWR and keep non‐native predators such as the red fox in check. In managing the Seal Beach NWR the USFWS must abide by and comply with all applicable federal laws. The Seal Beach NWR manages the coyote population to maintain a healthy population that can be supported within Page 5‐16 Background Report January 2019 the Refuge. Population management techniques include killing and trapping coyotes when required. Findings  Coyotes continue to be prevalent in southern California and because of development the interactions between coyotes and people has risen.  Both Orange County and the City of Seal Beach have seen an increase in coyote / human incidents including people being bitten and pets being killed.  The City of Seal Beach developed a Coyote Management Plan in 2015 to help manage the coyote problem in the City.  The City Plan focuses on education, enforcement and response as it relates to coyotes and people and their interactions. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife also actively manages coyote populations and works with State residents to minimize impacts associated with coyote and human interactions.  People feeding coyotes and / or coyote prey is a major problem that impacts the ability to manage coyotes in urban / suburban areas.  Hazing / harassing coyotes is one of the emphasized approaches to modifying coyote behavior and minimize coyote / human interactions.  The NWSSB INRMP indicates there is a minimal resident coyote population on the installation that may swell when transient coyotes pass through.  The Seal Beach NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan notes coyotes are an important presence on the Refuge to help maintain a healthy predator balance and keep non‐native predators in check. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐17 5.4. Coordination / Communication Interagency communication serves the general welfare by promoting a more comprehensive planning process inclusive of all affected stakeholders. Interagency coordination also seeks to develop and include mutually beneficial policies for both communities and the military in local planning documents such as comprehensive plans. ISSUE COM-1 There is a Need for Enhanced Engagement for Sharing Information Regarding Future Changes to the NWSSB Mission. Future changes to the NWSSB mission creates potential engagement opportunities for coordinating and partnering with jurisdictions and organizations to educate the public. There is an opportunity for outreach to enhance communication between City staff and the public which could dispel perceptions that changes in operations at NWSSB could bring larger ships for a prolonged amount of time that would further disrupt the water view shed. There is a positive ongoing working relationship between the City of Seal Beach and NWSSB and the public. The Public Affairs Officer (PAO) serves as the primary point of contact for the base. There is a desire is to have a mutually‐agreed upon standardized relationship between all communities surrounding NWSSB. Only having an informal relationship for the provision of certain services addressed when needed can limit the development of a strong relationship from which to develop mutually beneficial partnerships that could result in numerous opportunities. In addition, an isolated relationship does not lend itself to garnering support from the community in military mission related issues or encouraging awareness about the military mission in the local area. The City of Seal Beach has a designated Planning Area in its General Plan for NWSSB and has established a policy addressing the desire to improve the quality of life for both military and civilian personnel through proper planning, but there are no other policies or goals identified in the General Plan that encourage and facilitate improved communication and coordination with the military. Without formal policies, guidance, and provisions for communication and coordination, then improved communication and strengthened coordination is only likely to occur due to interpersonal relationships between the military and civilian personnel. The lack of a formal guiding document designed to improve and strengthen the communication network can potentially result in lost partnership opportunities between the Navy and the communities. This can also result in delayed response times and delays in managing or addressing issues that may arise. The delays in responding to issues could result in delays or postponement of military operations at NWSSB. Compatibility Assessment The Navy employs a Community Planning Liaison Officer (CPLO) whose responsibility is to engage with local / state governments and other stakeholders on issues involving community planning efforts that have the potential to encroach or impede on the Navy’s mission. The CPLO represents the Installation Commanding Officer to stakeholders on all encroachment matters, and coordinates and implements all encroachment planning for the installation in support of its tenant commands. The Navy has an internal process in which encroachment is assessed from the inside out, which results in an internal planning document for the Navy. This internal NWSSB planning document is called an Encroachment Action Plan (EAP). NWSSB recently prepared an update to their Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) for FY 2017. Available for public consumption are brochures summarizing the EIA highlighting the economic benefit that the installation contributes to the regional economy. The brochures also describe NWSSB’s military mission and community involvement. Page 5‐18 Background Report January 2019 California Government Code Sections 65352, 65404, 65940, and 65944 require communication between jurisdictions and military installations if one of three or all three of the below listed criteria are present related to land use / development planning actions. The three criteria are triggered, if a proposed development or land use action is:  located within 1,000 feet of a military installation boundary,  located under a special use airspace, and / or  located under a low‐level flight corridor. According to the state law, the City of Seal Beach is required to communicate with the military prior to any final decision about proposed land use actions that occur within 1,000 feet of the installation boundary. While the City of Seal Beach has a good informal relationship with NWSSB, the requirement for or specified procedures relating to communication is not formalized in an agreement, General Plan, or Zoning Ordinance. Thus, in the event of both military and community personnel vacate positions, there is no formal document that identifies points of contact and roles and responsibilities for either the city or Navy to which the city and the Navy station would continue the working relationship. In other words, the Navy‐community relationship is subject to personalities, understanding of cultural norms, and support for the military mission. The City of Seal Beach General Plan has one policy that encourages the improvement of quality of life for both community and military personnel through proper planning, however, it does not state what will improve quality of life. The policy also does not define what “proper planning” is and what it includes regarding stakeholders and public involvement. In addition, the City has not established formal regulations that delineate procedures or the requirements for coordinating and communicating with the installation about proposed land use actions within 1,000 feet of the installation boundary. The City of Long Beach recognizes the importance of protecting military installations and valuable resources associated with military training. Although the City of Long Beach is not directly within 1,000 feet of NWSSB, under a restricted airspace, or under a low‐level military training route associated with the NWSSB mission, the city recognizes the need to have open space and define it as multi‐purpose including protecting military assets by utilizing the open space as a buffer. Findings  NWSSB has a CPLO responsible for engaging with stakeholders and coordinating with local community planning offices.  The City of Seal Beach has not established regulations for the coordination and communication efforts relative to long‐term planning between the military and community.  The City of Long Beach is not directly impacted by NWSSB, but the City has recognized the importance of the state law by establishing a guideline about the purpose of open space, stating that it could be used as a buffer to protect military assets. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐19 5.5 Cultural Resources Cultural resources are an aspect of a cultural system that is valued by or significantly representative of a culture or contain significant information about a culture. A cultural resource may be a tangible entity or a cultural practice. Tangible cultural resources are categorized as artifacts, records, districts, pre‐contact archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Historic properties are cultural resources that are eligible or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Cultural resources may prevent development, require development constraints, or require special access by Native American tribal governments or other authorities. Cultural resources on NWSSB are managed through an Integrated Resource Management Plan. There is potential to engage the City and Navy in Cultural Resource management issues, such as Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and archaeological site interpretation. Data sharing between the Navy and City may be beneficial as well. There were no issues identified for Cultural Resources for the NWSSB JLUS. Page 5‐20 Background Report January 2019 5.6 Dust / Smoke / Steam Dust results from the suspension of particulate matter in the air. Dust and smoke can be created by fire (agricultural burning and artillery exercises), ground disturbance (agricultural activities, military operations, grading), industrial activities, or other similar processes. Dust, smoke and steam are compatibility issues if sufficient in quantity to impact flight operations (such as reduced visibility or cause equipment damage). Technical Background Particles of dust and other materials found in the air are referred to as particulate matter. The term PM‐10 refers to particulate matter less than ten microns in size. At certain concentrations, this particulate matter can be harmful to humans and animals if inhaled causing strain on the heart and lungs which provide oxygen to the body. PM‐10 can be caused by many activities, including driving on unpaved roads and surfaces, wind erosion from unpaved vacant lots, disruption of land from vehicle maneuvers, explosions, aircraft operations, and other earth‐moving activities such as construction, demolition, and grading. Its primary source is typically the exhaust emitted by vehicles, wood burning, and industrial processes. However, prescribed burns, agricultural burning and even wildfires can contribute to the creation of particulate matter. Prescribed burning is intended to eliminate an invasive weed species and restore the areas natural ecosystem. By applying this method, wildfires have a less chance of occurring. This style of burning is required to report the date of the burn, acreage, type of fuel to be used, and the estimated emissions. Key Terms Particulate Matter (PM). Particulate matter consists of fine metal, smoke, soot, and dust particles suspended in the air. Particulate Matter is measured by two sizes: Course particles (PM10), or particles between 2.6 and 10 micrometers in diameter in size, and fine particles (PM2.5), or particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. ISSUE DSS-1 NWSSB Out-Leases Over 2,000 Acres of Property in the Safety Buffer Zone for Agricultural Uses, which has the Potential to Generate Fugitive Dust. NWSSB out-leases over 2,000 acres of property in the safety buffer zone for agricultural uses. According to the Installation Development Plan, the NWSSB Seal Beach out‐leases land within the installation to two local growers for agricultural production. The land is divided into two areas referred to as “South Ag Lease” and “North Ag Lease” and are is separated by Westminster Boulevard. The fees created through these leases provide for upkeep and maintenance on the installation. The growers cultivate a variety of crops on the land including barley, green beans, celery, strawberries, and cabbage. The North Ag Lease’s northern boundary is I‐405. Additionally, crop heights are limited to maintain line‐of‐sight for installation security forces. NWSSB has an objective to increase organic farming and expand biological practices, in an effort to minimize water consumption and chemical usage. The lease agreements include provisions to encourage sustainable farming practices and expand certified organic fields. Lease revenues have been reinvested, resulting in the installation of a new well to replace an aging well and improving irrigation water quality. One farmer uses drip irrigation to minimize water usage, along with beneficial insects to avoid the use of chemical herbicides and pesticides. Compatibility Assessment There is a concern that agricultural activities on the outleased property will create dust that may create safety concerns on the roadways in the area. Dust clouds caused by typical agricultural activities, also called fugitive dust, can negatively affect sensitive receptors, which include residential areas, schools, hospitals and nursing facilities, day cares, etc. The installation is aware of the concerns regarding fugitive dust and actively works towards January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐21 mitigating any negative impacts that dust may have. As such, the agricultural leases NWSSB have prepared specify that farmers cannot till in wind conditions over five knots or after 1:00 p.m., whichever comes first. The installation does not conduct any controlled burning or conduct artillery exercises that would contribute to fugitive dust. Findings  NWSSB leases out over 2,000 acres of land for agricultural purposes.  NWSSB agricultural leases prevent farmers from tilling in wind conditions over five knots or after 1:00 p.m. Page 5‐22 Background Report January 2019 5.7 Energy Development Development of energy sources, including alternative energy sources (such as solar and wind) could pose compatibility issues related to glare (solar energy), or vertical obstruction (wind generation), or frequency interference. The moving blades of a wind turbine create a Doppler effect that can interfere with radio transmissions and radar systems. The impacts to radar are increased with the height of the turbines and the number and clustering of wind turbines; however, the greatest impact is caused by their location in proximity to the radar system. Although research is still being conducted, it is not fully known how tall, large, or how many wind turbines must be present to interfere since a radar system may be severely impacted by even a minor interference. Additionally, wind turbines can be located offshore along with other forms of marine renewable energy which can impact navigable waters or radio transmissions if not properly coordinated. Key Terms Alternative Energy. The term alternative energy is applied broadly to energy derived from renewable sources (e.g., solar, biomass, wind). ISSUE ED-1 Energy Development Coordination. There are no formal procedures for coordinated alternative energy development proposals with the DoD and NWSSB. Compatibility Assessment California has very progressive renewable energy standards in place. By 2020, California looks to have 1/3 of energy production from wind, solar, and other renewable sources. As California continues to build its renewable energies future, Orange County could be tapped as a potential site for production facilities, although siting of these operations would likely occur in less developed parts of the State. In addition, the waters off the Central California coast have the potential for numerous types of energy development. High off‐shore wind speeds also create favorable conditions for wind energy production. The potential for alternative energy development in the JLUS Study Area includes solar, and wind. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, land in the JLUS Study Area has been identified as having a moderate to high potential for solar energy generation, and good potential (receiving less than 7.8 meters per second (m/s)) for wind energy on and offshore. In accordance with NAVSEA OP‐5, any potential alternative energy projects located on NWSSB would require assessment for compatibility with mission operations to include ordnance activities. Solar energy development in the JLUS Study Area is more probable as it is estimated that the area receives between 5.02 and 50.5 kilowatt‐hours per square meter per day. This is slightly above the moderate level, which could result in successful solar energy developments. Working together, the Navy and the State of California are using sustainable energy to increase the resiliency and energy and water security of their installations throughout California, while aiding the state's leadership in achieving its energy and environmental goals, for the benefit of all Californians. The Department of the Navy (DoN) signed an agreement with Recurrent Energy to site a 50‐megawatt (MW) battery storage facility on 60 acres of land at NWSSB. The duration of the agreement is currently in question; however, project will provide energy storage capabilities, promoting electrical grid stability in the Orange County region. The announcement of this project helps to further solidify the collaborative efforts between the Department of the Navy and the state of California. Section 358 of the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act pertains to studying the impacts of the development of new energy production facilities on military operations and readiness. The Energy Siting Clearinghouse serves to coordinate the DoD review of existing applications for energy January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐23 projects. Several key elements of Section 358 include designation of a senior official and lead organization to conduct the review of energy project applications, a 30‐day time frame for completion of a hazard assessment associated with an application, specific criteria for DoD objections to projects and a requirement to provide an annual status report to Congress. This legislation facilitates procedural certainty and a predictable process that promotes compatibility between energy independence and military capability. The DoD Siting Clearinghouse reviews applications for renewable energy development including wind, solar, biomass, and transmission, utility, and power lines projects. The State of California has a permitting process through the California State Lands Commission for surface and submerged lands, geothermal, mineral, or oil and gas leases. For alternative energy development, these are limited to offering tax exemptions and credits to businesses related to the generation of clean energy. Coordination on the Application for lease of State Lands form require developers to list applications submitted to other agencies and provides examples including US Army Corps of Engineers and local/regional planning bodies. Neither Orange County, nor the City of Seal Beach has regulations for the siting of alternative energy developments. In October 2015, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 350 to codify ambitious climate and clean energy goals. One key provision of SB 350 is for retail sellers, and publicly owned utilities to procure a goal of half of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030. This ambitious commitment to renewable energy development has proven to be an incentive for developers to ambitiously pursue opportunities both on the installation and in the surrounding communities of NWSSB. The installation is supportive of the State’s energy goals as seen in the partnership with DoN and Recurrent Energy. Alternative energy projects in the JLUS Study Area must comply with NEPA and/or CEQA depending on the specific project and funding sources. This helps ensure both NWSSB and local communities account for any impacts resulting from any renewable energy projects. Findings  Alternative energy projects are becoming more prevalent in the State of California.  The JLUS Study Area has potential to house alternative energy projects, such as solar energy development.  The DoD has methods in place to review applications for energy project applications and the State of California has a permitting process; however, there is no coordination at the local level. Page 5‐24 Background Report January 2019 5.8 Frequency Spectrum Capacity Frequency spectrum refers to the range of electromagnetic waves capable of carrying signals for point‐to‐point wireless communications. In a defined area, the frequency spectrum is limited and increasing demand for frequency bandwidth from commercial applications such as cellular phones, computer networking, GPS units, and mobile radios, is in direct competition with the capacity necessary for maintaining existing and future missions and communications on installations. ISSUE FSC-1 Potential for Cell Towers to Impact Frequency. Cell tower permits have been trending upwards in the City of Seal Beach, leading to increased cell tower development in the public right-of-way. This has the potential to lead to frequency conflict or competition. Through the stakeholder interviews, it was identified that there is currently electromagnetic interference along Seal Beach Boulevard. The interference has caused garage doors to malfunction, opening and closing at random and not opening at all. The military's uninterrupted use of frequency spectrum is required for safe and effective testing and operations. The military’s frequency spectrum needs for testing, evaluation, and training are generally increasing, while the spectrum available for DoD use is generally decreasing. Any device that uses the electromagnetic spectrum to perform its primary function can be described as spectrum dependent. These devices include transmitters, receivers, and, in some applications, a transmitter and receiver combined in the same unit called a transceiver. The two federal agencies that authorize the use of the electromagnetic spectrum are the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). According to the NTIA Office of Spectrum Management: “Almost every agency of the federal government uses the spectrum in performing mandated missions. The DoD uses the spectrum extensively for tactical and non‐tactical uses. In the United States tactical uses are generally limited to a number of specific testing sites and training facilities, but DoD's non‐tactical applications are extensive and include aircraft command and control, mobile communication in and around military bases, and air field and long‐distance communications using satellites.” Frequency interference is related to other transmission sources. Interference can result from a number of factors:  Using a new transmission frequency that is near an existing frequency;  Reducing the distance between two antennas transmitting on a similar frequency;  Increasing the power of a similar transmission signal;  Using poorly adjusted transmission devices that transmit outside their assigned frequency or produce an electromagnetic signal that interferes with a signal transmission; and  Using existing electronic sources created by portable systems that affect entire communities utilizing Wi‐Fi broadband systems and industrial sources that produce electronic noise by‐product. Compatibility Assessment Because Radio Frequency (RF) is a valuable and limited resource, its use is regulated by the government. However, not all equipment that uses RF energy is required to have a license or assignment. Part 15 is the portion of the FCC rules that regulates the unlicensed radio frequency devices. Electronics that use RF to operate are referred to as “Part 15 devices”. Because of their limited, ultra‐low power outputs, they are conditionally permitted to operate in almost all RF bands. Part 15 devices are common commercial items such as garage door openers, remote controls for January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐25 electronic equipment, and similar commercially available equipment that operate at ultra‐low power output in almost all of the frequency bands, including those dominated and heavily utilized by DoD. Part 15 devices use the same RF resources as the licensed users of the electromagnetic spectrum, including the DoD, fire stations, hospitals, and police forces. The City of Seal Beach Zoning Ordinance has provisions for the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities and includes regulations for height and placement:  A freestanding antenna or monopole shall not exceed the height limit of the applicable base district zone in which the antenna or monopole is located.  Wireless telecommunications facilities mounted on an existing tower or monopole structure may exceed the height of the existing structure by 5 feet, up to the maximum height allowed by the applicable base district zone, if camouflaged as part of the structure design.  Set back from any adjacent property line a minimum distance that is equal to 110 percent of the height of the facility (including attached antennae) or a minimum distance equal to the building setback for the district in which it is located, whichever is greater. NWSSB’s large operational area both on‐ and offshore and large number of spectrum users increases the probability of interference due to proximate Part 15 devices. Although malfunction of Part 15 devices may be disruptive and a public nuisance, by definition, users of Part 15 devices must accept any interference that may occur from the authorized users of radio frequencies, such as by the military or other government entities. Mitigation measures are available to the consumer such as installation of filters between wireless routers or the use of different channels for certain devices. Manufacturers of garage door openers have been actively engaged with working with the DoD to develop technologies that reduce or avoid the potential for garage door malfunctions and may be able to provide a retrofit to allow operation on a frequency that is not used by the local military in certain circumstances and locations proximate to military installations. Findings  Cell Towers in Seal Beach are causing interference with nearby electronics.  Part 15 devices use the same RF resources as the DoD.  The City of Seal Beach Zoning Ordinance has regulations for wireless communications facilities, but they do not directly pertain to NWSSB. Page 5‐26 Background Report January 2019 5.9 Frequency Spectrum Impedance / Interference Frequency spectrum is the entire range of electromagnetic frequencies used for communications and other transmissions, which includes communication channels for radio, cellular phones, and television. In the performance of typical operations, the military relies on a range of frequencies for communications and support systems. Similarly, public and private users rely on a range of frequencies in the use of cellular telephones and other wireless devices on a daily basis. The military's use of frequency spectrum allows for safe operations and the effective delivery of weapons on target without interference. The military’s frequency spectrum needs for testing, evaluation, and training is constantly increasing, while the spectrum available for DoD use is decreasing. There were no issues identified for Frequency Spectrum Impedance / Interference for the NWSSB JLUS. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐27 5.10 Housing Availability Housing availability addresses the supply and demand for housing in the region, the competition for housing that may result from changes in quantity of military personnel, and the supply of military family housing provided by the installation. ISSUE HA-1 Limited Housing Inventory in Seal Beach and Surrounding Communities. In Seal Beach and surrounding communities, there is a lack of moderate-to-low income housing that would support military personnel and civilians, which may be an impediment to retaining and attracting personnel, and thus, affect the mission. Compatibility Assessment Moderate‐to‐low income housing in Seal Beach is limited. NWSSB directly employs 433 civilians and1,316 military personnel, including reservists, and creates an additional 1,383 jobs related to operations and payroll. There are only 107 homes available for rent on NWSSB, therefore most personnel must find housing off‐installation. Table 5.10‐1 shows the value of the owner‐occupied housing units in Seal Beach. As the table shows, the majority of the owner‐occupied units in the city cost $300,000 or more. The City of Seal Beach has a total of 13,702 housing units. Of those there are 12,837 owner‐occupied units and 1,315 renter‐occupied units. According to the US Census Bureau, the median monthly rent in 2016 was $1,678. Table 5.10‐1. Owner Occupied Unit Value Owner‐Occupied Housing Value Number of Units Less than $50,000 187 $50,000 to $99,000 686 $100,000 to $149,000 1,022 $150,000 to $199,000 1,304 $200,000 to $299.000 1,374 $300,000 to $499,000 980 $500,000 to $999,000 2,722 $1,000,000 or More 981 TOTAL 9,256 Source: American Community Services, 2012 – 2016 Estimates. Findings  There are 107 homes for rent on‐installation.  The majority of owner‐occupied units in seal beach cost $300,000 or more.  Average monthly rent was $1,678 in 2016. Page 5‐28 Background Report January 2019 5.11 Infrastructure Extensions Infrastructure refers to public facilities and services such as potable water, sewers, electric, and roadways that are necessary to support community development (existing and proposed). Public facilities and services should be appropriate for the type of urban or rural development they serve, but also limited to the existing and planned needs and requirements of the area. For example, a rural community with a relatively small population typically would not require an expansive transportation network with roadways having three to four lanes traveling in each direction. More appropriate for this type of community would be a roadway network consisting of one to two lanes in each direction. When facilities and services are scaled appropriately, it means that resources are being allocated and invested in efficiently within a community. Infrastructure plays an important role in land use compatibility. Infrastructure can enhance the operations of an installation and community by providing needed services, such as sanitary sewer treatment and transportation systems. Conversely, infrastructure can create encroachment issues if expanded without consideration of the consequences of future development. The extension or expansion of community infrastructure to a military installation or areas proximate to an installation has the potential to induce growth, potentially resulting in incompatible uses and conflicts between a military mission and communities. Within comprehensive planning, infrastructure extensions can serve as a mechanism to guide development into appropriate areas, protect sensitive land uses, and improve opportunities for compatibility between community land uses and military missions. Another important aspect to infrastructure extensions is when one community is providing another jurisdiction with utilities or utilities support. This includes instances where military installations may be receiving utilities from or through a local jurisdiction. In these situations, there must be a close working relationship and communication / coordination to ensure there are no instances where one party is unaware of an action being taken by the other party. ISSUE IE-1 Opportunity to Codify Early (Prior to Environmental Review) Coordination Between the Navy and the City of Seal Beach Regarding Infrastructure Extensions. The City of Seal Beach provides the installation with utilities and as such should be included in the Navy’s long-range plans for expanding infrastructure. However, there is an opportunity (prior to environmental review) to formalize coordination between the Navy and the city, which can prevent delays in executing certain mission infrastructure expansion. NWSSB receives utilities from local communities and other organizations operating in the southern California region. Southern California Edison provides electrical power, Southern California Gas provides natural gas, Orange County Sanitation District provides sanitary sewer service and the City of Seal Beach provides potable water. NWSSB is responsible for the utility infrastructure located on the installation. This includes developing and maintaining the various utilities infrastructure on the installation to support current and future mission needs. Other than an on‐installation water storage tank owned by the City of Seal Beach, the potable water distribution infrastructure at NWSSB, including the piping, valves, backflow preventer, etc., is owned, operated and maintained by the Navy. As mentioned in the introduction of this Section, when two separate organizations are involved with providing / receiving utilities, it is vital that there is a good working relationship and sharing of information and plans between those organizations. For example, if the City of Seal Beach has to interrupt water service for maintenance or repairs, NWSSB needs to be aware of that as early as possible in order to ensure they can plan for the January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐29 temporary outage. When NWSSB is planning future mission changes that may require changes to the potable water infrastructure, the City of Seal Beach should be involved in the planning process at the earliest stages. Changes to the infrastructure may be due to necessary distribution system expansions, rerouting of distribution lines, or even reductions in the distribution system capacity. In some instances, NWSSB may need to ensure the City is notified in advance of any planned water distribution system major maintenance that has the potential to affect the water delivery capabilities, both the infrastructure and the potable water commodity, off base. Compatibility Assessment Most major actions at NWSSB require some level of environmental review as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires federal agencies, including the Navy to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions. This would include major actions that involve changes to the NWSSB water distribution system. Public involvement including stakeholders are required to be included in the process as applicable. While NEPA is intended to be initiated as early as possible in the planning process, it typically begins after some level of basic analysis / planning has begun in regards to what is needed, where it is needed, when it is needed and, in some cases, how the action is to be accomplished. If the City of Seal Beach is notified by NWSSB of a planned action related to the installation water infrastructure as part of the NEPA process, it may be too late for the City to provide early inputs into the conceptual / early planning and design effort. Because the City is providing the water and owns the water storage tank on the installation, not being involved at the earliest stages of the effort may cause issues for the City and impact the Navy’s ability to complete the work according to a desired schedule and budget. This same approach for NWSSB to coordinate / communicate as early as possible with other off base organizations that provide utilities / utilities support, will ensure minimal impacts and delays to the installation mission. One method of accomplishing this is to share portions of the installation’s capital improvement plan with key organizations including the City of Seal Beach, that they can then use in their planning of how the utility commodity is provided or off base infrastructure that may require modification to support the Navy. The City of Seal Beach General Plan Land Use Element includes the following provision: The City will work with the Department of the Navy in a cooperative manner as the Navy considers and implements programs to accomplish the following goals and policies of the Department of the Navy:  Propose new facilities that are sited to take advantage of existing infrastructure and circulation systems to avoid duplication of expenditures.  Develop a capital improvement plan (CIP) with appropriate recommendations for phasing that will accommodate anticipated development projects in terms of temporal, physical and financial constraints. Findings  The City of Seal Beach provides potable water to NWSSB and owns the water storage tank located on the installation.  NWSSB owns, operates and maintains the potable water distribution system on the installation. NWSSB is responsible for ensuring the water infrastructure provides adequate support for current / future mission needs. Page 5‐30 Background Report January 2019  NWSSB is responsible for conducting the NEPA review process for major actions that involve the potable water distribution system located on the base. The City of Seal Beach would be included in the environmental review process for water infrastructure as they are a stakeholder.  Typically, the environmental review process may be too late for the City of Seal Beach to provide input or influence the conceptual / early planning design efforts of the proposed project.  To avoid potential schedule and budget impacts, the City of Seal Beach should be involved at the earliest possible stage of any potable water projects that NWSSB is planning. This same approach for other utilities provided by off base organizations will minimize potential impacts to the NWSSB mission.  The City of Seal Beach General Plan includes provisions to work with the Navy to develop a CIP that accommodates future development and to site new facilities in a manner that leverages existing infrastructure. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐31 5.12 Land / Air / Sea Space Competition The military manages or uses land, air, and sea space to accomplish testing, training, and operational missions. These resources must be available and of a sufficient size, cohesiveness, and quality to accommodate effective training and testing. Military and civilian air and sea operations can compete for limited air and sea space, especially when the usage areas are in close proximity to each other. Use of this shared resource can impact future growth in operations for all users. ISSUE LAS-1 Use of Marina and Waterways for Military Operations and Recreational Activities. The Cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach have abundant natural seaside resources for the community including providing waterways for military operations and resources for water-related recreational activities, e.g. surfing. Compatibility Assessment Seal Beach, Long Beach, and Huntington Beach are all popular destinations for beach related activities. According to the Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce, the city draws around 1 million tourists per year. The wharf in Anaheim Bay is used for loading munitions, supporting the installation’s mission. The wharf serves as the onloading and offloading location for ordnance for a majority of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Munition is loaded and offloaded from combatants and barges. The bay itself, is shared by Navy vessels and civilian / commercial boats from the nearby Huntington Harbour and local public launch facilities. The comingling of Navy, civilian, and commercial vessels can cause impacts to the public using the area for recreation. Additionally, there is an AT / FP concerns due to security. According to the NWSSB Installation Development Plan (IDP), the potential for security threats from civilian boat access to the installation is a critical issue. Findings  The City of Seal Beach draws in around 1 million tourists per year.  The wharf is used by the Navy for munition loading and unloading.  The bay is shared used by Navy, commercial, and civilian vessels.  The sharing of the bay with the public can cause delays to public recreation as well as causing AT/FP concerns. ISSUE LAS-2 Opportunity to Partner with NWSSB. NWSSB can leverage its size to partner with neighboring communities. A recent example is the community pool agreement with the City of Seal Beach. Compatibility Assessment The installation has the opportunity to take advantage of its size and unique location through partnerships with the community. One way the installation can leverage its assets is through the use of enhanced use leases (EULs). EULs present an opportunity to help fund new construction or renovations on federally owned property. Under an EUL, the Navy would retain control over the leased property and the developer retains a lease interest only. The advantages for the military include expediting alterations, repairs, or new construction so that the improved space becomes available for lease. In‐kind considerations or cash to no less than the fair market value of the property is provided in return by the developer. Some partnerships are developed through official US Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Service programs, such as an Educational Partnership Agreement (EPA) or a Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) partnership project, while others are at a local level and may be more informal agreements with the community. The nature of the need and functional or service area determines which types of approach might be best. Agreement vehicles include: contracts, memorandum of agreement Page 5‐32 Background Report January 2019 (MOA), memorandum of understanding (MOU). Benefits to partnership include:  Improved military mission and readiness.  Economic benefits, including cost savings, earnings, and cost avoidance.  Improved installation and community operations, facilities, infrastructure, workforce, and services.  Access to additional capacity in resources, skills, expertise, facilities, and infrastructure.  Improved strategic regional collaboration.  Improved government and community relationships.  Enhanced outreach to military personnel and their families and communities.  Energy and environmental benefits.  Facilitator and political help with federal, state, and local governments and other organizations.  Helping maintain community character and way of life.  It is recommended that NWSSB and partners explore initiatives and opportunities in the following categories that generate the most costs savings or avoidance:  The installation partner provides a service at a lower cost than the installation had been paying.  The installation stopped providing the service (which may include the installation closing a facility) and is relying on the partner to provide the service with little to no payment.  The installation leases or sells land or another high‐value asset in exchange for monetary or in‐kind payments.  The community funds an installation service or the construction of an installation facility.  The installation experiences cost avoidance because the partner provides additional capacity to the installation. Findings  The installation has the opportunity to leverage its assets through EULs and other local partnerships. ISSUE LAS-3 Proposed Class IV Bike Track Along the South Side of Pacific Coast Highway. Possibly an encroachment concern of incompatible design if not coordinated with NWSSB. Compatibility Assessment In 2016, the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) prepared the Pacific Coast Highway Corridor Study. The portion of the Pacific Coast Highway that travels through Seal Beach is primarily a 4‐lane travel through corridor with existing congestion that is expected to worsen in the future. The study identifies that there are conflicts between bicyclists / pedestrians and vehicles moving at high speeds. Areas with bus stops and on‐street parking as well as intersections with right turns are also concerns with bicyclists / pedestrians. One of the proposed solutions is to install a buffered Class IV Separated Bikeway along the southwest side of the Pacific Coast Highway in Seal Beach. Northbound travel would be supplemented with a bike lane as well. The Class IV bikeway is one of three proposed alternatives for the highway. Class IV bikeways include the following design elements:  Exclusive lane for bicycles.  Lane is physically removed from vehicular traffic. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐33  Separation may include grade separation, flexible posts, and inflexible barriers.  Can provide one‐way or two‐way travel. Caltrans maintains and operates the section of PCH traversing NWSSB under a road easement with the Navy. Any future proposed improvements affecting the current configurations of PCH, including the bridge structures over Kitts Highway and Anaheim Bay, would have to be coordinated with the Navy. The base employs a Community Planning Liaison Officer (CPLO) charged with engaging local / state governments over planning issues that could impact the installation. CPLO has frequent communication with OCTA, OC Parks, and Caltrans regarding the proposed Class IV bike path. Findings  Proposed Class IV bikeway along the Pacific Coast Highway.  The CPLO coordinates with local and state governments regarding planning issues that could impact the installation.  The segment of PCH through NWSSB is maintained and operated under a road easement with the Navy. ISSUE LAS-4 Operational Concerns Related to Close Proximity of Mission to National Wildlife Area. There is concern that there is potential for reduced operational capacity at the Small Arms Range due to the proximity of a refuge viewing area. Compatibility Assessment NWSSB is home to one of four small arms ranges that support the Third Fleet. The small arms range is located near the wildlife refuge, specifically, the area used to monitor the California least tern habitat during nesting season. The least tern has been included on the U.S. federal endangered species list. Procedures are in place to support the monitoring during range operations, which continue through the breeding season. The range is an important facility for the Navy as it helps personnel meet training and certification requirements. This issue was identified as “critical” in the NWSSB Encroachment Action Plan. Findings  Interruption in training can lead to decreased operational capacity at NWSSB. ISSUE LAS-5 Changes in the Long Beach Breakwater Would Impact Mission Requirements. A feasibility study currently underway considers alternatives that would modify the Long Beach Breakwater. Modification to the breakwater would increase wave action, impacting the Navy’s ability to transfer ordnance at the anchorage. Compatibility Assessment The Long Beach breakwater was built as a part of the deep‐water port project that also included the San Pedro and Middle Breakwaters. A breakwater is a barrier built into a body of water to protect the coast / harbor from waves. The Long Beach Breakwater started construction in 1941 and was finished in 1949. The breakwater was originally built for naval purposes at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. However, since the installation’s closure in 1997 as part of the DoD’s base realignment and closure (BRAC) program, the City of Long Beach has conducted various studies surrounding the reconfiguration of the breakwater. In 2016, the City and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers signed a cost‐sharing agreement to begin a Feasibility Study, focusing on restoration of East San Pedro Bay ecosystem. The Study, while still in preparation, proposes two alternatives that would modify the Long Beach Breakwater. Page 5‐34 Background Report January 2019 The Delta 8 (D‐8) explosives anchorage inside the Long Beach Breakwater is required for Navy contingency operations in support of the National Defense Strategy. The D‐8 explosives anchorage is a unique national asset, strategically located to support the Pacific Fleet, homeported in San Diego. A concern for the Navy over the removal or modification of the breakwater is the resulting increase in wave height and energy, which would increase the risk of performing Navy ordnance and fuel transfer operations at the D‐8 anchorage. The primary mission of NWSSB is to provide shore‐based infrastructure that supports the Navy’s ordnance mission. An important piece to this mission is the offshore anchorage sites located outside Anaheim Bay. Figure 5.12‐1 the offshore anchorage areas used by NWSSB in relation to the Long Beach breakwater. A concern for the Navy over the removal of the breakwater is a rise in the sea state. This could lead to impacts in the ammunition transfer at explosives anchorages. Findings  A Feasibility Study is currently being prepared, which includes two alternatives that propose to modify the Long Beach Breakwater.  Modification of the LB Breakwater would severely impact the Navy’s operational readiness, including the ability to respond during a time of national or international crisis. ISSUE LAS-6 Offshore Oil Development May Impact Navy. The U.S. Secretary of the Interior has announced a plan for the exploration of oil and gas. There is concern that the exploration of oil and gas could lead to offshore development. Compatibility Assessment In January of 2018, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior announced plans to offer new leases for offshore drilling in 90 percent of federal waters. According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, there is an estimated 5.32 billion barrels of “undiscovered technically recoverable” oil off the southern California coastline. This is oil that is postulated, on the basis of geologic knowledge and theory, to exist and is extractable using currently available technology and industry practices. Similarly, there is an estimated 7.76 trillion cubic feet in natural gas off the coastline. If these estimates are correct, offshore extraction of these resources would be warranted. There is concern that continued research into offshore oil and natural gas resources could lead to the development of offshore rigging and extraction facilities near the installation. Development would be in the form of an oil platform, or rig. Offshore energy production has been noted previously as potentially disruptive to military training activities elsewhere in the country. In 2005, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated that offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico would be incompatible with military activities in the area. Similarly, rigging off the southern Californian coast has the potential to be disruptive to existing sea lanes used by the Navy Pacific Fleet. Findings  It is estimated that there are ample offshore resources to warrant extraction.  Offshore development could be disruptive to ships accessing the installation. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐35 Lo s Ang ele sLo s Ang ele sCo un tyCo un tyOra n geOra n geCo un tyCo un tySeal BeachLong BeachOuterNavigationalChannelInnerNavigationalChannelLong Beach BreakwaterBolsa Chica RdLos Coyotes DiagonalLos Alamitos BlvdBroadwayOcean Blvd2nd StWarner AveBolsa Chica St4th StBellflower Blvd Redondo AveLampson AveAtherton StAnaheim StCherry AveKatella AveStudebaker Rd7th StSealBeachBlvdWestminsterBlvdWillow St221911605405CypressGardenGroveHuntingtonBeachRossmoorBolsa Bay StateMarineConservation AreaSeal BeachOffshore AnchorageLegendOffshore AnchorageApproach ChannelSeal Beach Naval WeaponsStationLong BeachSeal BeachOther CommunityCountyInterstateState HighwayMajor RoadWater BodyBolsa Bay State MarineConservation Area01¼½¾MilesSource: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), 2017. Chart 18749.NWS SB, 2017.Figure 5.12-1 Page 5‐36 Background Report January 2019 5.13 Land Use The basis of land use planning and regulation relates to the government’s role in protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare. Local jurisdictions’ comprehensive or land use plans and zoning ordinances can be the most effective tools for preventing or resolving land use compatibility issues. These tools ensure the separation of land uses that differ significantly in character. For instance, industrial uses are often separated from residential uses to avoid impacts from noise, odors, lighting. Key Terms Land Use Planning. Land use planning stems from the Supreme Court decision of Euclid vs. Ambler which enabled jurisdictions to regulate land use through zoning land in order to protect the public’s health, safety, morals, and welfare. Zoning is a land use regulation tool used by local jurisdictions that generally controls for use, density, intensity, building heights, and setbacks on a parcel or lot. Most states, enacted enabling legislation for local jurisdictions to also create and adopt comprehensive plans which are land use documents that broadly establish a vision, goals, policies, and implementation activities for a jurisdiction over a long‐range period of time, typically ten to twenty years, to promote compatible land use, guide growth, and logical development. Local jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances are the most effective tools to avoid and resolve land use compatibility issues. These tools ensure similar and compatible land uses are properly located and can co‐exist while separating land uses that differ significantly in use and potential nuisance. ISSUE LU-1 Potential Future Concern About Compatibility of Nearby Future Land Uses There is a potential future concern about the compatibility of nearby land uses, especially near the wharf area. There is a safety risk element associated with this mission requirement, and as such is required to have land free and clear of safety hazards to facilitate the safe storage, logistics, and transport of munitions. Compatibility Assessment NWSSB has established strategies to ensure that land use compatibility issues surrounding the base are minimized. This is primarily accomplished through regular communication with local jurisdictions to discuss conflicts and the implementation of a land use compatibility review checklist. As identified by NWSSB personnel, there have been no significant land use conflicts in at least the past 20 years. As such, there has been no increase in safety threats due to encroachment or urbanization. The Department of the Navy has proposed to construct an approximately 1,100 ft by 125 ft replacement ammunition pier and associated waterfront facilities at NWSSB. The project would include dredging to accommodate the proposed pier, turning basin, and public navigational channel to Huntington Harbour. A new pier is needed to sustain and enhance mission capability by eliminating deficiencies with the condition, configuration, and capacity of the existing wharf and turning basin. The need for the Proposed Action is the existing wharf is past its design life and limits the installation’s ability to fully meet its assigned mission. Specifically: January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐37  The existing wharf was built before the introduction of modern seismic (earthquake) codes.  The existing wharf and turning basin are too small to support large general‐purpose amphibious assault ships such as Landing Helicopter, Assault (LHA) and Landing Helicopter, Docks (LHD)‐type vessels. Currently, these vessels must be loaded with ammunition at high cost, using helicopters offshore of Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton or at the explosives anchorages at the Long Beach breakwater.  The existing wharf is too small to support the loading of more than one medium (destroyer‐sized) ship at a time. This limits the station’s ability to support the Pacific Fleet as it grows and may impede the Navy’s ability to quickly send a large number of ships overseas during a crisis.  The existing wharf is adjacent to the only civilian public navigational channel between Huntington Harbour and the ocean. This presents significant security challenges for the Navy and leads to regular bay closures, which impact civilian boaters. According to the City of Seal Beach Comprehensive Plan, the adjacent areas to the project area primarily consist of beachfront and residential land uses with some commercial industry, including the Main Street area and the Surfside Community, which abuts the eastern side of the project area. Additionally, the area surrounding the installation is zoned residential, both Low and High‐ Density. This is shown in Figure 5.13‐1. The Navy also owns approximately 1,000 ft. of unfenced beach between the installation fenceline and the community of Surfside. There are two stretches of beach on either side of the mouth of Anaheim Bay within NWSSB. The stretch of beach on the north coast side, near a general recreation facility (Barney’s Beach House), is used by Navy personnel and their families. The south coast beach is not used for recreation within the Station's perimeter fence; however, the area south of this fence line is used by the public for recreation. Both the City of Seal Beach and Surfside include publicly accessible beaches. Recreational activities within neighboring communities include swimming, biking, running, fishing, surfing, volleyball, boating, bird watching, and other outdoor activities and watersports. Outdoor activities have a tendency to fluctuate with the seasons, with increased activity in the summertime when the days are longer and the weather is warmer. Other popular recreational activities in neighboring communities include shopping, golfing, and sightseeing. The stretch of beach on the north coast side, near a general recreation facility (Barney’s Beach House), is used by Navy personnel and their families for recreational purposes and is not publicly accessible. Approximately 3 acres of this beach would be removed under the preferred development alternative to accommodate the proposed ammunition pier and turning basin, but much of this area is not well maintained and is infrequently used for recreation. The new public navigational channel and the construction of the causeway would reroute current boat traffic within Anaheim Bay along the east jetty. The Navy would construct the public navigational channel prior to constructing the causeway or the pier in order to minimize the possibility of impacting small boat traffic within Anaheim Bay. According to the Environmental Assessment associated with the proposed ammunition pier, implementation would be consistent with existing land use plans and would have only relatively minor (and largely temporary) impacts to local land uses, and therefore would not result in significant impacts to land use for NWSSB of the City of Seal Beach. Throughout development, there would be no change to current emergency services at NWSSB. Although construction efforts may affect individuals within the vicinity of the project area (e.g., noise, dust, and recreational impacts), there would be no permanent impacts or disproportionate effects to minority/low‐income populations or populations of children. Page 5‐38 Background Report January 2019 11HuntingtonBeachZoning Near AmmoLoading andUnloading AreaLegendZoningRLD-9 - Residential Low DensityRHD-20 - Residential High DensityLC/RMD - Limited Commercial/Residential Medium DensityMSSP - Main Street Specific PlanSC - Service CommercialGC - General CommercialBEA - BeachOS-PR - Open Space Parks andRecreationPS - Public and Semi-PublicFacilitiesOrdnance Loading and UnloadingAreasSeal Beach Naval WeaponsStationSeal BeachOther CommunityState HighwayMajor RoadWater Body0750250500FeetSource: City of Seal Beach, 2013. NWS SB, 2017.Figure 5.13-1 January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐39 In addition, development would potentially increase public safety and security as it would further separate civilian boat traffic from the loading and unloading of Navy vessels. Findings  The Department of the Navy has proposed to construct an approximately 1,100 ft by 125 ft. replacement ammunition pier and associated waterfront facilities at NWSSB.  Construction would not result in significant impacts to land use for NWSSB or the City of Seal Beach.  There have been no significant land use conflicts in at least the past 20 years. ISSUE LU-2 There is an Opportunity to Codify Military Compatibility Guidance in the City of Seal Beach Planning Documents The City of Seal Beach General Plan and Zoning Ordinance do not include military compatibility guidance as required by state law, but there is an opportunity to include such guidance when these planning documents are updated. In 2004, the State of California passed a law requiring jurisdictions that meet at least one of the following criteria is required to communicate and coordinate with the military on any land uses proposed for those areas. The following are the criteria:  located within 1,000 feet of a military installation boundary,  located under a special use airspace, and / or  located under a low‐level flight corridor. Many other jurisdictions in the state that have a military installation in their political subdivision have updated their General Plans and amended their Zoning Ordinances / Land Development Codes to incorporate policies and/or regulations that specify these criteria in their plans and codes. This practice assists in the jurisdiction complying with state law as well as provides this information in their documents for developers and planners to use when developing plans. The City of Seal Beach has not included this information in its General Plan and Zoning Code, which can create the potential for incompatible planning and development to occur in the city. This can create oversight internally to the city, which can result in an increase in the encroachment risk to NWSSB and potentially impact military operations if incompatible development is permitted within 1,000 feet of the installation boundary. Compatibility Assessment The City of Seal Beach recognizes NWSSB Seal Beach and has incorporated the installation into its General Plan in a Planning Area, however, there is only a provision for “proper planning” to occur in the city to preserve and improve the quality of life for both the military and civilian personnel. The City’s General Plan does not have a designated Military Land Use Element, which is not required per se, but there should be considerations of the military mission and operations in local land use planning to facilitate compatible long‐term land use planning with the military and to be compliant with state law. It should be noted that the area within 1,000 feet of the installation is primarily built out; but the lack of regulation that considers military compatibility does not preclude any individual or developer from redevelopment or infill development that could potentially be incompatible with the base’s mission. And there are no regulations that require coordination with NWSSB Seal Beach in the City’s land development code. The City of Long Beach, although not within 1,000 feet of the NWSSB boundary, under a special use airspace, or low‐level military training route, has established a provision in its General Plan to identify the use of Open Space as a buffer to protect military assets that may be located under one of Page 5‐40 Background Report January 2019 the aforementioned airspaces or within 1,000 feet of an installation boundary. The City of Long Beach has not established any regulations for coordination of land use planning actions with NWSSB. Orange County has not established provisions to protect military assets; however, the county has maintained that the cities will develop General Plans and orderly development guidelines. The County’s General Plan focuses on land in the unincorporated county. Findings  The City of Seal Beach has not established provisions for coordination with NWSSB for land use actions that occur within 1,000 feet of the installation boundary.  The breakwater modification alternatives proposed by the City of Long Beach in the Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study are not within 1,000 feet of NWSSB. However, these two alternatives would negatively impact Navy assets. The City of Long Beach is coordinating closely with NWSSB on this Study. The City of Long Beach is not directly impacted by NWSSB and has established a provision to coordinate with the military and protect military assets by the use of Open Space as a buffer. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐41 5.14 Legislative Initiatives Legislative initiatives are proposed changes in relevant policies, laws, regulations or programs which could potentially have a significant impact on one or more substantive areas of concern to both the installation and to the stakeholder communities. The focus of this compatibility issue is on initiatives with general and broad implications. There were no issues identified for Legislative Initiatives for the NWSSB JLUS. Page 5‐42 Background Report January 2019 5.15 Light and Glare This factor refers to man‐made lighting (street lights, airfield lighting, building lights) and glare (direct or reflected light) that disrupts vision. Light sources from commercial, industrial, recreational, and residential uses at night can cause excessive glare and illumination, impacting the use of military night vision devices and aircraft operations. Conversely, high intensity light sources generated from a military area (such as ramp lighting) may have a negative impact on the adjacent community. There were no issues identified for Light and Glare for the NWSSB JLUS. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐43 5.16 Marine Environments Regulatory or permit requirements protecting marine and ocean resources can cumulatively affect the military’s ability to conduct operations, training exercises, or testing in a water‐based environment. There were no issues identified for Marine Environments for the NWSSB JLUS. Page 5‐44 Background Report January 2019 5.17 Noise Sound that reaches unwanted levels is referred to as noise. The central issue with noise is the impact, or perceived impact, on people, animals (wild and domestic), and general land use compatibility. Exposure to high noise levels can have a significant impact on human activity, health, and safety. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. To understand the relevance of decibels, a normal conversation often occurs at 60 dB, while an ambulance siren from 100 feet away is about 100 dB. Noise associated with military operations (arrival / departure of military aircraft, firing of weapons, etc.) may create noises in higher dB ranges. Key Terms Decibel. A decibel (dB) is the physical unit commonly used to describe noise levels. It is a unit for describing the amplitude of sound, as heard by the human ear. Noise. From a technical perspective, sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. More simply stated, sound is what we hear. As sounds reach unwanted levels, this is referred to as noise. ISSUE NOI-1 Residential Concern with Noise from Joint Force Training Base Los Alamitos. Noise generated from aviation operations at Joint Force Training Base Los Alamitos are often attributed to the operations at NWSSB. Aircraft flyovers occur several times per week in the City of Seal Beach. The aircraft are military flight operations generated from the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB). JFTB Los Alamitos is located north of NWSSB on the north of I‐405. The base has two runways and supports multiple Civil Air Patrol units which include Long Beach Senior Squadron 150, Los Alamitos Glider Training 41, Los Alamitos Cadet Squadron 153, and South Coast Group. NWSSB has, on multiple occasions, received noise complaints attributed to the base due to noise generated at Los Alamitos. As the installation does not have an air mission, noise complaints should not be attributed to the base. Findings  NWSSB does not have an air mission.  JFTB Los Alamitos generates noise from aircraft operations that occasionally get attributed to NWSSB. ISSUE NOI-2 Concern with Noise Generated Near Liberty Gate on Seal Beach Boulevard from Passenger Pick Ups. The installation gate known as Liberty Gate, located closest to the wharf, exits onto Seal Beach Boulevard, which is a residential street near the Downtown area. There are concerns from residents in the area that noise is generated from rideshare services, and sometimes family or friends of sailors who wait for them by parking along the street in front of nearby homes. Compatibility Assessment The area south of Pacific Coast Highway on Seal Beach Boulevard near Liberty Gate is often where military personnel and civilians are picked up after shifts if they carpool or utilize rideshare programs. Due to the frequent activity, neighboring residences have expressed noise concerns. Residences are located on the west side of Seal Beach Boulevard and mainly comprise both low and high density residential uses. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐45 Aside from red striped curbs for fire truck access, there is no restricted parking on Seal Beach Boulevard south of the Pacific Coast Highway. Due to the proximity of this area to Downtown, this area generally has many parked cars. Findings  Pickups related to NWSSB have created noise concerns for residents on Seal Beach Boulevard, south of PCH, near Liberty Gate. Page 5‐46 Background Report January 2019 5.18 Public Services Public services concerns include the assurance that adequate services such as police, fire, emergency services, parks and recreation, and water / wastewater / stormwater infrastructure are of good quality and available for use by the installation and surrounding communities as the area develops. The supply and demand of these public services in the event of emergency situations is also considered. Key Terms Coastal Storm Modeling System‐ Coastal One‐line Assimilated Simulation Tool (CoSMoS–COAST). A numerical model used to predict shoreline‐change due to both sea level rise and changing storm patterns driven by climate change. Downcoast Beach. Beach that receives sand replenishment from a feeder beach via littoral currents. Downcoast Coastal Habitat. Coastal habitat situated down current from another coastal location. Feeder Beach. An artificially widened beach serving to nourish downcoast beaches by natural littoral currents or other forces. Groin (Groyne). A long, narrow structure built out into the water from a beach in order to prevent beach erosion or to trap and accumulate sand that would otherwise drift along the beach face and nearshore zone under the influence of waves approaching the beach at an angle. Protective Beach. A protective beach (or beach fill) is a deposit of sand, artificially placed along a shoreline to provide a buffer zone between the sea and the backshore. ISSUE PS-1 Concern about Beach Erosion. There is a concern about costs associated with continued beach erosion of the City of Seal Beach’s East Beach and Surfside Beach. Regular replenishment of sand (approximately every five years) is required at East Beach at great expense to the City. Previous efforts to resolve the issue with construction of a groin have been unsuccessful. Beaches along Orange County continue to actively erode, due to complex and ongoing oceanographic and geologic conditions as well as human activities. Beach erosion along the entire California coast is a natural process and the beaches within the JLUS Study Area are no exception. At the same time, human activities have substantially altered the natural movement of sand and drastically reduced the natural supply of sediment to the coastline, thereby changing the natural beach building and erosion cycles that occur season to season. Anthropogenic activities such as building dams and debris basins, channelizing rivers and streams, hardening shorelines, and covering land areas with impervious surfaces are all examples of ways in which the supply of beach‐compatible sediment historically provided to the coastline has been impacted. Harbor jetties, piers, groins and breakwaters also interrupt the natural transport of sand along the coastline and have an effect on beach erosion. Climate change has the potential to further exacerbate the issue through beach, bluff and dune erosion. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐47 Typical beach erosion from storm surges in Southern California Source: Army Corps of Engineers The current City of Seal Beach General Plan discusses beach erosion under the Open Space / Recreation / Conservation Element. Historically the beaches were replenished via the surf / wind action with sediment materials flowing from the rivers in the area. The construction of breakwaters and jetties in and around the Anaheim Bay area altered and/or partially blocked the flow of sediment materials. Three beach erosion problem areas are highlighted in the Plan:  West Beach area located between the pier and the San Gabriel River;  East Beach area between the pier and the west Anaheim Bay Jetty; and  Surfside Beach from Anaheim Bay to Anderson Street. It is estimated that 20,000 cubic feet of sand is carried via currents from the East Beach and deposited near the West Beach area annually. This sand along with any sediment flowing from the San Gabriel River to the West Beach must be re‐distributed by the City along the East and West Beaches. According to the Plan, the US Army Corps of Engineers has periodically replenished and distributed sand at Surfside Beach to maintain the beach facility. The actions to manage beach erosion through sand replenishment and distribution are costly, but important for coastline protection from tides and storms and ensuring availability of the beach for recreation. An assessment of the history of the City’s beach areas indicates various actions and activities that are the root causes of the beach erosion problems. A study prepared by the City of Seal Beach in 2008 indicates a major impact to beach stability was the construction NWSSB in the 1940s that included the east and west jetties at Anaheim Bay. This is supported by various studies and reports, many of which were prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The jetties at Anaheim Bay along with the jetties at the San Gabriel River, have resulted in Seal Beach being isolated from natural sand transport along the coast and created beach erosion at both East Beach and Surfside Beach that did not occur prior to the jetty construction. From a simplified perspective, the jetties prevent the natural redistribution of sand along the coastline and results in sand eroding from the East Beach and Surfside beach areas and redepositing in the West Beach area. In 1959 a groin was constructed by the US Army Corps of Engineers in an effort to mitigate sand loss from the East Beach, however it has not been successful due in part to its length which does not prevent sand moving from east to west along the shore. The agreement reached when the groin was constructed, required the City of Seal Beach to fund and conduct periodic sand replenishment and maintenance at East Beach. It was assumed the sand erosion would be minimal with the groin expected to prevent the majority of the erosion at East Beach, however because the groin was not successful in preventing the sand erosion at East Beach, the City has had to conduct periodic major sand replenishment projects at a substantial cost. Similar beach erosion problems occur at Surfside Beach, however this is mitigated by the US Army Corps of Engineers funding and conducting periodic sand replenishment projects using coarse sand to replenish the beach. Page 5‐48 Background Report January 2019 The City of Seal Beach has requested the federal government take responsibility for the majority of costs required to conduct periodic sand replenishment projects at East Beach in a similar capacity as is done at other nearby beaches including Surfside Beach. An Army Corps of Engineers study in 1980 recommended a cost sharing of 67 percent federal and 33 percent local for sand replenishment projects at East Beach. A study prepared by the Corps in 1985 recommended that the City should continue to be responsible for 100 percent of periodic sand replenishment costs and maintenance activities. The economic impacts of beach erosion at the beaches in the City of Seal Beach cannot be overstated. Beyond the costs of periodic sand replenishment which can exceed $1 million, the impacts to the local economy including tourism can potentially be hard hit if visitors cannot enjoy the beaches in the community. Furthermore, the continual erosion of the beaches poses a hazard to property and human health and safety during storm events and surges, where eroded beaches may not afford any protection to coastal properties. Further exacerbating the problem is the potential impacts from rising sea levels. A recent US Geological Survey Report on California coastline and beach erosion uses the CosMos‐COAST computer model to take into consideration sand transport both along the beach (due to longshore currents) and across the beach (cross‐shore transport) by waves and also effects of sea‐level rise. The report indicates that all southern California beaches will likely suffer future negative impacts in the form of beach erosion and reduced beach areas, without significant human intervention. A 2010 study of California beach erosion identified the Surfside Beach as a location where “chronic erosion due to the construction of the Anaheim Bay jetties has resulted in loss of recreational and protective beach through interruption of long‐shore transport. Houses are subject to severe damage if beach is not nourished periodically.” The study’s problem assessment associated with the beach erosion further indicated that a regional approach to beach erosion is needed. “Periodic re‐nourishment since 1945 utilizes this area as a feeder beach for downcoast beaches within the San Pedro Littoral Cell, providing shoreline protection, recreation and tourism opportunities, public health and safety benefits, and enhances downcoast coastal habitats.” The State of California through the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW), maintains the California Beach Restoration and Erosion Control Programs. The overarching goal of both programs is to preserve and protect the California shoreline and reduce economic impacts as a result of beach erosion while maintaining recreational beaches. Surfside Beach in Orange County CA Source: California Beach Erosion Assessment Survey, California Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup, 2010 California beach erosion laws are included in Sections 65 through 67.3 of the Harbors and Navigation Code. The laws allow the DBW to study erosion problems and provide shoreline protection advice to all levels of government in the state. In addition, DBW is authorized to plan, design and construct beach protection projects when funds are available from the State January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐49 Legislature. Available funds can also be granted to federal, state, county, and municipal government agencies for these same purposes. Under the California Public Beach Restoration Act, Sections 69.5 through 69.9 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, DBW is also authorized to fund public beach restoration, enhancement, and nourishment projects. Funding support may include funding studies along with the planning, design, permitting, and construction of beach restoration projects. As highlighted in their California Beach Restoration Study, the DBW advocates for “soft” techniques for shoreline stabilization that allow for the natural dynamics of wind and wave action on the coastline and beach sand in lieu of the construction of groins or similar project works. In addition, they promote the use of sand and material for beach replenishment obtained from other projects such as required dredging or other construction projects. The Study also highlights the value and importance pf planning and implementing beach erosion and replenishment projects on a regional basis. The Coastal Sediment Management Work Group is a state and federal partnership developed in California for on‐going, multi‐agency interaction on statewide coastal sediment management issues. This partnership approaches managing coastline and beach erosion on a regional basis. By preparing and implementing regional sediment management plans a broad approach for California’s sediment management can be achieved. The Orange County Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan was prepared in 2013. The intent of the Plan is to provide information for policy development and implementation of plans and actions to restore and preserve the future vitality of Orange County beaches and coastal areas. Plan goals include:  Reducing shoreline erosion and coastal storm damages;  Providing for environmental restoration and protection;  Increasing natural sediment supply to the coast;  Restoring and preserving beaches; maintaining or improving coastal access;  Improving water quality along coastal beaches, and;  Optimizing the beneficial use of material dredged or excavated from ports, harbors, wetlands, and other opportunistic sediment sources. The plan highlights the area of East Beach in Seal Beach and recommends planning and activities to continue the ongoing sand replenishment and maintenance at the Beach. The report outlines problems at the location including an ongoing sand deficit causing the beach to narrow and increase risks of flooding. The Beach has benefitted from period replenishment of sand and the construction of an annual winter berm and other beach maintenance activities. The Plan recommends continuing to provide local funding while seeking additional project partners that can assist with funding through lobbying at the state and federal government levels. Findings  Human activities, including the construction of piers and jetties and other development, have negatively impacted the natural processes that historically sustained coastal beaches in the JLUS Study Area.  The City of Seal Beach General Plan includes provisions relating to the ongoing management of beach erosion.  A 2008 study prepared for the City Seal Beach and several studies prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers indicate the primary cause for sand erosion at East Beach and Surfside Beach are the jetties constructed by the federal government at Anaheim Bay Harbor and the San Gabriel River.  An effort to mitigate sand erosion at East Beach via the construction of a groin by the US Army Corps of Engineers has not been successful. Page 5‐50 Background Report January 2019  The City of Seal Beach has an ongoing requirement to fund and manage beach erosion through sand replenishment and maintenance. The funding for this has become an economic burden for the City.  The City of Seal Beach has requested a revised cost sharing for sand replenishment at East Beach with the federal government responsible for the majority of the cost, similar to what is in place for Surfside Beach. The US Army Corps of Engineers conducted studies in 1980 and 1985, one of which recommended the federal government assume responsibility for the majority of costs for East Beach sand replenishment (1980) and the other which recommended the City continue to be responsible for all East Beach sand replenishment and maintenance costs (1985).  The economic impact of beach erosion at East Beach includes regular sand replenishment project costs as well as potential local economic losses to businesses through loss of tourism and visitors and potential property and human health and safety losses from storm events.  The State of California through the State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways has programs to help manage beach erosion and provide support for beach restoration projects. The process for grant funding is competitive and open to jurisdictions and agencies.  The California Coastal Sediment Management Work Group is an interagency organization that advocates for managing beach erosion issues on a regional basis.  Orange County has completed a Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan that identifies goals and provides recommendations for dealing with beach erosion. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐51 5.19 Public Trespassing This factor addresses public trespassing, either intentional or unintentional, onto a military installation. The potential for trespassing increases when public use areas are in close proximity to the installation. Military areas that are located on, or adjacent to, public lands owned by other entities (i.e., federal, state, or local) that are designated for public access, recreation, or livestock grazing sometimes experience issues related to public trespassing into training ranges and other areas with safety hazards related to military operations. ISSUE PT-1 Concerns about Public Trespassing on NWSSB. There is concern that public trespassing can occur on NWSSB through the fence line and in the channels. Compatibility Assessment Trespassing onto the installation is a federal offense. Furthermore, trespassers may be exposed to the risks associated with operations and training and pose a threat to public safety. Onloading and offloading of ordnance to and from ships is a mission‐critical activity at NWSSB; therefore, Anaheim Bay and the ammunition loading wharf are mission‐critical assets that require protection from encroachment. The small craft channel through Anaheim Bay is also the only means by which civilian boats from nearby Huntington Harbour and Sunset Aquatic Park can access the ocean. Due to this public navigational channel and regular use of the waterway, the proximity of the public‐use waterway with the existing NWSSB wharf creates opportunity for unintentional and intentional trespassing onto NWSSB and presents significant security challenges for the Navy. Figure 5.19‐1 shows the public and restricted navigation channel in the Anaheim Bay. The installation is looking to partner with the City of Seal Beach to do regular patrols of the area to help crack down on public trespassing. Additionally, there is potential to use new and evolving technology, in the form of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), to increase surveillance of the area. Findings  Delays in military operations occur when unauthorized personnel trespass onto NWSSB, especially when the trespass occurs near the Anaheim Bay wharf.  When owners trespass onto NWSSB, it creates risk for safety and security due to the nature of the Navy’s mission at Anaheim Bay. Page 5‐52 Background Report January 2019 Seal BeachSeal BeachEast JettyWestJettyOuter Approach ChannelInner Approach ChannelInnerHarborWestMooringAreaEastMooringAreaOuter HarborHuntingtonBeachNavigational Channelin the Anaheim BayLegendPublic Navigation ChannelApproach ChannelRestricted AreaSeal Beach Naval WeaponsStationSeal Beach National Wildlife Refuge01,000FeetSource: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), 2017. Chart 18749.Matrix Design Group, 2017.Figure 5.19-1 January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐53 5.20 Roadway Capacity Roadway capacity relates to the ability of existing freeways, highways, arterials, and other local roads to provide adequate mobility and access between military installations and their surrounding communities. As urban development expands into rural areas, roads once used primarily to provide access for agricultural uses and limited local traffic begin to function as urban major arterial roadways. These once rural roads often become the main transportation corridors for all types of traffic—from residential to commercial trucking—and can assist or impede access to military installations. As transportation systems grow and provide more capacity, these facilities induce and encourage growth as rural areas become more accessible. Roadway Capacity. Roadway capacity refers to the ability of existing freeways, highway, arterials and other local roads to provide adequate mobility and access among military installations and their surrounding communities. Level of Service. Level of Service (LOS) is a common measurement used by traffic engineers to determine the effectiveness of a traffic system. This grading system assigns a letter grade from A to F to roadways and intersections based upon traffic flow and safety characteristics as shown in Table 5.20‐1. Table 5.20‐1 LOS Ratings LOS Rating Definition Acceptable A Represents a free-flow operation. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. B Represents reasonably free-flow operation. Ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is slightly restricted. C Represents a traffic flow with speeds near or at free-flow speed of the freeway. There is noticeable restricted ability to maneuver within the stream of traffic. D Speeds begin to decline with increased density. Ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably limited. Unacceptable E Operation is at capacity. Vehicles are closely spaced within the traffic stream and there are no useable gaps to maneuver. F A breakdown of vehicle flow is present. This condition exists within the queues forming behind the breakdown points. Page 5‐54 Background Report January 2019 ISSUE RC-1 I-405 Improvement Project. There is pressure from outside entities to utilize Navy land that may appear underutilized. A recent example of this occurred with the I-405 improvement project, which is currently in construction. During the project development, it was determined that the freeway expansion would require an underground high-pressure gas pipelines to be relocated on to adjacent Navy property. Compatibility Assessment The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in cooperation with The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is widening the San Diego Freeway (I‐405) between State Route 73 (SR‐73) and Interstate 605 (I‐605). The project will improve 16 miles of I‐405 between the SR 73 freeway in Costa Mesa and I‐605 near the L.A. County line and is estimated to be completed by 2023. The project includes adding one regular lane in each direction between Euclid Street and I‐605 and making improvements to freeway entrances, exits and bridges. In addition, the project will add the 405 Express Lanes, incorporating the existing carpool lanes and a new lane in each direction between SR‐73 and I‐605. Local streets are laid out in a grid system and then the freeway was overlaid at a 45‐degree angle. Because of this, many of the interchanges have a north‐south bridge and an east‐west bridge that will be replaced as part of the project. The project requires a gas line, that is currently located within the existing freeway shoulder, to be relocated onto NWSSB between the inner and outer security fences. Findings  The I‐405 widening project is slated to be complete by 2023.  A gas line that currently runs in the existing highway easement would be relocated onto NWSSB. ISSUE RC-2 Alternative Concepts for Improving Pacific Coast Highway. The Corridor Study for the Pacific Coast Highway Between Avenida Pico and Los Angeles County Line by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) identified six key issues and developed five transportation alternative concepts for improving Pacific Coast Highway. Compatibility Assessment In March 2016, OCTA and Caltrans completed a corridor study for the Pacific Coast Highway. Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is the regional transportation corridor that connects the six coastal cities of Orange County – Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Dana Point and San Clemente. Corridor residents and visitors use multiple modes to travel to and from their activities (in and around the corridor) – vehicles, transit, walking, and bicycling. The Seal Beach subarea has four identified needs and four objectives for improvement: January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐55 Needs Objectives for Improvement  Recurring peak hour traffic congestion  Reduce recurring congestion and delays for PCH traffic  Bicyclists and pedestrians using PCH face potential conflicts with higher‐speed moving vehicles  Reduce the potential for conflicts between bicycles and moving vehicles on PCH  Bicyclists using PCH face potential conflicts when traveling between parked cars/bus stops and moving vehicles  Reduce the potential for conflicts between bicycles and parked vehicles on PCH.  Bicyclists face conflicts between fast‐moving cars and right‐turn movements  Improve continuity of traffic flow along PCH Of the five transportation alternative concepts provided in the study, one has the potential to encroach on the NWSSB mission and operations. This alternative concept is for the segment between Seal Beach Boulevard and Anderson Street and includes a Class IV bicycle track. This alternative may also impact natural resources in Anaheim Bay. Currently, there are no plans in place to implement this alternative and NWSSB has initiated coordination with the proper agencies. This issue was further evaluated in LAS‐3. Findings  The Pacific Coast Highway Corridor Study was produced in 2016.  A concept for a Class IV bicycle track had the potential to encroach on NWSSB; however, NWSSB has initiated coordination with the proper agencies to mitigate encroachment. ISSUE RC-3 Traffic Congestion along Westminster Boulevard. Accidents that occur in the community can cause traffic to be rerouted, which affects congestion throughout the region particularly on Westminster Boulevard. For example, when accidents occur on I-405, traffic is rerouted to Westminster Boulevard. Delays in traffic have the potential to impact readiness at NWSSB. Compatibility Assessment NWSSB is located in an urban / suburban area of Orange County. Orange County and Southern California in general suffers from significant traffic congestion because of large population centers in the region and a dependence on motor vehicles for transportation. There are multiple public highways and roads that surround, and in some cases, run through NWSSB. Orange County has a population of approximately 3.2 million (per 2016 data) people making it the third largest county in the state of California. While Seal Beach is one of the smaller jurisdictions in the County, it is surrounded by larger communities that have a substantial workforce that commutes to work. Westminster Boulevard is a major thoroughfare that runs east / west from one end of the City Seal Beach to the other and in doing so runs through NWSSB. It connects communities east of Seal Beach including Westminster and Santa Ana with cities west of Seal Beach such as Long Beach. The Boulevard is a 4‐lane road (2 lanes in each direction) with speed limits that vary between 45 to 60 miles per hour (mph). The roadway intersects Kitts Highway, which is a north / south road used by authorized NWSSB personnel to truck equipment / materials between the areas of NWSSB bisected by Westminster Boulevard. Westminster Boulevard has average daily traffic counts of approximately 26,000 vehicles according to 2012 data available from the City of Seal Beach web site. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) data from 2014 indicated average daily traffic counts of approximately 37,000 vehicles. Page 5‐56 Background Report January 2019 Another major intersection in the vicinity of NWSSB is Westminster Boulevard and Seal Beach Boulevard. Seal Beach Boulevard runs north / south along the western boundary of NWSSB separating it from the City of Seal Beach. The Boulevard is a 6‐lane roadway (3 lanes in each direction) with turn lanes at primary intersections. The speed limit varies from 30 to 50 mph. Seal Beach Boulevard had average daily traffic counts in 2012 of approximately 25,000 vehicles south of Westminster Boulevard and climbing to over 40,000 vehicles near Interstate 405. The intersection is controlled by traffic signals to manage traffic flow and help ensure safety. NWSSB provides employment in Orange County with more than 1,351 personnel (including active duty / reserve military and DoD civilian and contractors) that work for, or are stationed on, the base. In addition, NWSSB creates additional economic impacts on the area generating additional jobs and commerce at and around the installation. Most personnel working at NWSSB commute to and from the installation. As is typical at most military bases, morning and afternoon hours are the busiest for traffic entering and leaving NWSSB. There are three gates at NWSSB:  Main Gate at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Forrestall Lane;  Westminster Gate at the intersection of Westminster Boulevard and Kitts Highway for commercial truck traffic;  Liberty Gate. During the primary commute hours for personnel entering and leaving NWSSB, traffic becomes congested along Westminster Boulevard and Seal Beach Boulevard. The NWSSB Main Gate is located off Seal Beach Boulevard just to the south of Westminster Boulevard. A dedicated right turn lane into the station has been constructed on Westminster Boulevard. Findings  NWSSB is located in an urban / suburban area of Southern California. Orange County has a large population of commuters creating large amounts of traffic particularly during morning / evening rush hours.  Westminster Boulevard is a major road that connects the City of Seal Beach with larger jurisdictions to the east and west.  Seal Beach Boulevard intersects with Westminster Boulevard and is where the NWSSB Main Gate is located just to the south of the intersection.  Average daily traffic counts are relatively high on both Westminster and Seal Beach Boulevards.  NWSSB employs more than 1,351 people and creates additional jobs resulting from supporting commerce. Most employees commute to and from the installation.  Westminster Boulevard, especially near Seal Beach Boulevard tends to become congested during morning and evening rush hour traffic. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐57 ISSUE RC-4 Traffic Generation on Seal Beach Boulevard. Operations at NWSSB can create truck traffic, due to deliveries, from Seal Beach Boulevard to Westminster Boulevard. Compatibility Assessment Historically NWSSB had used railways to move much of its equipment and materials, but discontinued rail operations approximately ten years ago. NWSSB now uses truck deliveries to receive equipment and materials used to support installation operations. In addition, the installation uses trucks / vehicles to move equipment and materials within and around the installation as necessary meet logistics objectives. The switch to using truck deliveries was driven by cost, operational efficiencies and associated environmental benefits (primarily air quality) according to a 2010 Navy Press Release. The Westminster Gate at the intersection of Westminster Boulevard and Kitts Highway provides truck access to NWSSB. Truck deliveries to and from the installation would typically use one of the major freeways to access NWSSB. Interstate 405 (I‐405) is located on the northern boundary of the installation and connects to Westminster Boulevard east of Seal Beach in the City of Westminster or via Seal Beach Boulevard in the City of Seal Beach. Vehicles coming from I‐405 can also access the Westminster Gate via Bolsa Chica Road. In addition, PCH runs across the southern portion of NWSSB and intersects with Seal Beach Boulevard which connects with Westminster Boulevard and the Westminster Gate. PCH also intersects Westminster Boulevard east of NWSSB in Long Beach. Traffic counts and around the City of Seal Beach and NWSSB are relatively high in certain areas as is the case with much of Southern California and Orange County. The OCTA shows average daily traffic counts on Seal Boulevard south of I‐405 of over 40,000 vehicles and on PCH adjacent to NWSSB at approximately 43,000 vehicles. Westminster Boulevard in the vicinity of Kitts Highway where the Westminster Gate is located has average daily traffic counts of approximately 37,000 vehicles. Trucks operating on roadways in the area to support deliveries to NWSSB, particularly during rush periods have the potential to exacerbate traffic congestion. Findings  NWSSB discontinued using rail service to support equipment / material deliveries and now uses primarily truck deliveries. Cost, operational efficiencies and projected reductions in air emissions were the driving factors in the change.  Westminster Gate at the intersection of Westminster Boulevard and Kitts Highway is where truck deliveries enter and exit NWSSB. Access to the gate is from major highways and local connector roads.  Traffic in and around the City of Seal Beach and NWSSB can be congested with average daily traffic counts exceeding 40,000 vehicles in specific locations.  Trucks making deliveries to NWSSB can exacerbate traffic congestion under certain conditions. Page 5‐58 Background Report January 2019 ISSUE RC-5 Regional Impacts Due to Traffic Rerouting. Accidents that occur in the community can cause traffic to be rerouted, which affects congestion throughout the region. For example, when accidents occur on I-405, traffic is rerouted to Westminster Boulevard. Delays in traffic have the potential to impact readiness at NWSSB. Compatibility Assessment The City of Seal Beach General Plan examines the operation of intersections through a technique called the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). ICU values are calculated by comparing the traffic volumes at an intersection with its capacity. The following roadways were identified in the General Plan as having a level of service (LOS) of F:  Pacific Coast Highway, North City Limits to 1st Street  Pacific Coast Highway, 1st Street to 5th Street  Pacific Coast Highway, 5th Street to Marina Drive  Pacific Coast Highway, Marina Drive to Bolsa Avenue  Pacific Coast Highway, Bolsa Avenue to Seal Beach Boulevard  Pacific Coast Highway, south of Seal Beach Boulevard The Plan also identifies intersections operating at a LOS of E / F during peak hours:  Pacific Coast Highway at 5th Street  Seal Beach Boulevard at I‐405 northbound ramps  Seal Beach Boulevard at I‐405 southbound ramps  Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue The traffic conditions at these locations throughout the city are further exacerbated where accidents occur in the community. In addition to potential safety and traffic flow problems that can be associated with vehicles stopping on roadways, traffic backups can also create issues with force protection and anti‐terrorism measures as well as causing delays in emergency response. Since 2011, the DoD encourages vehicle queuing on installation property to reduce the threat risk of terrorist acts. Findings  A large portion of the Pacific Coast Highway has a level of service of F.  Traffic congestion can lead to delays to emergency response as well as concerns regarding AT / FP. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐59 5.21 Safety Safety zones are areas in which development should be more restrictive, in terms of use and concentrations of people, due to the higher risks to public safety. Issues to consider include aircraft accident potential zones, weapons explosive safety zones (munitions operations or explosive safety quantity distance for storage). Military installations often engage in activities or contain facilities that, due to public safety concerns, require special consideration by local jurisdictions when evaluating compatibility. It is important to regulate land use near military airfields to minimize damage from potential aircraft accidents and to reduce air navigation hazards. To help mitigate potential issues, the military can identify a Military Influence Area (MIA) which describes compatible development in terms of associated military operations and acceptable risk. ISSUE SA-1 Concern Over Errant Vehicles Travelling at High Speed Disregarding Traffic Lights at Kitts Highway and Westminster Boulevard. There is concern about vehicles travelling on Westminster Boulevard disregarding a red or yellow traffic light at Kitts Highway and colliding with Navy trucks transiting through the intersection. Compatibility Assessment NWSSB is located in an urban / suburban location surrounded by developed jurisdictions. As a result, there are multiple roadways that run near and around NWSSB and several that run through or across the installation. Westminster Boulevard is one of the roadways that runs through NWSSB travelling in an east / west direction. The length of Westminster Boulevard is at the same grade level with NWSSB (i.e. the roadway is not elevated nor underground). Westminster Boulevard is a 4‐lane road (two lanes in each direction) that also has turn lanes at primary intersections. The speed limit on the roadway varies from 45‐60 mile per hour (mph) per the Seal Beach Municipal Code. The roadway is a public thoroughfare with average daily traffic counts of approximately 26,000 vehicles according to 2012 data available from the City of Seal Beach web site. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) data from 2014 indicated average daily traffic counts of approximately 37,000 vehicles. Figure 5.21‐1 provides a view of the location and intersections. There is an intersection on Westminster Boulevard where Kitts Highway (A T Road on maps; however, street sign identifies it as Kitts Highway) runs north and south from one area of NWSSB south of the roadway to another area north of the roadway. Kitts Highway is only used by authorized personnel / truck vehicles to access the installation and transport equipment / materials across Westminster Boulevard. This intersection has traffic signals to control the flow of traffic on Westminster Boulevard when vehicles are entering and leaving the installation and NWSSB trucks are moving north and south on Kitts Highway. Additionally, the City of Seal Beach has recently increased the duration of the yellow light to provide additional time for trucks to traverse Westminster Boulevard. Just to the west of the Westminster Boulevard / Kitts Highway intersection is the intersection of Westminster Boulevard and Seal Beach Boulevard. Seal Beach Boulevard runs north and south along the eastern boundary of NWSSB and separates the installation from the City of Seal Beach. The Boulevard is a 6‐lane roadway (three lanes in each direction) with turn lanes at primary intersections. The speed limit varies from 30 to 50 mph per the Seal Beach Municipal Code. Seal Beach Boulevard had average daily traffic counts in 2012 of approximately 25,000 vehicles south of Westminster Boulevard and climbing to over 40,000 vehicles near Interstate 405. The intersection is controlled by traffic signals to manage traffic flow and help ensure safety. Page 5‐60 Background Report January 2019 Seal BeachWestminster BlvdSeal Beach BlvdKitts HwyEast BoundSpeed LimitRises to60 MPHWest BoundSpeed Limit60 MPHEast BoundSpeed Limit45 MPHNo SignageEast BoundThru-LanesDrop From3 to 2, ThruTraffic AndBike LaneMust MergeLeftWest BoundSpeed Limit45 MPH SignSignalized IntersectionsNot In Sync With Each Other Truck TrafficWest BoundSpeed Limit45 MPH SignNorth/SouthBound SpeedLimit 50 MPHNorth/SouthBound SpeedLimit 25 MPHFor BendIntersection ofWestminster BoulevardandSeal Beach BoulevardLegendGateNWS Seal BeachNWS Seal Beach Fence0200100FeetSource: NWS Seal Beach, 2017. NAIP, 2016.Google Streetview, January 2018.Figure 5.21-1 January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐61 OCTA has conducted traffic signal synchronization projects along Westminster Boulevard and Seal Beach Boulevard in an effort to improve traffic flow and minimize congestion. Traffic approaching Kitts Highway from the east on Westminster Boulevard is authorized to operate at up to 60 mph decreasing to 45 mph west of Kitts Highway through the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard. Seal Beach Boulevard traffic approaching Westminster Boulevard from the north and south is authorized to operate at 50 mph. Traffic speeds are 60 mph along Westminster Boulevard east of Kitts Highway, and 45 mph west of Kitts Highway. There is concern with vehicles travelling along Westminster Boulevard errantly disregarding a red or yellow light at Kitts Highway, and colliding with Navy trucks transiting through the intersection. Further evaluation may identify measures to reduce the potential for errant or distracted drivers to disregard authorized traffic speeds or signals when approaching Kitts Highway. Findings  Westminster Boulevard is a public thoroughfare that runs in an east / west direction through NWSSB. The roadway intersects with Kitts Highway which is used by authorized trucks to enter and leave the installation and trucks to move equipment / material across the installation.  Just to the west of the Westminster Boulevard / Kitts Highway Boulevard, Westminster Boulevard intersects Seal Beach Boulevard which is a major north / south route running along the boundary of NWSSB and the City of Seal Beach.  Traffic approaching the two intersections operates at speeds varying from 45‐60 mph.  Average daily Traffic counts on Westminster Boulevard and Seal Beach Boulevard vary from approximately 25,000 to 40,000 vehicles.  There is a potential need to further evaluate impacts of traffic moving at authorized speed limits in a congested location, particularly when NWSSB personnel are moving equipment / materials via trucks north and south on Kitts Highway. Page 5‐62 Background Report January 2019 5.22 Scare Natural Resources Pressure to gain access to valuable natural resources (such as oil, natural gas, minerals, and water resources) located on military installations, within military training areas, or on public lands historically used for military operations can impact land utilization and military operations. There were no issues identified for Scarce Natural Resources for the NWSSB JLUS. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐63 5.23 Vertical Obstructions Vertical obstructions are created by buildings, trees, structures, or other features that may encroach into the navigable airspace or line‐of‐sight of radar signal transmission pathways used by the military. These obstructions can be a safety hazard to both the public and military personnel and potentially impact military readiness. There were no issues identified for Vertical Obstructions for the NWSSB JLUS. Page 5‐64 Background Report January 2019 5.24 Vibration Vibration is an oscillation or motion that alternates in opposite directions and may occur as a result of an impact, explosion, noise, mechanical operation, or other change in the environment. Vibration may be caused by military and / or civilian activities. There were no issues identified for Vibration for the NWSSB JLUS. January 2019 Background Report Page 5‐65 5.25 Water Quality / Quantity Water quality / quantity concerns include the assurance that adequate water supplies of good quality are available for use by the installation and surrounding communities as the area develops. Water supply for agriculture and industrial use is also considered. There were no issues identified for Water Quality / Quantity for the NWSSB JLUS. Page 5‐66 Background Report January 2019 This page intentionally left blank.