HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet_2019-02-11A G E N D A
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday,February 11,2019 ~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
•1st Street Restaurant Project Update
PRESENTATIONS /RECOGNITIONS
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 –None
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 28,2019 City Council Minutes -That the City
Council approve the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on
January 28,2019.
B.Demands on City Treasury (Fiscal Year 2019)-February 11,2019
-Ratification
C.Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1677 -That the City
Council waive further reading and adopt Ordinance 1677 titled "An
Ordnance 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."
D.City of Seal Beach Annual Audit Reports for Fiscal Year Ended
June 30,2018 -That the City Council receive and file the following
documents for fiscal year ending June 30,2018:A.Audit Communication
Letter (SAS114)B.Report on Internal Control (GAS)C.Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR)D.Appropriations (GANN)Limit Final
Report
E.Orange County Fire Authority’s (OCFA)Fourth Amendment to the
Joint Powers Authority (JPA)Agreement -That the City Council
approve the Orange County Fire Authority’s Fourth Amendment to the
Amended Joint Powers Authority (JPA)Agreement to formalize the
OCFA’s commitment to its “snowball”accelerated pension liability
paydown plan and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING –None
UNFINISHED /CONTINUED BUSINESS –None
NEW BUSINESS –None
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn the City Council meeting in honor of Retired OCFA Captain Al Belanger to
Monday,February 25,2019 at 5:30 p.m.to meet in closed session,if deemed
necessary.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item A
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:February 11, 2019
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM:Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
SUBJECT:Approval of the January 28, 2019 City Council Minutes
________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council approve the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting
held on January 28, 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 28, 2019.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
Gloria D. Harper Jill R. Ingram
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
4
1
6
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Minutes
Seal Beach, California
January 28, 2019
The City Council met in regular session at 7:02 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Council Member Varipapa led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Pro Tem Sustarsic
Council Members: Deaton, Massa-Lavitt, Varipapa
Absent: Mayor Moore
City Staff: Craig Steele, City Attorney
Amy Greyson, Assistant 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
Gloria Harper, City Clerk
Deaton moved, second by Varipapa, to excuse the absence of Mayor Moore.
AYES: Deaton, Massa-Lavitt, Sustarsic, Varipapa
NOES: None
ABSENT: Moore
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
APPROVAL OF AGENDA & WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND
ORDINANCES
Mayor Pro Tem Sustarsic pulled Item H from the Consent Calendar for separate
consideration. There was consensus by the City Council to continue Item J to the first
City Council meeting following the Parking Town Hall meeting at the request of Council
Member Deaton. Deputy City Clerk, Dana Engstrom read into the record that 9
communications were received after the posting of the agenda regarding various
agenda items that were distributed to City Council and made available to the public.
PRESENTATIONS / RECOGNITIONS
• Introduction of New Employees Gloria Harper and Denice Bailey
• Naval Weapons Station – Economic Development/Impact
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Pro Tem Sustarsic opened oral communications. Speakers: Val Vitols, Cory
Deleon, Henry Draper, Sara Newman, Joe Kalmick, Joyce Ross-Parque, John Waller,
Bruce Bennett, and Andrew Harris. Mayor Pro Tem Sustarsic then closed oral
communications.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
There was no City Attorney Report.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
City Manager Ingram had no items to report.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council Member Varipapa thanked City staff for the updates and hard work regarding
the storm several weeks ago.
Council Member Deaton had nothing to report.
Council Member Massa-Lavitt expressed concern regarding the City of Huntington
Beach’s affordable housing lawsuit. As a Member on the Orange County Vector
Control Board, she reported that the City had a good summer in regards to the West-
Nile virus as well as provided additional Vector Control updates. She expressed her
interest in supplying water to California. She reported attending the River’s and
Mountains Conservancy meeting where there was discussion regarding the Los Cerritos
Wetlands land swap and the allocation of money to restore the wetlands as well as
discussion regarding Prop 68 projects for park improvements.
Mayor Pro Tem Sustarsic thanked City staff for keeping Council informed on flooding
issues several weeks ago during the storm. She reported attending the Los Alamitos
Unified School District’s stakeholders meeting for the Superintendent Search, Cypress
State of the City Luncheon, and the Naval Weapons Station Joint Land Use Study
meeting.
COUNCIL ITEMS
There were no Council Items.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Deaton moved, second by Massa-Lavitt, to approve the recommended actions on the
consent calendar with exception of Item H that was pulled for separate consideration
and Item J that was continued to the first City Council meeting following the Parking
Town Hall meeting.
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-toexceed
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.
AYES: Deaton, Massa-Lavitt, Sustarsic, Varipapa
NOES: None
ABSENT: Moore
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
ITEM PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
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.
Director of Public Works Steve Myrter summarized information provided in the staff
report as well as confirmed there is no cost to the City.
Deaton moved, second by Massa-Lavitt to adopt Resolution 6892 approving agreement
with Horizon for the installation of 31 smart irrigation controls throughout the City.
AYES: Deaton, Massa-Lavitt, Sustarsic, Varipapa
NOES: None
ABSENT: Moore
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING
There were no public hearing items.
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.
Director of Public Works Steve Myrter summarized the information provided in the staff
report and answered Council Member questions with the assistance of Assistant City
Attorney Amy Greyson. There was general discussion regarding lighting and 5G.
Assistant City Attorney Amy Greyson read into the record the following change to
Exhibit B, page 35, section 8a:
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.
Members of the public expressed an interest in speaking, City Attorney Steele noted,
this item was not a public hearing and there was an opportunity to speak during oral
communications.
Varipapa moved, second by Deaton to 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 with revisions to Exhibit B, page 35, section 8a; 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 with revisions to Exhibit B, page 35,
section 8a; 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.
AYES: Deaton, Massa-Lavitt, Sustarsic, Varipapa
NOES: None
ABSENT: Moore
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
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.
Interim Director of Community Development Director Crystal Landavazo summarized
information provided in the staff report and answered Council Member questions.
Council Member Deaton requested that a Working Group for JLUS be added to the list
of Mayoral Appointments.
Deaton moved, second by Massa-Lavitt to 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.
AYES: Deaton, Massa-Lavitt, Sustarsic, Varipapa
NOES: None
ABSENT: Moore
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tem Sustarsic adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:31 p.m. to Monday,
February 11, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session, if deemed necessary
______________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Approved: ___________________________
Schelly Sustarsic, Mayor Pro Tem
Attested: ______________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item C
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:February 11, 2019
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM:Gloria Harper, City Clerk
SUBJECT:Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1677
________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council waive further reading and adopt Ordinance 1677 titled "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."
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
At its meeting of January 28, 2019, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance
1676-U of the City of Seal Beach to repeal, replace and amend certain provisions
of Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Municipal Code to regulate small wireless facilities
and eligible facilities in the public rights-of-way. The City Council also introduced
and approved the first reading Ordinance 1677, to repeal, replace and amend
Chapter 6.10 of Title 6 of the Municipal Code to regulate small wireless facilities
and eligible facilities in the public rights-of-way. This item is to approve the second
reading of and adopt Ordinance 1677 in compliance with State law requiring that
ordinances be adopted at least 5 days after introduction at a regular or adjourned
regular meeting. Upon adoption and pursuant to City Charter Section 414, the
Ordinance will be published within 15 days after adoption.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed Ordinance does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) pursuant to 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
4
1
5
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:
No legal analysis is required for this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact for this item.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council waive further reading and adopt Ordinance 1677 titled
"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."
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
Gloria D. Harper Jill R. Ingram
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance 1677 (Clean)
B. Ordinance 1677 (Redline)
C. Communication received from Pat Ross
Ordinance YYYY1677
1
ORDINANCE YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 XXXX1677 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 28th day of January, 2019.
Dana Engstrom, Deputy City Clerk
Ordinance YYYY1677
Exhibit A - Page 1
EXHIBIT “A”
CITY OF SEAL BEACH ORDINANCE YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
Exhibit B - Page 27
CC 1-28-19
2259203
EXHIBIT “B”
CITY OF SEAL BEACH ORDINANCE YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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 YYYY1677
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.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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.
Ordinance 1677
2
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.
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
Ordinance 1677
3
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.
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
Ordinance 1677
4
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.
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.
Ordinance 1677
5
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.
Ordinance 1677
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.
Ordinance 1677
7
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;
(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
Ordinance 1677
8
(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
Ordinance 1677
9
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.
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.
Ordinance 1677
10
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.
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.
Ordinance 1677
11
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 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
Ordinance 1677
12
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.
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
Ordinance 1677
13
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
14
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular
meeting held on the 11th day of February, 2019 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
and do hereby further certify that Ordinance 1677 has been published pursuant to the
Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution 2836.
Thomas Moore, Mayor
ATTEST:
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Gloria D. Harper, 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 11th day of February, 2019.
Gloria D. Harper, 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.
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.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ftet
0FEe
yCrT
5( 019
City Hall
C:rrOJ? ch ekt
211 Eight Street K pip
eftSealBeach, CA 90740
February 5, 19
Dear Councilman,
I left some materials regarding the 5G wireless technology on
Monday but I would like to include this letter written to the San
Diego County Board of Supervisors. I have taken advantage of an
offer by the informed people from the Center for Electrosmog
Prevention http://www.electrosmogprevention.org/ from La Mesa
CA, to download their letter to the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors.
This is so much more complete and concise than what I brought you
Monday I don't care if you disregard that packet as long as you don't
disregard this letter.
Thank you,
10-1.9-a----
Pat Ross
3570 Pansy Circle
Seal Beach, CA
Y
Office of Supervisor Michelle Steel
Orange County Board of Supervisors
10 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana,CA 92701
Dear District Supervisor Michelle Steel:
I am writing with concern about the plans to implement and install small-cell wireless infrastructure based on the
recent FCC ruling.This ruling essentially allows installment anywhere without local control or reasonable fees.The
FCC rules allow these wireless facilities 10-20 feet from homes on rights of way,and neglect health,safety,fire,
falling,and other hazards while setting an absolute 60-90 day shot clock,regardless of application number.The FCC
orders are unconstitutional and are currently being challenged.I URGE you to disallow this illegal mandate,and nig
take any irreversible action by changing our Orange County wireless infrastructure ordinances,as it may be
overturned.
Recall in 2017 that Governor Brown rejected SB649, and this gives local municipalities legal precedent to
refuse the FCC mandates. Further,other cities and counties are standing against these "rushed" and "streamlined"
FCC rules. They are being challenged in the ninth circuit by many municipalities; the Marin County Board of
Supervisors,town of Fairfax,and the Massachusetts Municipal Association are examples of such against these rules.
Others are waiting to see the outcomes of the existing legal challenges and tightening their ordinances.Burlington,
Massachusetts,recently revised the town ordinances in a manner that caused the applications put forth by Verizon to
be withdrawn. Petaluma County, California, recently revised town ordinances to require under-grounding of
equipment and large setbacks from residences.Pittsfield,Massachusetts,recently revised city ordinances to limit the
number of"small cells" placed on a structure.These actions provide more support and legal justification for Orange
County to challenge them as well. Further, heads of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology have written to the FCC questioning collusion.On January 14,
2019,Congresswomen Eshoo and Speier introduced HR 530 to block the FCC preemption of local authority.The
National Resource Defense Council is also challenging the FCC's earlier rules to exempt small cells from historic
and environmental considerations.
The FCC claims to 5G safety are unfounded.Senator Blumenthal and Congresswoman Eshoo have also written
the FCC for proof that the 5G technologies,employment of millimeter microwave(MMW)radiation in the 6— 100
GHz range, are safe, with no known response. The FCC regulations for safety were adopted in 1996, based on
industry-science,and have not been updated for next generation wireless,equipment and devices.Further,they are
based on thermal effects,not biological effects. Finally, the FCC's Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits do not
apply to devices operating above 6 GHz(which 50 does).
Despite widespread denial, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that radio frequency (RF) radiation is
harmful to all forms of life. Wireless facilities have traditionally been kept from bird migration areas, as birds
become disoriented by the signals. High power, proximity, and even new wireless frequencies from an influx of
small-cell towers add to a pervasive threat to the environment,including us.
This will affect everyone, including those who make vital contributions to society, our community, and
economy here in Orange County. Your children, senior, expecting mothers and their babies, and immune-
compromised constituents will be especially vulnerable to this harmful exposure.
Recent research by the US National Toxicological Program (NTP) found cardiac and tumor risks heightened
just from 2G wireless exposures,and other researchers have confirmed the NTP findings at ambient power levels.
This is clear evidence of a link between long-term RF radiation exposure and cancer. The accumulated clinical
evidence of sick and injured people,experimental evidence of damage to DNA,cells and organ systems in a wide
variety of plants and animals,and epidemiological evidence that the major diseases that plague us,like cancer,heart
disease,Alzheimer's,infertility,and diabetes are in large part caused by electromagnetic pollution,forms a literature
base of well over 27.000 peer-reviewed studies(consolidated in the EMF Portal). Higher frequencies,such as above
6 GHz, will be used for 5G. Scientists in the field expect these higher frequencies to be devastating to insects,
including bees. They also expect 5G to heighten skin cancer incidence,with other impacts to eyes,immunological
and neurological systems. There is already a large population here in Orange County that suffers from EMF-
induced,serious,health problems. With the rollout of 5G this number will grow rapidly.The health complications
are vast and include: headaches, tinnitus, chest pain from impaired blood flow, heart arrhythmia, heart failure,
cognitive disorders,hearing loss,insomnia,seizures,and neurodegenerative diseases,to name a few.
Of further concern,Active Denial System(ADS) is a directed-energy weapon developed by the U.S. military,
that heats the surface of the skin using MMW at 95 GHz(this is within the range of 5G).This radiation penetrates
the first layer of skin,where it feels like intense heat and causes a stinging sensation. Skin may redden and even
blister.For most humans,the radiation does not permeate the second layer of skin—except where it's thin,such as
eyelids and for infants. The reflex of the eye during exposure is to close. Safety studies demonstrate corneal
absorption of 94 GHz radiation,as well as permanent ocular damage at exposure times greater than six seconds;
less than that for those with LASIK procedures.
Beyond health and safety concerns from the radiation,these towers pose fire and other hazards. Further,they
will depreciate property values,impose on privacy and security,and through sickening of the population,will reduce
productivity and our economy.This will place an undue burden on the government and medical providers,and will
ultimately force people,and likely businesses,to leave Orange County. The County and its Supervisors will surely
be sued for this predictable harm to children, adults, and senior citizens,fires from these small cells, or loss of
property values.
Our County Board of Supervisors should seek to limit,not exponentially increase,the amount of electrosmog
pollution from manmade RF radiation in Orange County,as an imperative,according to numerous physician and
scientist organizations!These include:The World Health Organization,Kaiser Permanente,American Academy for
Environmental Medicine(AAEM),American Academy of Pediatrics(AAP),CA Sierra Club,the Honeybee
Foundation,and even the California Department of Public Health. Nor should the County Board of Supervisors
allow experimentation on the residents with a vast array of new MMW technologies-only previously used as ADS
in crowd control.The Nuremberg Code has forbidden experimentation of this sort for over 50 years.
As our elected official,the citizens of Orange County require your good governance,not protection of commercial
and corporate interests.I am writing to request your due diligence:that our ordinance be carefully examined in light
of the FCC's new ruling,health risks,other model ordinances,and with attention to crafting an ordinance that will
prevent harm to the community. I request a careful review of the ordinances,with plenty of citizen input,to insure
citizen protections;as our elected representative this is your duty. Again,I ask that you not make any irreversible
actions at this time.And if any actions or applications must be taken,that the Board of Supervisors make permits
and decisions contingent only on the FCC ruling,or parts thereof,not being overturned.
Sincerely,
Patricia Ross
3570 Pansy Circle
Seal Beach,
February 5,19
CEP
Center for Electrosmog Prevention
a California nonprofit working to
protect public health
Home Stop 5G Action Plan Public Health Alerts Cell Phone Safety Campaign No Smart Meters Campaign About CEP
Donate Join Us Contact
Seat di
Dr. Sharon Goldberg Testifies at Michigan's 5G Small Cell Tow... Q
Climai
14t-
y' LL.Ewv e.r,moy Mr rr
Want to learnlill
Of .i how to 1is80n.
4 . measure
AU.1 electrosmog? CORNET
e•
Senate Bill 637 i •:
to Standardizes permits. en •igwhl-ol- a id* .hiir'` i
I
MPOPIAAR LATESTTAGS
service provide-s
04Z.:0'0-e"..—Y 10:04:111 How to File an Accommodation Letter:
Discrimination Complaint Associated with RF
Radiation from Smart Meters
SIL+2. 2012
Dr. Sharon Goldberg explains why 5G must not be rolled out
13 Ways to Reduce Cell Phone Radiation
Dr. Sharon Goldberg Testifies at Michigan's SG Small Cell Tower Legislation Hearing EC:''. 1'•
October 4, 2018. She explains why SG should not be rolled out,and the association
ALERT:AAEM Releases Recommendations EMF
between exposure to microwave rf radiation and blood sugar,diabetes,congestive heart and RF Exposures(7.'12..12)
failure,and cancer. Dr. Goldberg is a board-certified internal medicine physician with iii Zr.'2
several decades experience,a teacher at a large number of medical schools,and a
Smart Meters Radiation Exposure Up to 160
researcher,with an interest in and extensive knowledge regarding the science behind Times More Than Cell Phones(Hirsch)
exposures to EMF's and health. She is an excellent presenter,and this is a must-watch I- ;
and must-share-widely presentation. The state legislators she is addressing at this
hearing in Michigan seem quite uninformed about rf radiation and health effects,as well
Updated:CA&Federal Laws Supporting No
Opt-out Fees and Complaint Info
as being very poorly educated in the sciences. In one disturbing response,a doubtful LL' 2 ,012
legislator mentioned that the American Cancer Society is (still) claiming that there is no
association between wireless and cancer. Dr. Goldberg explained that some organizations
have conflicts of interest and she had to explain what that meant, too,though I believe
that these legislators knew all about that,as they subsequently voted in favor of
industry-friendly SG legislation, 15-4.
Patricia Ross
3570 Pansy Circle
Seal Beach, CA 90740 et4r
FFB oFebruary1, 2019
C 42191pY'
Seal Beach City Council oFs
211 Eighth Street B
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Honorable Members of the City Council,
Genuine concern is growing over the installation of the 5G in our residential neighborhoods. I
am not qualified to explain to you the physical effects of the electromagnetic frequencies on all
biological systems so I have attached a letter that was ignored by Governor Brown in 2017. The
letter is from Dr Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at
Washington State University and is most clear what the dangers to us are.
I am appealing to you as the governing body of Seal Beach to enact similar "urgency ordinance"
that the community of Mill Valley did as well as Marin County and others. I am posting
additional Links below for you to assess the problem further and hope we can count on your
humanity to shine through.
Sincerely,
pale4..„
Pat Ross
Scientists warn of Potential serious health effects of 5G, September 13, 2017
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf
RED ALERT ON CALIFORNIA 5G SATURATION BILL SB 649 Posted on May 10, 2017 by Josh Hart
https://stopsmartmeters.org/2017/05/10/red-alert-on-california-5g-wireless-saturation-bill-sb-
649-tweetstorm-protests-brewing/
Bay Area city blocks 5G deployments over cancer concerns
Danny Crichton@dannycrichton /5 months ago
https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/10/bay-area-city-blocks-5g-deployments-over-cancer-
concerns/
Martin L. Pall,Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Biochemistry&Basic Medical Sciences
Washington State University
638 NE 41st Avenue
Portland,Oregon 97232
martin_pall@wsu.edu
September 20,2017
Governor Jerry Brown
State Capitol Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Please VETO SB 649
Dear Governor Brown:
I am Dr. Martin Pall,Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at
Washington State University. I am a published and widely cited scientist on the biological
effects of electromagnetic fields(EMFs)and speak internationally on this topic. I am
particularly expert in how wireless radiation impacts the electrical systems in our bodies. I
have published 7 studies showing there exists exquisite sensitivity to electromagnetic
fields(EMFs)in the voltage sensors in each cell, such that the force impacting our cells at
the voltage sensor has massive impact on the biology in the cells of our bodies [1-7].
These papers are discussed in over 360,000 web sites,which can be easily found by
Googling(Martin Pall electromagnetic). I received my PhD at Caltech,one of the top
scientific institutions in the world.
I am writing to recommend you veto SB.649.
EMFs act by activating channels in the membrane that surrounds each of our cells,called
voltage-gated calcium channels(VGCCs). The EMFs put forces on the voltage sensor that
controls the VGCCs of about 7.2 million times greater than the forces on other charged
groups in our cells [4,6,7]. This is why weak EMFs have such large biological effects on
the cells of our bodies. EMFs work this way not only on human and diverse animal cells
1-7]but also in plant cells [7] so that this is a universal or near universal mechanism of
action.
Thousands of published studies show biological and health effects from electromagnetic
fields. We now know the mechanism that can explain these effects. The mechanism is a
function of the electromagnetics of each cell—not solely about heating effects from the
1
radiation(on which present FCC guidelines are based).
This new understanding [1-7] means we can debunk the claims of the wireless industry
that there cannot be a mechanism for effects produced by these weak EMFs. The 20 years
plus of industry propaganda claims are false. Rather the thousands of studies showing
diverse health impacts of these EMFs can be explained. We now have a mechanism,one
that is supported by both the biology and the physics,both of which are pointing in exactly
the same direction. I am sending as a separate document a list of 142 reviews,each of
which provides from 12 to over a thousand individual citations showing health impacts of
low intensity EMFs,EMFs that the telecommunications industry claims cannot have such
effects. These 142 reviews and thousands of primary scientific papers they cite show that
the industry propaganda has no scientific support whatsoever.
The consensus among independent scientists on this is further confirmed by the 2015 (and
later)appeal made to the United Nations and member states, stating that the current EMF
safety guidelines are inadequate because they do not take into consideration non-thermal
effects. This was signed by 225 scientists from 41 countries,each of whom had published
peer reviewed studies on EMF health effects—a total of 2,000 papers published in this
area by the signers,a substantial fraction of the total publications in this area.
According to industry,the forces electromagnetic fields place on electrically-charged
groups in the cell are too weak to produce biological effects. However,the unique
structural properties of the voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC)protein can, it turns
out,explain why the force on a cell's voltage sensor from low-intensity EMFs are millions
of times stronger than are the forces on singly-charged groups elsewhere in the cell.
It would be a disaster for the health of Californians to be exposed to the antennas
envisioned in SB 649. The State of California would be making a grave mistake to
proceed with supporting the commercial interests of the wireless industry with this
legislation. You would best veto this bill, Governor Brown, and pause to understand the
gravity of the biological effects, and the ramifications for physical and mental health,as
well as consequences from continual damage to human DNA, and learn the facts from
scientists who are independent of the wireless industry,not from the industry lobbyists
who have a gigantic conflict of interest.
VGCC activation in cells produced by low intensity EMFs can explain long-reported
findings that electromagnetic fields cause a wide range of biological changes and health
effects. The first 6 of these(see below)were well documented 46 years ago in the U.S.
Office of Naval Medical Research report,published in 1971 [8]. The others that follow
have been extensively documented subsequently in the peer-reviewed scientific literature:
1)Various neurological/neuropsychiatric effects,including changes in brain structure and
function,changes in various types of psychological responses and changes in behavior. 2)
At least eight different endocrine(hormonal)effects. 3)Cardiac effects influencing the
electrical control of the heart,including changes in ECGs,producing arrhythmias,changes
that can be life threatening. 4)Chromosome breaks and other changes in chromosome
structure. 5) Histological changes in the testes. 6)Cell death(what is now called
7
apoptosis, a process important in neurodegenerative diseases).
Since 1971 many other effects of such EMFs must be added to that list: 7)Lowered male
fertility including lowered sperm quality and function and also lowered female fertility
less studied). 8)Oxidative stress. 9)Changes in calcium fluxes and calcium signaling. 10)
Cellular DNA damage including single strand breaks and double strand breaks in cellular
DNA and also 8-OHdG in cellular DNA. 11)Cancer which is likely to involve these DNA
changes but also increased rates of tumor promotion-like events. 12)Therapeutic effects
including stimulation of bone growth. 13) Cataract formation(previously thought to be
thermal,now known not to be). 14)Breakdown of the blood-brain barrier. 15) Melatonin
depletion and sleep disruption.
They may be low intensity but with regard to the VGCCs,electromagnetic fields can have
a tremendously powerful impact on the cells of our bodies. Furthermore,published studies
showing that calcium channel blocker drugs block or greatly lower biological effects from
electromagnetic fields confirm there is a VGCC activation mechanism that is causing
various effects. Higher frequency electromagnetic fields from 50 technologies on the
horizon pose even greater biological concern than those to which we are exposed today.
We should be moving, instead,to wired technologies at every opportunity, based on what
we know in science today,not expanding and supporting the proliferation of wireless.
I want to make several additional points very clear:
The Physics and the Biology are both pointing in the same direction. Both show that
EMFs act primarily via activating the VGCCs in the cells of our bodies.
DNA damage known to be produced by these EMFs occur in human sperm and may also
occur in human eggs, leading to large increases in mutation in any children born. It is
thought that an increase in mutation frequency of 2.5 to 3-fold will lead to extinction
because of accumulation of large numbers of damaging mutations. We may already be
over this level, and if so, simply continuing our current exposures will lead to eventual
extinction. Further increases in exposures will be more rapidly self-destructive.
Pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, more biologically active and therefore more dangerous
than are non-pulsed(continuous wave)EMFs. All cordless communication devices
communicate via pulsations,because it is the pulsations that carry the information
communicated. All the industry claims of safety are based on a theory (only thermal
effects)that was known to be wrong back in 1971 [8] —and that was before many
thousands of additional studies were published providing massive confirmation that
industry claims are false.
The industry is trying to move to much higher frequencies with 50 because these much
higher frequencies allow much higher pulsations and therefore much faster transmission of
information.However,these higher pulsation rates make these ultra-high devices vastly
more dangerous. This is part of the reason why it is so important to vote down SB 649.
None of our wireless communication devices are ever tested biologically for safety—not
cell phone towers,not cell phones,not Wi-Fi, not cordless phones,not smart meters and
certainly not 5G phones,or radar units in cars—before they are put out to irradiate an
unsuspecting public.
The telecommunications industry has corrupted the agencies that are supposed to be
regulating them. The best example of this is that the FCC which regulates EMFs in the
U.S. is a"captured agency",captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate, according
to an 8-chapter document published by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard
University [9]. Is it any wonder,therefore,that the industry keeps touting that their
devices are within the safety guidelines set by the FCC?
We know how the EMFs work in the body and that the industry propaganda has no
science behind it. But what can we say about the 5G EMFs and what effects it will have
on our bodies?5G will be much more active in activating the VGCCs and producing
health impacts because of its rapid absorption by materials in the body,because of its very
rapid pulsations and because of the huge number antennae they are planning to put up,at
least 200 times the number of antennae from all current cell phone towers. What this
means is that the impacts on the outer one to two inches of our bodies will be massive.
Because of this we can expect humans to suffer from:
1. Very large increases in blindness from each of the four major causes of blindness:
cataracts, macular degeneration,glaucoma and retinal detachment. Each of these involves
excessive calcium levels in different parts of the eye and 3 of them also involve excessive
voltage-gated calcium activity. I conclude that each of them is likely to be massively
elevated by 5G.
2. Large increases in hearing loss and tinnitus, leading in many cases to deafness.
3. Very large increases in male infertility,as well as universal drops in sperm count.
4.Very substantial numbers of melanoma skin cancer and leukemia and possibly other
types of cancer. EMFs appear to be particularly active in causing cancer in children and
consequently children are at special risk from 5G.
5. Impacts on the peripheral nervous system leading to near universal neuropathic pain
and peripheral neuropathy.
6. Large increases in thyroid dysfunction,because of the location of the thyroid gland near
the surface of the body.
7. Impacts on the immune system cells,possibly leading to autoimmune diseases and other
deficiencies.
8. Impacts on the erythrocytes(red blood cells), leading to stacking of the erythrocytes
into rouleaux(long chains)and also cell lysis, leading to very low oxygen in the tissues
and lowered nutrients transport to the tissues.
Because plants and animals are affected much as we are,but they have much larger parts
of them are highly exposed to the 5G radiation,the impacts on insects(including bees
4
and other pollinators),birds,small mammals and almost all plants will be much more
severe than the effects of humans. Even large trees have their leaves and reproductive
organs highly exposed to 5G radiation. It is quite possible that the attempts by industry to
put 5G in rural areas of California will have tremendous impact on California's unique
agriculture. It is hard to imagine the chaos that will be generated on thousands of different
species. To put 5G out with no biological safety testing is, in my view,a travesty.
I urge you to do the right thing on behalf of the health of Californians and future
generations: Please VETO SB 649.Please let me know if I can provide further
information,or if you'd like to meet in person to learn more,feel free to contact me at
503)232-3883.
Respectfully,
s/Martin Pall
Martin Pall, PhD
Citations:
1. Pall ML. 2013 Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium
channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med 17:958-965.
2. Pall ML. 2014 Electromagnetic field activation of voltage-gated calcium channels: role
in therapeutic effects. Electromagn Biol Med. 2014 Apr 8.
3. Pall ML. 2015 Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian
Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to
induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for
microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Rev Environ Health 30:99-116.
4. Pall ML. 2015 Elektromagnetische Felder wirken ber die Aktivierung spannungsabh
ngiger Calciumkan le, um g nstige oder ung nstige Wirkungen zu erzeugen. Umwelt-
Medizin-Gesellshaft 28: 22-31.
5. Pall ML. 2015 How to approach the challenge of minimizing non-thermal health effects
of microwave radiation from electrical devices. International Journal of Innovative
Research in Engineering& Management(IJIREM)ISSN: 2350-0557,Volume-2,Issue-5,
September 2015; 71-76.
6. Pall ML. 2016 Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields(EMFs)produce
widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression. J Chem Neuroanat 75(Pt B):43-
51.doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.08.001. Epub 2015 Aug 21.
7. Pall ML. 2016 Electromagnetic fields act similarly in plants as in animals: Probable
activation of calcium channels via their voltage sensor. Curr Chem Biol 10: 74-82.
r,
8.Naval Medical Research Institute Research Report,June 1971. Bibliography of
Reported Biological Phenomena("Effects")and Clinical Manifestations,Revised,ZR
Glaser.
9. Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the
Industries It Presumably Regulates,by Norm Alster. Published by Edmond J. Safra Center
for Ethics,Harvard University.An e-book under the Creative Commons 4.0 License:
https:/creativecommons.org/licences/by/4
h
OP
EMFscientist.org
International EMF Scientist Appeal calls for greater health protection
In May 2015, 190 scientists submitted the International EMF Scientist Appeal addressed to the top leaders at the
United Nations,the World Health Organization,and the UN Environment Program. The Appeal urgently
calls for greater health protection in the midst of what has become an historic,global phenomenon--the rapid
expansion and proliferation of wireless communications and electrical technologies. The possible impact of
deployment of these technologies on human health has not yet been thoroughly studied. As of September 1,2018,
244 scientists have signed the Appeal.
These scientists have published over 2,000 research papers on electromagnetic fields(EMF)on biology or health.
Their concern is based on the vast number of studies that reported biological and adverse health effects of non-
ionizing EMF far below the current exposure guidelines set by the FCC and other international EMF-exposure
guideline setting organizations.Their concerns mainly include radiofrequency radiation(RFR)emitting devices,
such as cellular and cordless phones,cell towers,Wi-Fi,radio and TV broadcast antennas,smart meters,and baby
monitors,as well as extremely-low frequency electromagnetic fields(ELF EMF)emitted by electric devices and
infrastructures used in the delivery of electricity.
The scientific basis for their collective concern is"numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF
affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased
cancer risk,cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals,genetic damages,structural and functional changes of
the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits,neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general
well-being in humans."
These scientists make the following recommendations:protection of children and pregnant women;strengthened
guidelines and regulatory standards;development of safer technology; utilities maintain adequate power quality and
ensure proper electrical wiring;public health information and harm reduction strategies; medical education and
training,establishment of independent,sustained government research programs;media disclosure of EMF expert's
financial ties to industry;and designation of white zones(radiation-free areas).
The Advisors to the Appeal recommend that 5th Generation Wireless(i.e. 5G)should be investigated before it is
deployed.
Ronald Melnick,Ph.D., Senior Toxicologist(retired)and former leader of the NTP's health effects studies of cell
phone radio frequency radiation, National Toxicology Program,National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences,USA),and an advisor to the Appeal,states:
I)find it appalling that mobile phone emission standards do not adjust for children
when it is well established that the absorption of radiofrequency radiation by the brain
is greater in children than in adults,the developing brain is highly susceptible to tissue
damaging agents,and the use of wireless devices is being actively marketed to children.
At a minimum,regulatory agencies need to make strong recommendations for consumers
to take precautionary measures and avoid close contact with their mobile phones."
For the complete Appeal,go to https://emfscientist.org/.For more information,contact:
Joel Moskowitz,Ph.D.,(imm@berkelev.edu)or Elizabeth Kelley,MA,(info@emfscientist.org).
5G and Internet of Things: A Trojan horse
March 27, 2018 I Filed under: Uncategorized I Posted by: GG Contributor
By Paul Heroux, Ph.D.,Professor of Electromagnetic Toxicology, Faculty of
Medicine, McGill University —
The wireless industry dreams of deploying its new 5G (fifth generation)
infrastructure in your neighbourhood soon, as it has begun doing in California.
Boxes the size of a PC could be placed every 150 meters or so on utility poles,
sometimes with small-refrigerator-sized boxes on the ground. 5G technology uses
pulsed, millimeter-sized microwaves that are easily blocked by obstacles such as
leaves, hence the need to install millions of cell signal boosters near homes.
lip!lir
11!!!
IP1/
4j
iii,..4.., impso
4,,,,,, ...._.....
Ape g
4
1
4 IA.10,iTill1. 1,• . • '- 144* h. );S .' 14,ov ( e--t• `'.- -
OV
r.-.-
tea'. S 1' '''
CJ.
1i`
f
1. L n ';111, ` ALIEL*2.111V
4
t. ~SdC. X11 ..
r...
0.
N`•
of TIC'k. r `
tL ll;; 4.„
1 .SSR
11.",:
tt - 4
14111
A„..._-.:......
y
r, r.rf t •^
b- !f ; '~ mow *
14;
1:! -.
f.
w4- i' f 1 y
i t
Internet of things in the city. Photo: www.123rf.com/profile_Elnur
The telecoms say this is the most efficient way to ease the digital congestion caused
by audio-video streaming, whose global traffic, according to American giant Cisco,
will be 11 times higher in 2018 than in 2014. Data would move through fibre optic
cables, but rather than bringing these cables to your home, the last leg of the data's
journey would generally be wireless. As markets work, personal mobile phone
subscriptions are more profitable than the higher speed fibre optic connections linked
to desktops through your own router.
The 5G network would also support the huge increase in wireless communications
created by the Internet of Things (IoT). Since most people already own a cellphone,
industry wants to expand its market by embedding a cellular microchip into most
manufactured goods. Therefore, items purchased in the future would generate data to
be collected by companies and, ultimately, by governments. 5G-IoT is promoted by
the promise of"smart" cities, leading to a more comfortable, convenient, and efficient
life. But besides a relentless expansion of sales, 5G-IoT will strengthen mobile phones
as a platform for publicity and population control. Further, 5G-IoT deployment carries
significant health risks.
An inconvenient truth denied by industry
On September 13, 2017, 180 scientists and physicians from 35 countries signed a call
to action demanding a moratorium on 5G deployment until its radiation levels are
proven safe, particularly for children and pregnant women. Indeed, all these inter-
connected objects would significantly increase radiation from electromagnetic fields
EMF) in our environment.
And yet, aware of the enormous potential of this market, engineers managed to have
these radiations characterized harmless, through 50 years of sustained efforts, by
infiltrating and monopolizing standardization committees. Don't worry, they say, if
the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health
Organization, classified low- and high-frequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly
carcinogenic to humans" in 2001 and 2011 , respectively. Don't worry that a study
funded by the US National Toxicology Program confirmed the causal link between
brain cancer and cellphone use. Ignore, they say, thousands of scientific publications
documenting since the 1960s the harmful effects of chronic, low level exposure to
microwave radiation, including more recent studies included in the 2007 and 2012
Biolnitiative Reports. Forget also that these radiations have been linked to diabetes,
lower human fertility, cardiac disturbances, several neurological diseases, and genetic
changes.
And forget about people suffering from electrohypersensitivity, forced to relocate to
isolated regions because they suffer from "microwave illness," a term coined by the
Soviet military in the 1950s. Electromagnetic intolerance is an occupational disease
whose symptoms disappear in non-electrical environments, concluded the Nordic
Council of Ministers in 2000. EMF health risks were even highlighted in the March
2016 issue of IEEE Power Electronics, the magazine of the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers. Constantly denied by the wireless industry, these facts
constitute an inconvenient truth, as Al Gore would say.
Regulators prohibit any public health debate
The telecommunication industry's hold on federal governments is such that
deployment of 5G-IoT networks is imposed and violates the rights of other
jurisdictions, as well as individuals. Any debate about health risks caused by EMFs is
forbidden during public hearings on cell tower sittings. You will be inevitably
exposed to this radiation and even more so by goods fitted with transmitting chips. It
is to prevent such abuse that California Governor Jerry Brown recently vetoed Bill
649, which would have prevented the State's cities and counties from deciding on 5G
antenna sitting.
In 1942, renowned biochemist and futurist Isaac Asimov coined the Three Laws of
Robotics, at a time when the influence of robotization was barely beginning. The first
law was: "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human
being to come to harm." As we enter the 5G-IoT revolution, should we not consider
similar guidelines? Technology should not injure human beings, especially when
alternatives such as optical fibre are available. Living organisms have tolerance to
natural electrophysiological activity, but not to any of the artificial EMFs created
since the 19th century. Nature cannot protect itself from pulsed and modulated
microwave radiation with carriers oscillating billions of times per second.
Individual freedom requires that any IoT transmitter be activated by its owner, and
that the default position should be not to transmit any information or radiation. This
will safeguard privacy, and peoples' right to protection from unwanted microwave
exposure.
In /984, George Orwell's novel, society becomes a supposedly benevolent state
offering comfort, practicability, and efficiency. But everyone is spied upon and
monitored by a sophisticated communications system that constantly reminds people
that Big Brother is watching. This book illustrates the abuse of power and the erosion
of civil liberties caused by mass surveillance. Without limits, technology may
supersede humanity, and that process is already underway.
As Marshall McLuhan put it, "the medium is the message"; unlimited deployment of
new technology often creates disastrous and unpredictable consequences, and 5G-IoT
networks and products are very likely to do so. In 2018, the Orwellian prophecy
comes true, 34 years later than predicted in the book 1984, which was published in
1948. Any type of automation reduces human autonomy and the powerful often abuse
their privileges. The US Federal Communications Commission's recent decision to
repeal the rules that regulated Net neutrality, allowing companies to reduce the
transmission speed of some data compared to others, illustrates this point. In the book
1984, the government monopolized information while now, with 5G-IoT,
corporations wedge themselves in information control. Failing a revolution, it is often
difficult to recover any rights and freedoms abandoned in the past.
The cellphone has proven useful as a communication tool, but there is no need to
expand it beyond its capacity to transmit short voice and text messages. The industry
would like us to download 3D movies on the move, so justifying a 5G network. But
this is going in the wrong direction. To prevent a public health crisis, the density of
microwave signals must, on the contrary, be reduced by 10,000 times if not more.
Optical fibre is safer, healthier, and faster
5G intends to turn smartphones into mobile entertainment and visual stimulation
centres purely for commercial reasons. 5G has no real strategic value. You can't use a
smartphone to design a commercial airplane. A more useful investment would be to
connect the optical fibre network directly to users. Everyone could enjoy a
communication speed ultimately 10,000 times faster than wireless, less vulnerable to
hacking and harmless to the health of humans and other species.
In 1776, Adam Smith, the first theorist of capitalism, warned us in The Wealth of
Nations not to trust merchants when it comes to making regulations. He saw them as
the cause of many future tragedies, because of their narrow-mindedness when it came
to profit. Our governments should be wise enough and willing to establish serious
guidelines for the upcoming data revolution.
Review of 878 Russian studies performed between 1960 and 1997:
www.kompetenzinitiative.net/KIT/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/KI Brochure-
6 K Hecht web.pdf
Further reading:
Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks
www.whatis5g.info
Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G"
www.drive.google.com/file/d/OB14R6QNkmaXuelFrNWRQcThNVOU/view
Casual link between brain cancer and cellphone use.
www.ehtrust.org/cancer-researcher-states-25-nih-study-confirms-cel l-phone-
radiation-can-cause-cancer/
Harmful effects of low-level exposure to microwave radiation.
www.emf-portal.org/en
Biolnitiative Reports
www.bioinitiative.org/
IEEE Power Electronics, March 2016 issue.
www_ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/742.5396/?reload=true
California Governor Jerry Brown vetoes Bill 649.
wv'v ;Cientists4wiredtech.com/lf) ? ""1 Q/sb-649-vetoed-by-gov-brown!
Note: This article republished with permission from the author and originally
published at: www.maisonsaine.ca/english/5g-and-iot-a-trojan-horse.html
Paul Heroux is a PhD in physics, and a scientist with 15 years of experience in
physics and engineering, and more than 30 years in the health sciences. He began his
research career at the Hydro-Quebec Research Institute in Varennes. After taking
additional training in biology and medicine, he became professor of toxicology and
the effects of electromagnetism on health at the Faculty of Medicine at McGill
University, where he directs the Health Program. He leads the InVitro Plus
Laboratory of the Department of Surgery at the McGill University Health Center,
where he made an important discovery on the effects of electromagnetic fields on
cancer cells. He devoted a chapter on this topic in the 2012 edition of the Biolnitiative
Report, an important synthesis on the health effects of electrosmog.
http://www.thegreengazette.ca/5g-and-internet-of things-a-trojan-
horse/
More Create Blog
Wednesday,November 14,2018 Joel M.Moskowitz,Ph.D.
Director
5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California,Berkeley
The emergence of 5G,fifth-generation telecommunications networks,has been in the news lately because the
wireless industry has been pushing controversial legislation at the state level to expedite the deployment of this
technology.The legislation would block the rights of local governments and their citizens to control the
About
installation of cellular antennas in the public"right-of-way."Cell antennas may be installed on public utility poles
every 10-20 houses in urban areas.According to the industry,as many as 50,000 new cell sites will be required
Overview of Contents
in California alone.Latest News
Cell phone cancer risk Spin vs Fact
Although many major cities and newspapers have opposed this legislation,the potential health risks from the proliferation of new Tips to Reduce Your Wireless Radiation Exposure
cellular antenna sites have been ignored.These cell antennas will expose the population to new sources of radio frequency About
radiation including millimeter waves.
5G will employ low-(0.6 GHz-3.7 GHz),mid- 3.7-24 GHz).and high-band frequencies(24 GHz and higher).In the U.S.,the
Archive
P Y 9 4
Federal Communications Commission(FCC)has allocated-low-band-spectrum at 0.6 GHz(e.g.,600 MHz),"mid-band'2019(12)
spectrum in the 3.5 GHz range,and 11 GHz of"high-band"frequencies including licensed spectrum from 27.5-28.35 GHz and 2018(47)
37-40 GHz,as well as unlicensed spectrum from 64-71 GHz which is open to all wireless equipment manufacturers.
December(4)
November(8)Prior to widespread deployment.major cell phone carriers are experimenting with new technologies that employ"hih-band"
frequencies in communities across the country.The"high-band"frequencies largely consist of millimeter waves(MMWs),a type Effect of Mobile Phones on Sperm Quality
of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths of one to ten millimeters and frequencies ranging from 30 to 300 GHz(or billions National Toxicology Program Peer&public review
of cycles per second).
Pregnancy&Wireless Radiation Risks
The characteristics of MMWs are different than the'low-band"(i.e.,microwave)frequencies which are currently in use by the
Research on Smart Phone and Internet Addiction
cellular and wireless industries.MMWs can transmit large amounts of data over short distances.The transmissions can be 50 Wireless Technology Millimeter Wave Health Eff..
directed into narrow beams that travel by line-of-sight and can move data at high rates(e.g.,up to 10 billion bits per second)with Breaking News Yale Univ/Connecticut Health Dep
short lags(or latencies)between transmissions.The signals are blocked by buildings,and foliage can absorb much of their
Thyroid Cancer 8,Mobile Phone Use
energy.Also,the waves can be reflected by metallic surfaces.Although antennas can be as small as a few millimeters,"small
cell"antenna arrays may consist of dozens or even hundreds of antenna elements NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study Final Reports
October(8)
What does research tell us about the biologic and health effects of millimeter waves?
0. September(4)
August(4)
Millimeter waves(MMWs)are mostly absorbed within 1 to 2 millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. July(2)
Thus,the skin or near-surface zones of tissues are the primary targets of the radiation.Since skin contains capillaries and nerve
June(1)
endings,MMW bio-effects may be transmitted through molecular mechanisms by the skin or through the nervous system.
May(2)
Thermal(or heating)effects occur when the power density of the waves is above 5-10 mW/cm2.Such high-intensity MMWs act April(3)
on human skin and the comea in a dose-dependent manner—beginning with heat sensation followed by pain and physical March(4)
damage at higher exposures.Temperature elevation can impact the growth,morphology and metabolism of cells.induce
February(3)
production of free radicals,and damage DNA.
January(4)
The maximum permissible exposure that the FCC permits for the general public is 1.0 mW/cm2 averaged over 30 minutes for 2017(13)
frequencies that range from 1.5 GHz to 100 GHz.This guideline was adopted in 1996 to protect humans from acute exposure to 2016(29)
thermal levels of radiofrequency radiation.However,the guidelines were not designed to protect us from nonthermal risks that
may occur with prolonged or long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
2015(31)
2014(11)
Wth the deployment of fifth generation wireless infrastructure(aka SG),much of the nation will be exposed to MMWs for the first 2013(41)
time on a continuous basis.Due to FCC guidelines,these exposures will likely be of low intensity.Hence,the health
consequences of 6G exposure will be limited to non-thermal effects produced by prolonged exposure to MMWs in
conjunction with exposure to low-and mid-band radiofrequency radiation.
Unfortunately,few studies have examined prolonged exposure to low-intensity MMWs,and no research that I am aware of has
focused on exposure to MMWs combined with other radiofrequency radiation.
Although biologic effects of low-intensity MMWs have been studied for decades,particularly in Eastern Europe,study results are
often inconsistent because the effects are related to many factors including the frequency,modulation.power density,and
duration of the exposures,as well as the type of tissue or cells being investigated.
Results vary across studies—MMWs have been shown to induce or inhibit cell death and enhance or suppress cell proliferation.
Some studies found that the radiation inhibits cell cycle progression,and some studies reported no biologic effects(Le Drean et
al..2013)
A review of the research in 2010 noted that"A large number of cellular studies have indicated that MMW may alter structural and
functional properties of membranes."Exposure to MMWs may affect the plasma membrane either by modifying ion channel
activity or by modifying the phospholipid bilayer.Water molecules also seem to play a role in these effects.Skin nerve endings
are a likely target of MMWs and the possible starting point of numerous biological effects.MMWs may activate the immune
system through stimulation of the peripheral neural system(Ramundo-Orlando.2010).
In 1998,five scientists employed by U.S.Army and Air Force research institutes published a seminal review of the research on
MMWs.They reported.
Increased sensitivity and even hypersensitivity of individual specimens to MMW may be real Depending on the
exposure characteristics.especially wavelength.a low-intensity MMW radiation was perceived by 30 to 80%of healthy
examinees(Lebedeva,1993,1995).Some clinical studies reported MMW hypersensitivity,which was or was not limited
to a certain wavelength(Golovacheva,1995)."
It is important to note that.even with the variety of bioeffects reported,no studies have provided evidence that a low-
intensity MMW radiation represents a health hazard for human beings.Actually,none of the reviewed studies with low-
intensity MMW even pursued the evaluation of health risks.although in view of numerous bioeffects and growing usage
of MMW technologies this research objective seems very reasonable.Such MMW effects as alterations of cell growth
rate and UV light sensitivity,biochemical and antibiotic resistivity changes in pathogenic bacteria,as well as many others
are of potential significance for safety standards,but even local and short-term exposures were reported to produce
marked effects.It should also be realized that biological effects of a prolonged or chronic MMW exposure of the whole
body or a large body area have never been investigated.Safety limits for these types of exposures are based solely on
predictions of energy deposition and MMW heating,but in view of recent studies this approach is not necessarily
adequate."(Pakhomov et al.,1998)
Microbes are also affected by MMW radiation.In 2016 a review of the research on the effects of MMWs on bacteria was
published(Soghomonyan et al.,2016).The authors summarized their findings as follows:
bacteria and other cells might communicate with each other by electromagnetic field of sub-extremely high frequency
range.These MMW affected Escherichia coli and many other bacteria.mainly depressing their growth and changing
properties and activity.These effects were non-thermal and depended on different factors.The significant cellular
targets for MMW effects could be water,cell plasma membrane,and genome....The consequences of MMW interaction
with bacteria are the changes in their sensitivity to different biologically active chemicals.including antibiotics._.These
effects are of significance for understanding changed metabolic pathways and distinguish role of bacteria in
environment.they might be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria."
Changing the sensitivity of bacteria to antibiotics by MMW irradiation can be important for the understanding of
antibiotic resistance in the environment.In this respect,it is interesting that bacteria[that]survived near
telecommunication-based stations like Bacillus and Clostridium spp.have been found to be multidrug resistant
Adebayo et al.., -:)." (Soghomonyan et al.,2016)
In sum,the peer-reviewed research demonstrates that short-term exposure to low-intensity millimeter wave(MMW)radiation not
only affects human cells,it may result in the growth of multi-drug resistant bacteria harmful to humans.Since little research has
been conducted on the health consequences from long-term exposure to MMWs,widespread deployment of 5G or 5th
generation wireless infrastructure constitutes a massive experiment that may have adverse impacts on the public's
health.
Related Posts
50 Wireless Technology:Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?
5G Wireless Technology:Major newspaper editorials oppose"small cell"antenna bills
Cell Tower Health Effects
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
Following are summaries of research reviews of the effects of MMW exposure and a list of recently published studies.
Millimeter Wave Research Reviews
Updated Aug 9,2017)
Belyaev IV,Shcheglov VS,Alipov ED,Ushakov VD.Nonthermal effects of extremely high-frequency microwaves on chromatin
conformation in cells in vitro—Dependence on physical,physiological,and genetic factors.IEEE Transactions on Microwave
Theory and Techniques.2000:48(11):2172-2179.
Abstract
There is a substantial number of studies showing biological effects of microwaves of extremely high-frequency range[i.e..
millimeter waves(MMWs)]at nonthermal intensities,but poor reproducibility was reported in few replication studies.One
possible explanation could be the dependence of the MMW effects on some parameters,which were not controlled in
replications.The authors studied MMW effects on chromatin conformation in Escherichia coli(E.coli)cells and rat thymocytes
Strong dependence of MMW effects on frequency and polarization was observed at nonthermal power densities-Several other
factors were important,such as the genotype of a strain under study,growth stage of the bacterial cultures,and time between
exposure to microwaves and recording of the effect.MMW effects were dependent on cell density during exposure.This finding
suggested an interaction of microwaves with cell-to-cell communication.Such dependence on several genetic,physiological,and
physical variables might be a reason why,in some studies,the authors failed to reproduce the original data of others
httphwww avaate orgrI MG!pdf/IEEE_MTT_paper pdf
Le Drean Y,Mahamoud VS.Le Page V.Habauzit D,Le Quement C,Zhadobov M.Sauleau R.State of knowledge on biological
effects at 40-60 GHz.Comptes Rendus Physique.2013;14(5):402-411.
Abstract
Millimetre waves correspond to the range of frequencies located between 30 and 300 GHz.Many applications exist and are
emerging in this band.including wireless telecommunications,imaging and monitoring systems.In addition,some of these
frequencies are used in therapy in Eastern Europe,suggesting that interactions with the human body are possible.This review
aims to summarise current knowledge on interactions between millimetre waves and living matter.Several representative
examples from the scientific literature are presented.Then,possible mechanisms of interactions between millimetre waves and
biological systems are discussed.
https.//doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2013.02.005
Pakhomov AG,Akyel Y,Pakhomova ON,Stuck BE,Murphy MR.Current state and implications of research on biological effects
of millimeter waves:a review of the literature.Bioelectromagnetics.1998;19(7)393-413.
In recent years,research into biological and medical effects of millimeter waves(MMW)has expanded greatly.This paper
analyzes general trends in the area and briefly reviews the most significant publications,proceeding from cell-free systems,
dosimetry,and spectroscopy issues through cultured cells and isolated organs to animals and humans.The studies reviewed
demonstrate effects of low-intensity MMW(10 mW/cm2 and less)on cell growth and proliferation,activity of enzymes,state of
cell genetic apparatus,function of excitable membranes,peripheral receptors,and other biological systems In animals and
humans,local MMW exposure stimulated tissue repair and regeneration,alleviated stress reactions.and facilitated recovery in a
wide range of diseases(MMW therapy).Many reported MMW effects could not be readily explained by temperature changes
during irradiation.The paper outlines some problems and uncertainties in the MMW research area,identifies tasks for future
studies,and discusses possible implications for development of exposure safety criteria and guidelines.
https./Avww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9771583
Ramundo-Orlando A.Effects of millimeter waves radiation on cell membrane-A brief review.Journal of Infrared,Millimeter,and
Terahertz Waves. 2010;31(12):1400-1411.
Abstract
The millimeter waves(MMW)region of the electromagnetic spectrum,extending from 30 to 300 GHz in terms of frequency
corresponding to wavelengths from 10 mm to 1 mm),is officially used in non-invasive complementary medicine in many Eastern
European countries against a variety of diseases such gastro duodenal ulcers,cardiovascular disorders,traumatism and tumor.
On the other hand.besides technological applications in traffic and military systems,in the near future MMW will also find
applications in high resolution and high-speed wireless communication technology.This has led to restoring interest in research
on MMW induced biological effects.In this review emphasis has been given to the MMW-induced effects on cell membranes that
are considered the major target for the interaction between MMW and biological systems.
https:!/lin k.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs 10762-010-9731-z
Ryan KL,D'Andrea JA,Jauchem JR.Mason PA.Radio frequency radiation of millimeter wave length:potential occupational
safety issues relating to surface heating. Health Phys.2000:78(2):170-81.
Abstract
Currently.technology is being developed that makes use of the millimeter wave(MMW)range(30-300 GHz)of the radio
frequency region of the electromagnetic spectrum.As more and more systems come on line and are used in everyday
applications,the possibility of inadvertent exposure of personnel to MMWs increases.To date,there has been no published
discussion regarding the health effects of MMWs:this review attempts to fill that void.Because of the shallow depth of
penetration,the energy and,therefore,heat associated with MMWs will be deposited within the first 1-2 mm of human skin.
MMWs have been used in states of the former Soviet Union to provide therapeutic benefit in a number of diverse disease states,
including skin disorders,gastric ulcers.heart disease and cancer.Conversely,the possibility exists that hazards might be
associated with accidental overexposure to MMWs.This review attempts to critically analyze the likelihood of such acute effects
as bum and eye damage,as well as potential long-term effects,including cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu bmed/1064798 3
Soghomonyan D.Trchounian K.Trchounian A.Millimeter waves or extremely high frequency electromagnetic fields in the
environment:what are their effects on bacteria?Appl Microbiol Biotechnol.2016:100(11):4761-71.doi:10.1007/s00253-016-
7538-0.
Abstract
Millimeter waves(MMW)or electromagnetic fields of extremely high frequencies at low intensity is a new environmental factor.
the level of which is increased as technology advance.It is of interest that bacteria and other cells might communicate with each
other by electromagnetic field of sub-extremely high frequency range.These MMW affected Escherichia coli and many other
bacteria,mainly depressing their growth and changing properties and activity.These effects were non-thermal and depended on
different factors.The significant cellular targets for MMW effects could be water,cell plasma membrane,and genome.The
model for the MMW interaction with bacteria is suggested;a role of the membrane-associated proton FOF1-ATPase,key
enzyme of bioenergetic relevance,is proposed.The consequences of MMW interaction with bacteria are the changes in their
sensitivity to different biologically active chemicals,including antibiotics.Novel data on MMW effects on bacteria and their
sensitivity to different antibiotics are presented and discussed;the combined action of MMW and antibiotics resulted with more
strong effects.These effects are of significance for understanding changed metabolic pathways and distinguish role of bacteria
in environment.they might be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria.The effects might have applications in the development
of technique,therapeutic practices,and food protection technology.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27087527
Torgomyan H,Trchounian A.Bactericidal effects of low-intensity extremely high frequency electromagnetic field an overview
with phenomenon,mechanisms,targets and consequences.Crit Rev Microbial.2013;39(1):102-11.
Abstract
Low-intensity electromagnetic field(EMF)of extremely high frequencies is a widespread environmental factor.This field is used
in telecommunication systems,therapeutic practices and food protection.Particularly,in medicine and food industries EMF is
used for its bactericidal effects.The significant targets of cellular mechanisms for EMF effects at resonant frequencies in bacteria
could be water(H2O),cell membrane and genome.The changes in H2O cluster structure and properties might be leading to
increase of chemical activity or hydration of proteins and other cellular structures.These effects are likely to be specific and long-
term.Moreover,cell membrane with its surface characteristics,substance transport and energy-conversing processes is also
altered.Then,the genome is affected because the conformational changes in DNA and the transition of bacterial pro-phages
from lysogenic to lytic state have been detected.The consequences for EMF interaction with bacteria are the changes in their
sensitivity to different chemicals,including antibiotics.These effects are important to understand distinguishing role of bacteria in
environment,leading to changed metabolic pathways in bacteria and their antibiotic resistance.This EMF may also affect the
cell-to-cell interactions in bacterial populations,since bacteria might interact with each other through EMF of sub-extremely high
frequency range.
https://www.n cbi.n lm.n ih.g ov/pu bme d/2266768 b
Recent Millimeter Wave Studies
Updated:November 29,2018)
Bantysh BB,Krylov AY,Subbotina TI,Khadartsev AA,Ivanov DV,Yashin AA.Peculiar effects of electromagnetic millimeter
waves on tumor development in BALB/c mice.
Bull Exp Biol Med.2018 Sep;165(5):692-694.httpsa/www ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30225701
Foster KR,Ziskin MC,Balzano Q.Thermal response of human skin to microwave energy:A critical review.Health Phys.2016.
111(6):528-541.(Note.This work was sponsored by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum.The authors state that MMF had no
control over the contents.) hrips://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govipubmed127798477
Gandhi OP,Riazi A.Absorption of millimeter waves by human beings and its biological implications.IEEE Transactions on
Microwave Theory and Techniques.MTT-34(2):228-235.1986.http://bit ly/2oS3rKD
Haas AJ.Le Page Y,Zhadobov M.Sauleau R,Le Drean Y Effects of 60-GHz millimeter waves on neurite outgrowth in PC12
cells using high-content screening.Neurosci Lett.2016 Apr 8;618:58-65.https//www.ncbi nim nth govipubmed!26921450
Haas AJ,Le Page Y,Zhadobov M,Sauleau R,Drean YL,Saligaut C.Effect of acute millimeter wave exposure on dopamine
metabolism of NGF-treated PC12 cells.J Radiat Res.2017 Feb 24:1-7.https//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28339776
Hovnanyan K,Kalantaryan V,Trchounian A.The distinguishing effects of low intensity electromagnetic radiation of different
extremely high frequences on Enterococcus hirae:growth rate inhibition and scanning electron microscopy analysis.Lett Appl
Microbiol.2017.https://www.ncbi.nlm nih.gov/pubmed/28609553
Koyama S,Narita E.Shimizu Y.Suzuki Y,Shiina T,Taki M,Shinohara N,Miyakoshi J.Effects of long-term exposure to 60 GHz
millimeter-wavelength radiation on the genotoxicity and heat shock protein(Hsp)expression of cells derived from human eye.Int
J Environ Res Public Health.2016 Aug 8;13(8).pit:E802.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gowpubmed127509516
Sivachenko IB,Medvedev DS,Molodtsova ID,Panteleev SS,Sokolov AY,Lyubashina OA.Effects of millimeter-wave
electromagnetic radiation on the experimental model of migraine.Bull Exp Biol Med.2016 Feb;160(4):425-8.doi:
10.1007/s10517-016-3187-7.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26899844
0+
Labels 5G.5g frequency.5G wavelength bioeffects.biologic effects fifth generation wireless health effects..millimeter waves SB 649
Newer Post Home Older Post
Simple theme.Powered by
Z///M
Szr
Gov. Jerry Brown late Sunday vetoed Senate Bill 649
which proposed to scale back local government permit processes for
antennas and equipment for wireless services.
By Tracy Seipel I tseipel@bayareanewsgroup.com I Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: October 16, 2017 at 12:25 am I UPDATED: October 16, 2017 at 10:50
am
Gov. Jerry Brown late Sunday vetoed a bill backed by the cell phone industry that
would have made it easier to install microwave radiation antennas.
Senate Bill 649, authored by Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego and co-authored by
Assemblyman Bill Quirk, D-Hayward, proposed to scale back the permitting process
for antennas and other equipment in an effort to meet demand for wireless services.
In a signing statement, Brown wrote that while he saw the value in "extending this
innovative technology rapidly and efficiently," the bill took too much control away
from cities and counties.
The bill was primarily supported by the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet
Association, the main trade group for the U.S. wireless telecommunications industry.
The group said SB 649 would help boost the economy.
Yet the bill had alarmed many local government officials around the state. They
worried if SB 649 became law, it would cap how much they could charge phone
companies for leases to $250 a year. Others raised concerns about the risk to public
health from cell towers.
Grass-roots activists and scientists said that if SB 649 became law, a projected 50,000
new cellular antennas would be installed on public buildings and utility poles in
California neighborhoods, creating a risk to public health because of the dangers of
radiation and electromagnetic frequencies emitted by cell towers.
I am thrilled that Governor Brown showed strength and stood up to this powerful
wireless industry and said no — you are not going to do this in my state!" Ellen
Marks, a San Francisco-based leader of the California Alliance for Safer Technology,
wrote in an email after Brown's decision was posted online.
This is a tremendous victory for democracy," said Marks, whose group is trying to
keep cellular antennas away from homes, schools, offices and parks.
An industry spokeswoman said the bill maintained local authority for "small cell"
antennas, particularly in historical or coastal areas, and that governments could
recover capital and administrative costs.
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo was among several Bay Area leaders who voiced their
opposition to the bill.
Quirk and Hueso called the health concerns overblown, saying the cell towers are
safe.
Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC
Berkeley's School of Public Health, was heartened by Brown's veto, coming on the
heels of a federal appeals court ruling last week that supports Berkeley's landmark
cell phone "right to know" ordinance.
The city law, which took effect in 2016, requires retailers to warn cellphone
customers that wearing their device next to the body could result in exposure to radio
frequency radiation exceeding federal guidelines. Cellphone retailers must either post
the message or provide a paper copy to anyone who buys or leases phones.
The Governor's veto of SB 649 protects Californians from exposure to millimeter
radiation from as many as 50,000 new cell towers," Moskowitz wrote in an email
Sunday night.
He noted that more than 180 scientists and doctors have signed a declaration calling
for a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas required for 5G deployment, "as we
are concerned about the health effects including neurological impacts, infertility, and
cancer."
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/16/california-gpv-ferry-
brown-vetoes-bill-easing-permits-on-cell-phone-towers/
Barrie Trower.G5
Web rmanes Videos N..••..
for Barrie Trower.G5
with food, 4 ir
vacs •
II!tr
14.21 39 08
Barrie Trower On 5G-There Is Wifi.Microwaves and the Barrie Trower 5G Will
No Safe Place.No Where...Consequences to our Health Devastate Humanity But
O a a
Barrie Trower On 5G Microwaves-There is No Safe Space ...
Same Trower t',, • No Se'e Ic 2018
PrC .tar, -":!8.,e:rc•:In[.,•i C :,n or.t,7••.c:•rr.:a o-.:'o c '''Olt..n('t':.t'u>tee ono oOY't•5r,•
pl.-_. ,I:•':1•.•7ru•.0.r'a.Cn i-.r,a t:n.n,., .. .i.... :t.. ..
Barrie Trower On 5G: There Is No Safe Place. No Where To Go
Baine Trower Or Si, Tlx',t.h Nu Svie^lace.No W'^crr o,c•1 v.0 loot. :t
0.! i.,. e, i'b Su, ,i,L•p,,bx.nbi•cl
0
Barrie Trower 5G Will Devastate Humanity But Those Behind It ...
Rein.N try veler.r'Barrie Trower w•.t Pa her-r," know ucl00 o rr+i(towave.+mi'.rte:alk_db0.rl SG
o',v'e•R Vr e Auer.5'•c,, Plc,t• rr::vc,,t,,I c•c f s,•rc n Icl hr.
Barrie Trower on 5G Microwaves-The EMF Community
Barrie Trower bran waves bwaeoar,d cert Sammie Cell Pbone Re J',rho i dnireers of
e ectravtdv,etic iadt,l,or eV::“.)st"oe hl:r'Wr borer.'Title:al irealtl'John•We%QC-
ri-vo*avo rediation mobile pl'o"e teat 011e Johar+n,oe tmised err radiatio''D',rl>e.(1•rea.reeurf.
5 ate to vnart:•'oteh w Ir W,b ai schocit.w•-f oe derobiame•,
e'••flpnm,irvh•.:o.•+ tioyri SV"'•r,o»]v4,.
Barrie Trower on 5G Microwaves: There is No safe Place,No...
Berne Trower o SC.!V,,:.rcr.'ivc•. ''io.i....No flat e.No W^ere"o GO'V deo:Tri.,enr.y lva,•
Agenda Item D
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:February 11, 2019
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM:Victoria L. Beatley, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
SUBJECT:City of Seal Beach Annual Audit Reports for Fiscal Year
Ended June 30, 2018
________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council receive and file the following documents for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2018:
A. Audit Communication Letter (SAS114)
B. Report on Internal Control (GAS)
C. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
D. Appropriations (GANN) Limit Final Report
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
The audit firm of The Pun Group Accountants & Advisors has completed the
annual audit of the City of Seal Beach (City) for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2018. The audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards and included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the
amounts and disclosures to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial
statements are free of material misstatements.
In the opinion of the auditors, the financial statements fairly present, in all material
respects, the financial position of the City of Seal Beach at June 30, 2018. The
2018 CAFR (Attachment C) is included for your information and use. The CAFR
was submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association to, once again, be
considered for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting.
The purpose of the Audit Communication Letter (Attachment A) is to provide a
mechanism for communication with the governing body highlighting significant
issues that may arise during the audit process. As indicated, the City’s financial
statements were clearly presented.
The purpose of the Report on Internal Control (Attachment B) is to help the auditor
4
1
7
in designing audit procedures for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
financial statements.
The purpose of the Appropriations Limit Final Report (Attachment D) is to attest
that the calculation was performed using the correct methodology and was
correctly calculated based upon the information provided.
The Council Audit Committee reviewed and discussed these items at a meeting
on January 15, 2019.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, because it is
not defined as a “project” under CEQA.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The City Attorney has reviewed this staff report and approved it as to form.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact in receiving this information.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council receive and file the following documents for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2018:
A. Audit Communication Letter (SAS114)
B. Report on Internal Control (GAS)
C. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
D. Appropriations (GANN) Limit Final Report
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
Victoria L. Beatley Jill R. Ingram
Victoria L. Beatley, Director of
Finance/City Treasurer
Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Audit Communication Letter (SAS114)
B. Report on Internal Controls (GAS)
C. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
D. Appropriations (GANN) Limit Final Report
December 17, 2018
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major
fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Seal Beach (the “City”) for the year ended June
30, 2018. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under
generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to
the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated
May 7, 2018. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to
our audit.
Significant Audit Findings
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting
policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. As described in Note 1 to the financial
statements, the City changed accounting policies as follows:
GASB Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other Than
Pensions. The primary objective of this Statement is to improve accounting and financial reporting by state and
local governments for postemployment benefits other than pensions (other postemployment benefits or OPEB).
It also improves information provided by state and local governmental employers about financial support for
OPEB that is provided by other entities. This Statement results from a comprehensive review of the
effectiveness of existing standards of accounting and financial reporting for all postemployment benefits
(pensions and OPEB) with regard to providing decision-useful information, supporting assessments of
accountability and interperiod equity, and creating additional transparency. This statement resulted in
restatement of net position at July 1, 2017 as described in Note 14 of the Basic Financial Statements.
GASB Statement No. 85, Omnibus 2017. This Statement addresses practice issues that have been identified during
implementation and application of certain GASB Statements. This Statement addresses a variety of topics including
issues related to blending component units, goodwill, fair value measurement and application, and postemployment
benefits (pensions and other postemployment benefits).
No other new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during
2018. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative
guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper
period.
200 East Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600, Santa Ana, California 92707
Tel: 949-777-8800 • Fax: 949-777-8850
www.pungroup.com
3939352 Pun & McGeady_L_final.pdf 2 1/14/14 3:48 PM
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
Page 2
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on
management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events.
Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and
because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most
sensitive estimates affecting the City’s financial statements were:
Management’s estimate of the investment fair market value is based on information
provided by US Bank for the City’s investments based on institutional bond quotes or
certificate of deposit pricing. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop
the investment fair market value in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the
financial statements taken as a whole.
Management’s estimate of the depreciation on capital assets is based on the industry
standard and past experience on actual useful life of the asset groups. We evaluated the key
factors and assumptions used to develop the depreciation on capital assets in determining
that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.
Management’s estimate of the net other post employment benefits (“OPEB”) liability is
based on the actuarial valuation on total OPEB liability and the financial statement son
fiduciary net position of the OPEB plan. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions
used to develop the net OPEB liability in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the
financial statements taken as a whole.
Management’s estimate of the net pension liabilities is based on the proportionate share of
actuarial valuation on total pension liability and based on proportionate share of the
fiduciary net position for CalPERS plans. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions
used to develop the net pension liability in determining that it is reasonable in relation to
the financial statements taken as a whole.
Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement
users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the financial statements were:
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans
Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits Plan
Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies
Note 14 – Restatement of Beginning Net Position
The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit.
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit,
other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management.
Management has corrected all such misstatements. In addition, none of the misstatements detected as a result of
audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each
opinion unit’s financial statements taken as a whole.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
Page 3
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter,
whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s
report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation
letter dated December 17, 2018.
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters,
similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting
principle to City’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on
those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the
consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.
Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards,
with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the
normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.
Other Matters
We applied certain limited procedures to the Management’s Discussion and Analysis, the Budgetary Comparison
Schedules, the Schedule of the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liabilities and Related Rations, the
Schedule of the Contributions – Pension, the Schedule of Changes in Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability
and Related Ratios, and the Schedule of Contributions – Other Postemployment Benefits, which are required
supplementary information (“RSI”) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of
inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for
consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we
obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion
or provide any assurance on the RSI.
We were engaged to report on the Combining and Individual Nonmajor Fund Financial Statements and the
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual, which accompany the
financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of
management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the
information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of
preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to
our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying
accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.
We were not engaged to report on the Introductory and the Statistical Sections, which accompany the financial
statements but are not RSI. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit
of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
Page 4
Restriction on Use
This information is intended solely for the use of the City Council and management of the City and is not intended
to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Very truly yours,
Santa Ana, California
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS
BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and
the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller
General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each
major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Seal Beach, California (the “City”) as of and
for the year ended June 30, 2018, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the
City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated December 17, 2018.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City's internal control over
financial reporting (“internal control”) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for
the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion
on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of
the City's internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or
employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct,
misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal
control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity's financial statements will
not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a
combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to
merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and
was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant
deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we
consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements are free from material
misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant
agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial
statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our
audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of
noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.
200 East Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600, Santa Ana, California 92707
Tel: 949-777-8800 • Fax: 949-777-8850
www.pungroup.com
3939352 Pun & McGeady_L_final.pdf 2 1/14/14 3:48 PM
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
Page 2
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the
results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control or on
compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards
in considering the entity's internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any
other purpose.
Santa Ana, California
December 17, 2018
City of Seal Beach
California
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018
City of Seal Beach
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Prepared by the Finance Department
Victoria L. Beatley
Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Cover photo used with permission by Stearns Architecture
The City of Seal Beach provides
excellent city services to enhance
the quality of life and to
preserve our small town character.
The City of Seal Beach Values:
Excellent Customer Service
Mutual Respect
Teamwork
Professionalism
Honest & Ethical Behavior
City of Seal Beach
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Table of Contents
Page
INTRODUCTORY SECTION (UNAUDITED)
Letter of Transmittal ................................................................................................................................................... i
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting –
Government Finance Officers Association ........................................................................................................ vi
Organizational Chart ................................................................................................................................................ vii
Principal Officials of the City of Seal Beach .......................................................................................................... viii
FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditors’ Report ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Required Supplementary Information) (Unaudited) ............................. 5
Basic Financial Statements:
Government–Wide Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position .................................................................................................................................. 16
Statement of Activities ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Fund Financial Statements:
Governmental Fund Financial Statements:
Balance Sheet .............................................................................................................................................. 25
Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet
to the Government–wide Statement of Net Position ............................................................................ 26
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Changes in Fund Balances ............................................................................................................. 27
Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Government–Wide
Statement of Activities ......................................................................................................................... 28
Proprietary Fund Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position ........................................................................................................................... 30
Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position ............................................................... 33
Statement of Cash Flows ............................................................................................................................ 34
Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements:
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position ........................................................................................................... 39
Statement of Change in Fiduciary Net Position .......................................................................................... 40
Index to the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ......................................................................................... 43
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements .............................................................................................................. 45
City of Seal Beach
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued)
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited):
Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund ......................................................................................................... 87
Budgetary Comparison Schedule – Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund ................................................................ 88
Notes to the Budgetary Comparison Schedule ............................................................................................................... 89
Schedule of the City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios ........................................ 90
Schedule of Contributions – Pension ............................................................................................................................. 91
Schedule of Changes in Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability and Related Ratios ......................................... 92
Schedule of Contributions – Other Postemployment Benefits ....................................................................................... 93
Supplementary Information:
Nonmajor Governmental Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet ................................................................................................................................. 98
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances ....................................... 103
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual
Street Lighting Special Revenue Fund ..................................................................................................... 108
Supplemental Law Enforcement Special Revenue Fund .......................................................................... 109
Detention Center Special Revenue Fund .................................................................................................. 110
Police Asset Forfeiture Special Revenue Fund ......................................................................................... 111
Air Quality Improvement Special Revenue Fund ..................................................................................... 112
Traffic Impact AB 1600 Special Revenue Fund ....................................................................................... 113
State Gasoline Tax Special Revenue Fund ............................................................................................... 114
Measure M2 Special Revenue Fund ......................................................................................................... 115
Community Development Block Grant Special Revenue Fund ............................................................... 116
Police Grant Special Revenue Fund ......................................................................................................... 117
Landscape District Special Revenue Fund ............................................................................................... 118
Heron Pointe Special Revenue Fund ........................................................................................................ 119
Pacific Gateway Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................................... 120
Seal Beach Cable Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................................ 121
City Debt Service Fund ............................................................................................................................. 122
Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund ............................................................................ 123
Agency Funds Financial Statements:
Combining Statement of Assets and Liabilities .............................................................................................. 127
Combining Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities ........................................................................... 128
City of Seal Beach
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
STATISTICAL SECTION (Unaudited)
Net Position by Component ......................................................................................................................................... 134
Changes in Net Position ............................................................................................................................................... 136
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds ....................................................................................................................... 140
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds ..................................................................................................... 142
Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property .............................................................................. 144
Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates ................................................................................................................ 145
Principal Property Taxpayers ....................................................................................................................................... 146
Property Tax Levies and Collections ........................................................................................................................... 147
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type ............................................................................................................................ 148
Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding ............................................................................................................... 150
Schedule of Direct and Overlapping Debt .................................................................................................................... 151
Legal Debt Margin Information ................................................................................................................................... 152
Pledged-Revenue Coverage ......................................................................................................................................... 154
Demographic and Economic Statistics ......................................................................................................................... 155
Top 25 Sales Tax Producers ......................................................................................................................................... 156
Full-Time and Part-Time City Employees by Function ............................................................................................... 157
Operating Indicators by Function ................................................................................................................................. 158
Capital Asset Statistics by Function ............................................................................................................................. 160
This page intentionally left blank.
ii
PROFILE OF THE CITY
The City of Seal Beach is located on the coast of northwestern Orange County California, was
incorporated on October 25, 1915. The City charter, which was adopted in 1964, established the
form of government, states the powers and duties of the City Council, and establishes various
City Offices.
The City is operated under the City Council/City Manager form of government, and is governed
by a five-member city council elected by district serving four-year alternating terms and who, in
turn elect the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem from among themselves for a one year term. The
governing council is responsible for policy-making, passing local ordinances, adopting the
budget, appointing committees, and hiring the City Manager and City Attorney.
The City Manager is responsible for carrying out the policies and ordinances of the City Council,
for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the City, and for appointing of all department heads.
The City Clerk is an appointed position and is responsible for maintaining city records and
overseeing elections.
The City provides a full range of services for the citizens utilizing a mix of contracts with other
governmental entities or private companies. The City has its own Police Department and Marine
Safety Department but contracts for fire and paramedic services through the Orange County Fire
Authority (OCFA). The City also operates water and sewer utilities and contracts for refuse and
sanitation treatment services.
The Successor Agency to the Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency (Agency) is a component unit
of the City. Component units are legally separate entities for which the primary government is
financially accountable. The Seal Beach City Council Members, in separate session, serve as the
governing body of the Successor Agency and the City Manager serves as the Executive Director.
History of Seal Beach
The City has an area of 13.23 square miles and sits on the coast as the gateway to Orange County
between the cities of Long Beach and Huntington Beach. In 1901 J.C. Ord, a Civil War veteran
known as “the father of Seal Beach,” hired a 30–mule team to bring his small general store
building from Los Alamitos to Bay City where he set it down at the southwest corner of
crossroads now known as Main Street. J.C. Ord was the first Trustee, the first Mayor,
Postmaster, and the first Judge. His store on Main Street was the Post Office and Court House
and the jail house when it was necessary.
The population in 1915 was 250 persons, including children. Bay City was renamed Seal Beach
in 1916. California Sea Lions, commonly called Seals, were a regular part of the scene along the
coast and a perfect name for the new town.
On January 16, 1916, it was reported in the newspaper, the POST, that Frank Burt, who had
managed the concessions at the recent Panama Pacific Exposition just closing in San Francisco,
was coming to Seal Beach. His purpose was to establish an amusement zone for fun and frolic in
this small beach village. The Jewel City Amusement Company was formed and a new 1,865
foot long pier was constructed in early summer 1916, and is the one of the longest wooden piers
in California. The City became a popular recreation destination in the area, and featured a beach
side amusement park before Disneyland was founded.
iii
During World War II, the U.S. Navy purchased 5,256 acres of land and established the Naval
Ammunition and Net Depot for storage and loading of ammunition for the Pacific Fleet. The
Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1972.
In 1961, Leisure World was built on 541 acres of the Hellman Ranch property and was annexed
in 1964.
The Rossmoor Business Center was remodeled and now called the Shops at Rossmoor and was
annexed by the City in 1962.
In 1964-65, the College Park East and West construction took place.
In 1969, Surfside Colony was annexed into Seal Beach and the City population grew to 24,441
by 1970.
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Local economy. Although the focus of this Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is the
financial condition of the City at June 30, 2018, it may be best understood when it is considered
from the broader perspective of the specific environment within which the City operates.
The City is the home of Boeing Company Integrated Defense System international headquarters,
the U.S. Naval Weapons Station, the first Leisure World Retirement Community and the 1,000
acre Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. The City’s one and a half miles of beaches and the
public pier attracts more than 2,000,000 visitors each year making recreation an important factor
in the local economy. Seal Beach has a variety of local beach front stores at Main Street which
include several fine dining establishments. Throughout the year many exciting community
events take place in which the residents, and visitors, enjoy and participate.
Long-term financial planning. The City of Seal Beach economy and tax base continue to stay
the course and maintain the present package of core services for our residents, businesses,
visitors, and protect all essential municipal services that contribute to the high quality of life
within the City. However, with the FY 2018-2019 budget cycle some of the long-standing
challenges which City staff has managed to keep at bay became significant. At the time the
budget was adopted there was a structural deficit of approximately $400,000.
Public Safety needs have grown over the last several years, as a result the City Council
authorized the hiring of two additional Police Officers. Because of the budget constraints the
City Council authorized staff to pay for the new officers with an advance from monies set aside
for a community pool. This funding source was not to be used for quite some time in the future
and a repayment requirement was included as part of the authorization.
In FY 2017-2018 the tax revenue increased overall, primarily due to an increase in property
values. Property Tax and Franchise Tax revenues increased 2% and 4% respectively in the
General Fund and Sales Tax decreased 2% compared with the prior fiscal year. The primary
reason for the decrease in sales tax was the result of a system conversion at the California
Department of Tax and Fee Administration which resulted in late and missing payments.
iv
Notwithstanding the previous explanation, retail sales throughout the City have not been as
robust in the past few years. One of the larger tenants, Toys R Us closed their Seal Beach
location earlier in the year. This closure in addition to vacancies in the same shopping center
have caused a decline in sales tax.
For the upcoming fiscal year, property taxes are expected to increase as the result of continued
improvement in real estate values. On the other hand, sales tax is expected to increase as the
result of the passing of a 1% Transactions and Use Tax measure. The collection of the new tax
will begin April 1, 2019. The City should she the initial revenue from Measure BB in late July
2019.
The Southern California region continues to show signs of improved economic activity.
According to local economic updates, Orange County’s unemployment rate will continue to
remain low and the housing market will continue to show improvement. Consumer spending is
expected to increase slightly as well based upon the most recent consumer confidence reports.
Major initiatives. Over the last two years, the City has developed a Mission Statement (inside
the front cover), a Values Statement, and Strategic Plan initiatives. The Strategic Plan goals are
approved and/or affirmed by the City Council twice a year. The Strategic Plan goals and
objectives are updated monthly at a City Council meeting.
The City of Seal Beach will continue to be a major participant in improving ocean water quality
as mandated in the Clean Water Act. The City has a National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System Program operated for this purpose.
The City has been aggressively seeking, and will continue to search for, funding sources from
other governmental agencies or use non-recurring or future developmental revenues to maintain
and improve its infrastructure. The City completed and formally accepted eleven (11) capital
projects throughout the fiscal year totaling over $2.2 million in value.
FINANCIAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Internal control structure. Management of the City is responsible for establishing and
maintaining an adequate internal control structure. Internal accounting controls are designed to
ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft, or misuse, and that adequate
accounting data are compiled to allow for the preparation of financial statements in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.
The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance, that
these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that: (1) the cost of the
control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived; and (2) the valuation of costs and
benefits require estimates and judgment by management.
Budgetary controls. The annual budget serves as the foundation for the City of Seal Beach’s
financial planning and control. The City Council adopts an annual budget and appropriates the
funds necessary to provide the services and operations for the fiscal year. The City Manager
may make appropriation transfers within and between departments which do not result in an
increase in appropriations. The City of Seal Beach City Council must approve all appropriation
changes that results in an increase in appropriations.
v
AWARDS
GFOA Award Program – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States (GFOA) awarded a
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Seal Beach for
its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017. This was
the nineteenth consecutive year that the City has received this prestigious award. In order to be
awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government must publish an easily readable and
efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report. This report must satisfy both
generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements.
A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. City staff believes that our
current comprehensive annual financial report continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement
Program’s requirements and we are submitting it to the GFOA again this year for award.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was made possible by the highly dedicated Finance staff with their special efforts and
the teamwork, special thanks to the staff in the Finance Department. Sincere appreciation is also
expressed to the City Council and City Manager for their interest and support, which made this
presentation possible; and finally to the City’s auditing firm of The PUN Group for their
professional assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
Victoria L. Beatley
Director of Finance/City Treasurer
vi
Exercise Administrative Control
Over All Departments
Agenda Preparation
Administrative Policies
City Council Support
Computer Network
Administration
Intergovernmental Relations
Special Studies/Projects
Policy Analysis
Represents City in all legal matters Risk Management
FINANCE
Business Tax Employee Benefits
Utility Billing/Cashiering Classification/Compensation
Budget/Audit/Grants
Accounts Payable/Payroll
Debt Administration
Treasury/Investments Engineering
Successor Agency Administration Fleet Maintenance
Beach Maintenance
Water/Sewer Maintenance
Capital Projects
Storm Drains
Planning Building Maintenance
Building/Code Enforcement Street Maintenance
Development Review Traffic and Transportation
Community Development Block Grant
Land Use and Coastal Issues
General Plan and Code
Youth/Adult Class Activity
Special Event Permitting
Beach/Pool Safety Sports League/Events
Jr. Lifeguard Program
POLICE SERVICES
CITY CLERK Traffic/Patrol/Detective Services
Records Management Parking Control
Election Management Detention Center
Orange County Fire Authority
DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY
Personnel Recruitment
COMMUNITY SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS
MARINE SAFETY
FIRE SERVICES
Financial Services/Reporting
City of Seal Beach
CITIZENS OF SEAL BEACH
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
HUMAN RESOURCES
Organizational Chart
CITY MANAGER
CITY ATTORNEY
vii
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
CALIFORNIA
Principal Officers
City Council
Mike Varipapa, Mayor
Ellery Deaton, Mayor Pro Tem
Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Council Member
Thomas Moore, Council Member
Schelly Sustarsic, Council Member
Executive Officers
Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
Craig A. Steele, City Attorney
Administrative Personnel
Joe Bailey, Marine Safety Chief
Victoria L. Beatley, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Patrick Gallegos, Assistant City Manager
Crystal Landavazo, Interim Director of Community Development
Joseph Miller IV, Interim Chief of Police
Robin L. Roberts, City Clerk
viii
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities,
each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Seal Beach, California (the “City”), as
of and for the year ended June 30, 2018, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise
the City’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation,
and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are
free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable
to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by Comptroller General of the United States.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of
material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments,
the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial
statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of
expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.
An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of
significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial
statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit
opinions.
200 East Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600, Santa Ana, California 92707
Tel: 949-777-8800 • Fax: 949-777-8850
www.pungroup.com
3939352 Pun & McGeady_L_final.pdf 2 1/14/14 3:48 PM
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
Page 2
2
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective
financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate
remaining fund information of the City as of June 30, 2018, and the respective changes in financial position and,
where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America.
Emphasis of Matter
Implementation of GASB 75
As discussed in Note 1 to the basic financial statements, the City implemented Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (“GASB”) Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other Than
Pensions. The adoption of the standard required retrospective application of previously reported net position and
reclassification of certain accounts as of July 1, 2017 as described in Note 14 to the basic financial statements. In
addition, net OPEB liability is reported in the Statement of Net Position in the amount of $6,866,482 as of the
measurement date. Net OPEB liability is calculated by actuaries using estimates and actuarial techniques from an
actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2017, which is also the measurement date. Our opinion is not modified with respect
to this matter.
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management’s Discussion
and Analysis, the Budgetary Comparison Schedules, the Schedule of the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net
Pension Liability and Related Ratios, the Schedule of Contributions – Pension, Schedule of Changes in Net Other
Postemployment Benefits Liability and Related Ratios, and the Schedules of Contributions – Other Postemployment
Benefits on pages 5 to 12 and 87 to 93, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information,
although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board,
who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an
appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the Required
Supplementary Information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing
the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and
other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or
provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence
to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise
the City’s basic financial statements. The Introductory Section, the Combining and Individual Nonmajor Fund
Financial Statements, the Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual,
and the Statistical Section, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic
financial statements.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
Page 3
3
The Combining and Individual Nonmajor Fund Financial Statements and the Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual are the responsibility of management and were derived from and
relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such
information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and
certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying
accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements
themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States of America. In our opinion, the Combining and Individual Nonmajor Fund Financial Statements and the
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual are fairly stated, in all
material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
The Introductory and Statistical Sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of
the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on them.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 17, 2018, on our
consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain
provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is
solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results
of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over financial
reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government
Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
Santa Ana, California
December 17, 2018
4
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
5
Management of the City of Seal Beach is pleased to offer this narrative overview and analysis of the financial
activities of the City for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018. We encourage readers to consider the information
presented here in conjunction with additional information that we have furnished in our letter of transmittal and the
City’s financial statements.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
Assets included in the City’s combined governmental and business-type activities exceeded liabilities by
$118.0 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, representing a decrease of 0.6% in net position from
the prior fiscal year. Of this amount, a decrease of $0.7 million was due to the GASB 75 restatement
during the fiscal year. In addition, $9.8 million (unrestricted net position) of the total net position may be
used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors in accordance with the City’s
budget and fiscal policies. This amount includes City Council designations of fund balance.
The City’s change in net position was $2.5 million more than last fiscal year. The major reason for the
increase in the change in net position is attributable to the fact that the Net Position was restated to properly
reflect the pension liabilities related to GASB 68 and GASB 75. In addition, there’s an increase in
revenues for property tax of $0.2 million, other revenues of $1.5 million, public works expenses increased
by $0.4 million, and interest expense and other charges expenses decreased by $0.1 million for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2018.
As of the close of the current fiscal year, the City’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund
balances of $29.9 million, representing a decrease of 4.2% from the prior fiscal year. This resulted in an
unassigned fund balance of $17.5 million, or 58.4% of the total fund balance, after recording all assigned
fund balances.
At the end of the current fiscal year, unassigned fund balance in the General Fund was $17.5 million or
51.8% of total general fund expenditures and transfers out.
Revenues associated with the City’s business-type activities were $0.7 million more than the $7.2 million
in expenses recorded. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, a water rate study was conducted and as
a result of that study, water rates were reduced in fiscal year 2009-2010 but increased in fiscal year 2010-
2011 and for the next three years. The final approved water rate increase occurred in the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2014. A new water and sewer rate study is currently underway.
OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the City’s basic financial statements. The
City’s basic financial statements are comprised of three components: 1) government-wide financial statements, 2)
fund financial statements and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary
information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves.
Government-wide financial statements – The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide
readers with a view of the City’s finances as a whole in a manner similar to a private-sector business.
The Statement of Net Position presents information on all of the City’s assets and liabilities, with the difference
between the two reported as net position. Increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of
whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating.
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
6
The Statement of Activities presents information showing how the City’s net position changed during the fiscal
year. All changes in net position are reported when the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs,
regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some
items that will only result in cash flows in the future fiscal periods.
Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by
taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from functions that are intended to recover all or a
significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental
activities of the City include general government and administration, public safety, development services, public
works, and recreation. The business-type activities of the City include water and sewer operations.
Fund Financial Statements – The fund financial statements provide detailed information about the most
significant funds and other funds – not the City as a whole. Some funds are required to be established by State law
and by bond covenants. However, management established many other funds to help control and manage money
for particular purposes or to verify that all legal requirements for using certain taxes, grants, and other resources are
being satisfied. The City’s three types of funds are governmental, proprietary, and fiduciary funds.
Governmental funds – Most of the City’s basic services are reported in governmental funds, which focus on how
money flows in and out of those funds and the balances left at year-end that are available for spending. These
funds are reported using an accounting method called modified accrual accounting, which measures cash and all
other financial assets that can readily be converted to cash. The governmental fund statements provide a detailed
short-term view of the City’s general government operations and the basic services it provides. Governmental fund
information helps determine whether there are more or fewer financial resources that can be spent in the near future
to finance the City’s programs. The differences of results in the Governmental Fund financial statements to those
in the Government-wide financial statements are explained in a reconciliation following each of the Governmental
Fund financial statements.
Proprietary funds – Customer charges for various City services are generally reported in proprietary funds.
Proprietary funds are reported in the same way that all activities are reported in the Statement of Net Position and
the Statement of Activities. In fact, the City’s enterprise funds are comprised of the business-type activities
reported in the government-wide statements but provide more detail and additional information such as a statement
of cash flows.
Fiduciary funds – The City utilizes Fiduciary funds to account for assets held by the City in a trustee capacity, or
as an agent for other governmental entities, private organizations, or individuals. All of the City’s fiduciary
activities are reported in a separate statement of fiduciary net position and a statement of changes in fiduciary net
position. We exclude these activities from the City’s Government-wide Financial Statements because the City
cannot use these assets to finance its operations.
Notes to the Financial Statements – The financial statements also include the Notes to the Financial Statements
that provide important narrative details about the information contained in the financial statements. Information
contained in the Notes to the Financial Statements is critical to a reader’s full understanding of the Government-
wide and Fund Financial Statements.
Supplementary Information – In addition to the required elements of the Basic Financial Statements, a
Supplementary Information section is included which contains budgetary and combining schedules that provide
additional details about the City’s non-major Governmental Funds and Fiduciary Funds.
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
7
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Our analysis focuses on the City’s net position and changes in net position resulting from the City’s activities.
Net Position – Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government’s financial position. The
City’s combined net position were $118.4 million and $119.1 million for the years ended June 30, 2018 and
June 30, 2017, respectively, as shown in Table 1.
2017 2017 2017
(As Restated) 2018 (As Restated) 2018 (As Restated) 2018
Current and other assets 35,613$ 34,833$ 17,747$ 19,820$ 53,360$ 54,653$
Capital assets 75,914 75,710 39,070 38,141 114,984 113,851
Total assets 111,527 110,543 56,817 57,961 168,344 168,504
Deferred Outflows of Resources 8,067 9,951 885 1,206 8,952 11,157
Long-term liabilities outstanding 41,664 44,385 10,480 11,297 52,144 55,682
Other liabilities 2,300 2,529 1,077 1,096 3,377 3,625
Total liabilities 43,964 46,914 11,557 12,393 55,521 59,307
Deferred Inflows of Resources 2,304 1,616 410 375 2,714 1,991
Net position
Net investment in capital asets 72,400 72,667 33,109 31,664 105,509 104,331
Restricted 4,587 4,208 - 25 4,587 4,233
Unrestricted (3,661) (4,911) 12,626 14,710 8,965 9,799
Total net position 73,326$ 71,964$ 45,735$ 46,399$ 119,061$ 118,363$
(in Thousands)
Activities
Governmental
Table 1
Business-Type
Activities
Total
Activities
Net Position
Investment in capital assets represents assets such as land, buildings, infrastructure, and equipment less any related
outstanding debt used to acquire those assets. Investment in capital assets represents $104.3 million, or 88.1%, of
the total $ 118.4 million net position, a decrease of 1.1% from the prior fiscal year. The City’s capital assets do not
represent a financial resource and consequently are not available for future spending.
Unrestricted position represents the second largest portion of the City’s net position. The City is required by
Council Policy to maintain a minimum of 20% to 25% of operating expenditures to maintain the City’s credit
worthiness and to meet cash flow requirements. As of June 30, 2018, unrestricted net position increase by 9.3% to
$9.8 million from $9.0 million in the prior fiscal year. Restricted net position represents resources that are legally
restricted to specific uses. These restrictions are generally enforced by external agencies.
As of June 30, 2018, the City reported positive balances in all three categories of net position for both
Governmental and Business-type Activities.
With the exception of contracting the City’s fire services with the Orange County Fire Authority, the City is a full
service city providing residents and visitors with the following functional services:
General Government is comprised of the City Council, City Clerk, City Manager, Human Resources, and Finance.
These departments provide general governance, executive management, records management, risk management,
finance, cash management, accounting, and information technology services. An outside firm appointed by the
City Council provides legal services.
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
8
Public Safety is comprised of the Police, Fire, West Cities Police Communications and Marine Safety departments.
The Police and Marine Safety departments provide general law enforcement, oversee animal control services, ocean
lifeguard services, aquatic services, and parking control.
Public Works provides engineering, construction and maintenance of public streets, highways, buildings, beaches,
parks and related infrastructure, as well as traffic engineering, and street lighting.
Development Services is comprised of the Planning and Building and Neighborhood services departments that
provide planning and zoning services, economic development services, and building permits and plan check, and
code enforcement services.
Community Services provides leisure classes, monitors use of community facilities, and sports programs.
Business Enterprise Operations include water and sewer operations and are administered by Public Works.
The following table provides a summary of the City’s operations for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017.
2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018
Revenues:
Program Revenues:
Charges for services 6,991$ 7,399$ 7,567$ 8,027$ 14,558$ 15,426$
Operating grants and capital contrbutions 1,721 2,334 - - 1,721 2,334
Capital grants and conributions 175 79 - - 175 79
General Revenues:
Taxes
Property taxes 11,012 11,180 - - 11,012 11,180
Sales taxes 4,379 4,304 - - 4,379 4,304
Transient occupancy taxes 1,694 1,667 - - 1,694 1,667
Other taxes 5,396 5,422 - - 5,396 5,422
Use of money and property 425 301 168 224 593 525
Other 214 1,762 - - 214 1,762
Total revenues 32,007 34,448 7,735 8,251 39,742 42,699
Expenses:
General government 5,895 6,161 - - 5,895 6,161
Public safety 19,867 19,877 - - 19,867 19,877
Community development 1,219 1,593 - - 1,219 1,593
Community Services 995 964 - - 995 964
Public works 6,993 7,368 - - 6,993 7,368
Interest on long-term debt 343 226 - - 343 226
Water - - 4,977 4,668 4,977 4,668
Sewer - - 2,639 2,540 2,639 2,540
Total expenses 35,312 36,189 7,616 7,208 42,928 43,397
Excess/(deficiency) before transfers (3,305) (1,741) 119 1,043 (3,186) (698)
Transfers 379 379 (379) (379) - -
Changes in net position (2,926)$ (1,362)$ (260)$ 664$ (3,186)$ (698)$
Table 2
Changes in Net Position
(in Thousands)
Governmental Total
ActivitiesActivities Activities
Business-Type
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
9
Analysis of the City’s Operations – The City’s Net Position decreased by $0.7 million during Fiscal Year 2017-
2018 or 0.6 %, over prior year results.
Governmental Activities experienced a decrease of $1.4 million in net position as of June 30, 2018 compared to a
decrease of $2.9 million at June 30, 2017. The primary reason for the decrease in net position is attributable to a
use of money and property of $0.1 million and an increase in public works expense of $0.4 million, general
government expense of $0.3 million, and community development expense of $0.4 million.
The cost of all governmental activities during the current fiscal year was $36.2 million, slightly higher than last
year. As shown on the statement of activities, those who directly benefited from the programs paid $7.4 million of
the cost, and $2.3 million was financed by contributions and grants received from other governmental
organizations. The remainder of the costs of operations, $26.4 million was subsidized through general City taxes
and other revenue sources. The largest operating cost was comprised of Public Safety, representing 54.9% of total
governmental expenditures compared to 56.3% of total governmental expenditures in fiscal year 2016-2017.
Business-type Activities’ net position decreased $0.7 million primarily due to the increase in pension and OPEB
expenses.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FUNDS
Governmental funds – The objective of the City’s governmental funds is to provide information on near-term
inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City’s
financing requirements. In particular, unreserved fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government’s
net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year.
As of June 30, 2018 the City’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $29.9 million.
Approximately $17.5 million, or 58.4%, of this total amount constitutes unassigned fund balance. The remainder of
the fund balance is restricted or assigned to indicate that it is not available for new spending because it has already
been committed to pay for encumbrances, loans, prepaid expenses, or advances to other funds.
The General Fund ended the fiscal year with a fund balance of $25.8 million, representing a net decrease of $1.4
million in fund balance compared to the $1.8 million decrease experienced during the prior fiscal year. The primary
reason for the decrease in fund balance was due to a decline in sales tax, use of money and property, and other
taxes. Additionally, public safety, general government, and community development expenditures increased by
$1.0 million.
Proprietary funds – The City’s proprietary funds financial statements provide the same type of information found
in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. Unrestricted net position totaled $8.0 million and
$6.7 million for the Water and Sewer funds, respectively. The Water fund increased by $0.2 million in net position,
mainly due to increase in revenue collection. The increase of $0.4 million in the Sewer fund net position resulted
from revenue collection. Sewer operating fees represent 22% of customer water charges for both usage and capital
costs.
General Fund Budgetary Highlights – There was no amendment of the original and final amended budgeted
revenues.
The difference between the original and final amended budget in General Fund expenditures was an increase of
$1.2 million. This difference is due to a variety of budget amendments approved by the City Council during the
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
10
fiscal year including 15 First St. beach facilities restaurant, Hazard Mitigation Plan, Genter tree replacement, pier
improvement, and purchase order and CIP carryover from prior fiscal year.
General Fund revenues including transfer in came in less than projected in the final budget by approximately $7.0
million.
General Fund expenditures were $20.6 million less than appropriations. This difference is due to transfers out and
budgeted capital projects that were either not started or completed during the fiscal year. These appropriations
were carried forward to the FY 2018-2019 fiscal year.
CAPITAL ASSETS
The City’s capital assets for its governmental and business-type activities as of June 30, 2018, amounts to $113.9
million compared to $115.0 million (net of accumulated depreciation) for FY 2016-2017. This investment in
capital assets includes land, building, equipment, improvements, infrastructure, and construction in progress. Total
capital assets for governmental activities for the current fiscal year decreased 0.3% and the City’s investment in
capital assets for business-type activities for the current fiscal year also decreased 2.4%.
2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018
Land and land easement 11,420$ 11,420$ -$ -$ 11,420$ 11,420$
Buildings and Improvements 9,967 9,768 - - 9,967 9,768
Machinery and Equipment 242 199 651 609 893 808
Vehicles 1,369 1,760 352 289 1,721 2,049
Infrastructure 50,752 48,498 36,715 35,840 87,467 84,338
Contruction-in-progress 2,164 4,065 1,352 1,403 3,516 5,468
Totals 75,914$ 75,710$ 39,070$ 38,141$ 114,984$ 113,851$
Governmental
Activities Activities Total
Business-Type
Table 3
Capital Assets At Year-End
(Net of Depreciation, in Thousands)
During FY 2017-2018, major capital projects formally completed include:
Westminster Avenue Pavement Overlay and Median Rehabilitation, Project No. ST1509 & ST1610 – total
cost: $898,500. This project performed a pavement overlay from the County Line to Seal Beach Blvd.
Work also included replanting of the street medians located within these limits.
7th Street Alley Water Line and Sewer Line Replacement, Project No. WT 1607 – total project cost:
$533,000.
Annual Sidewalk/Concrete Repairs Project No. ST1704 – total cost $51,600. Project replaced sidewalks,
curb and gutters and ramps throughout the City.
City Facilities Roof Repair, Project No. BG1801 – total cost $500,000. Project repaired the roofing
systems of various City facilities.
Lifeguard Headquarters Building Renovation, Project No. BG1806 – total cost $89,000
Marina Community Center Renovation Project No. BG1803 – total cost $23,700.
Annual Tennis Court Rehabilitation Project No. PR 1701 & 1801 – total cost 53,500.
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
11
Annual Arterial Paving Project No. ST1703 – total cost $63,100. This project performed major asphalt
repairs on Old Ranch Road.
Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation, Project No. SS1601 – total cost $10,000.
Adopted 2018 Sewer Master Plan Update, Project No. SS1301 – total cost $66,000.
West End Storm Pump Station Improvements, Project No. SD1801 – total cost: $45,300. This project
implemented upgrades to various pump station systems per the WEP Audit.
Additional information on the City’s capital assets can be found in Note 5 in the Financial Section of this report.
DEBT ADMINISTRATION
As of June 30, 2018, the City had bonded debt, notes payable, compensated absences, claims payable, and capital
leases totaling $12.4 million compared to $13.7 million at the end of FY 2016-2017. The City’s governmental
activities maintained $5.8 million in bonds, capital leases, compensated absences, and claims payable versus $7.6
million last year, representing a decrease of approximately $1.8 million from the previous fiscal year. This
decrease reflects interest and principal payments made during FY 2017-2018.
The City’s business-type activities debt increased $0.5 million from $6.1 million to $6.6 million. Debt in the
business-type activities consists of Sewer Certificates of Participation Payable to provide funds for improvements
to the City’s sewer system, a State revolving loan for the sewer capital improvement project, and compensated
absences.
2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018
Compensated absences 1,224$ 1,132$ 140$ 132$ 1,364$ 1,264$
Capital leases 673 603 - - 673 603
Pension Obligation Bonds 2,414 1,263 - - 2,414 1,263
Lease Revenue Bonds 2,835 2,415 - - 2,835 2,415
Sewer Revenue Bonds - - 2,420 2,270 2,420 2,270
Loans payable - - 3,538 4,226 3,538 4,226
Self-insured claims payable 427 388 - - 427 388
Total 7,573$ 5,801$ 6,098$ 6,628$ 13,671$ 12,429$
Table 4
Outstanding Debt, At Year-End
(in Thousands)
Governmental
Activities
Business-Type
Activities Total
Additional information on the City’s long-term debt can be found in note 6 in the Financial Section of the report.
ECONOMIC FACTORS AND NEXT YEAR’S BUDGETS
The City of Seal Beach economy and tax base continue to support the present package of core services for our
residents, businesses, and visitors and protect all essential municipal services that contribute to the high quality of
life within the City.
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
12
In FY 2017-2018 the tax revenue increased overall. The increase was modest, primarily due to property taxes.
Overall revenue increased by approximately $1.0 million in the General Fund. The primary reason was the receipt
of some one-time revenues.
For the upcoming fiscal year, property tax and sales tax are projected to increase slightly primarily due to the
continued improvement in real estate values and retail sales throughout the City are expected to increase due to the
passing of a 1% Transactions Use tax measure in November 2018.
The Southern California region, as well as the entire country, continues to show signs of strong economic activity.
According to local economic updates, Orange County’s unemployment rate will continue to decline and the
housing market will continue to show improvement. Consumer spending is expected to increase slightly as well.
The City prepared an annual budget for FY 2017-2018. The one year budget represents a General Fund deficit of
operating expenditures over operating revenues (excluding capital projects) in each fiscal year. Expenditures of the
City were budgeted at the current level of service with capital improvement projects to be supported primarily by
the City’s General Fund reserves. The revenue projections for the FY 2017–2018 budget year were very
conservative due to the unknown impacts from the Federal tax reform on the local economy. The City will
continue to monitor revenue streams throughout the coming years and will adjust spending levels as deemed
necessary.
The most significant issues facing the City are the aged condition of the City’s infrastructure. The City has
completed and adopted numerous infrastructure planning documents e.g. (Water Master Plan, Sewer Master Plan,
Master Plan of Drainage, Facilities Master Plan, and Pavement Management Plan). These plans identify well over
$160 million in needed improvements throughout the City. The City annually adopts a 5 year Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) that strategically plans construction of these needed improvements. The FY 2018-19 CIP
recommends $36.1 million in improvements over the next 5 years. The 5 Year Capital Improvement Program
identifies needs in the following areas: Beach and Pier ($2.6M), Buildings and Facilities ($4.9M), Sewer System
($2.0M), Storm Drain System ($0.2M), Streets and Transportation ($2.5M) and Water System ($8.0M).
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
This financial report is designed to provide the City’s citizens, taxpayers, customers, investors, and creditors with a
general overview of the City’s finances and to demonstrate the City’s accountability for the funds it receives. If
you have questions about this report or need additional financial information, contact the City’s Finance
Department at 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740-6379 or call (562) 431-2527.
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
13
This page intentionally left blank.
14
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
15
Governmental Business-Type
Activities Activities Total
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and investments 29,663,663$ 17,397,622$ 47,061,285$
Receivables:
Accounts 2,721,986 1,476,398 4,198,384
Taxes 1,561,853 - 1,561,853
Interest 92,243 - 92,243
Prepaid items 32,495 447,464 479,959
Due from other governments 14,444 - 14,444
Total Current Assets 34,086,684 19,321,484 53,408,168
Noncurrent Assets:
Restricted cash with fiscal agent 746,253 25,082 771,335
Advance to Successor Agency - 474,078 474,078
Capital assets:
Capital assets, not being depreciated 15,485,327 1,402,775 16,888,102
Capital assets, being depreciated, net 60,224,607 36,738,010 96,962,617
Total capital assets, net 75,709,934 38,140,785 113,850,719
Total Noncurrent Assets 76,456,187 38,639,945 115,096,132
Total Assets 110,542,871 57,961,429 168,504,300
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred charges on refunding - 132,774 132,774
Pension related items 9,255,689 924,928 10,180,617
Other postemployment benefits related items 695,976 147,938 843,914
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources 9,951,665 1,205,640 11,157,305
Primary Government
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2018
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
16
Governmental Business-Type
Activities Activities Total
LIABILITIES
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable 1,290,897 811,441 2,102,338
Accrued liabilities 639,926 71,944 711,870
Accrued interest 24,599 65,959 90,558
Unearned revenues 18,550 10,104 28,654
Deposits payable 531,142 22,585 553,727
Retention payable 24,160 113,828 137,988
Long-term liabilities, due within one year 2,178,701 485,991 2,664,692
Long-term liabilities:
Long-term liabilities, due in more than one year 3,622,337 6,142,171 9,764,508
Aggregate net pension liabilities 32,921,231 3,465,606 36,386,837
Net other postemployment benefits liabilities 5,662,789 1,203,693 6,866,482
Total Liabilities 46,914,332 12,393,322 59,307,654
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Pension related items 1,534,662 357,910 1,892,572
Other postemployment benefits related items 81,428 17,309 98,737
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 1,616,090 375,219 1,991,309
NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 72,667,466 31,663,486 104,330,952
Restricted for:
Community development projects 954,921 - 954,921
Public safety 233,224 - 233,224
Community services 363,419 - 363,419
Public works 1,909,858 - 1,909,858
Debt service 740,987 25,082 766,069
Other 5,266 - 5,266
Total restricted 4,207,675 25,082 4,232,757
Unrestricted (4,911,027) 14,709,960 9,798,933
Total Net Position 71,964,114$ 46,398,528$ 118,362,642$
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Net Position (Continued)
June 30, 2018
Primary Government
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
17
Capital Grants
Charges for Operating Grants and
Expenses Services and Contributions Contributions Total
Functions/Programs
Governmental Activities:
General government 6,161,230$ 2,062,987$ 3,053$ -$ 2,066,040$
Public safety 19,877,068 1,903,530 387,791 - 2,291,321
Community development 1,593,008 300,640 575,222 - 875,862
Community services 964,634 733,456 - - 733,456
Public works 7,367,882 2,398,039 1,368,414 79,175 3,845,628
Interest and fiscal charges 225,675 - - - -
Total Governmental Activities 36,189,497 7,398,652 2,334,480 79,175 9,812,307
Business-Type Activities:
Water Utility 4,668,618 5,097,807 - - 5,097,807
Sewer Utility 2,539,783 2,928,885 - - 2,928,885
Total Business-Type Activities 7,208,401 8,026,692 - - 8,026,692
Total Primary Government 43,397,898$ 15,425,344$ 2,334,480$ 79,175$ 17,838,999$
Program Revenues
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Activities
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
18
Governmental Business-Type
Activities Activities Total
Functions/Programs
Governmental Activities:
General government (4,095,190)$ -$ (4,095,190)$
Public safety (17,585,747) - (17,585,747)
Community development (717,146) - (717,146)
Community services (231,178) - (231,178)
Public works (3,522,254) - (3,522,254)
Interest and fiscal charges (225,675) - (225,675)
Total Governmental Activities (26,377,190) - (26,377,190)
Business-Type Activities:
Water Utility - 429,189 429,189
Sewer Utility - 389,102 389,102
Total Business-Type Activities - 818,291 818,291
Total Primary Government (26,377,190) 818,291 (25,558,899)
General Revenues:
Taxes:
Property taxes, levied for general purpose 11,180,197 - 11,180,197
Sales taxes 4,303,618 - 4,303,618
Franchise taxes 1,059,581 - 1,059,581
Utility users tax 4,186,554 - 4,186,554
Transient occupancy taxes 1,666,996 - 1,666,996
Other taxes 163,277 - 163,277
Motor vehicle in lieu- unrestricted 13,102 - 13,102
Use of money and property 300,817 223,778 524,595
Other 1,762,390 - 1,762,390
Transfers 378,500 (378,500) -
Total General Revenues and Transfers 25,015,032 (154,722) 24,860,310
Changes in Net Position (1,362,158) 663,569 (698,589)
Net Position:
Beginning of Year, as restated (Note 14) 73,326,272 45,734,959 119,061,231
End of Year 71,964,114$ 46,398,528$ 118,362,642$
Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Positions
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Activities (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
19
This page intentionally left blank.
20
FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
21
This page intentionally left blank.
22
GOVERNMENTAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
23
This page intentionally left blank.
24
Citywide Nonmajor
Grants Special Governmental
General Revenue Fund Funds Total
ASSETS
Cash and investments 25,217,675$ 270,831$ 3,067,698$ 28,556,204$
Receivables:
Accounts 2,412,911 - 309,075 2,721,986
Taxes 1,561,271 - 582 1,561,853
Interest 91,504 - 739 92,243
Prepaid items 32,495 - - 32,495
Due from other governments - - 14,444 14,444
Due from other funds 52,215 - - 52,215
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents 5,266 - 740,987 746,253
Total assets 29,373,337$ 270,831$ 4,133,525$ 33,777,693$
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF
RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable 1,010,905$ -$ 193,290$ 1,204,195$
Accrued liabilities 614,628 - 25,298 639,926
Unearned revenues - - 18,550 18,550
Deposits payable 531,142 - - 531,142
Due to other funds - - 52,215 52,215
Retentions payable - - 24,160 24,160
Total liabilities 2,156,675 - 313,513 2,470,188
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailable revenues 1,398,128 - 14,444 1,412,572
Fund Balances:
Nonspendable 32,495 - - 32,495
Restricted 5,266 270,831 3,839,727 4,115,824
Assigned 8,289,150 - - 8,289,150
Unassigned (deficit) 17,491,623 - (34,159) 17,457,464
Total fund balances 25,818,534 270,831 3,805,568 29,894,933
Total liabilities and fund balances 29,373,337$ 270,831$ 4,133,525$ 33,777,693$
City of Seal Beach
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2018
Governmental Funds
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
25
Total Fund Balances - Total Governmental Funds 29,894,933$
Nondepreciable 15,485,327$
Depreciable, net of $1,134,970 reported in Internal Service Fund 59,089,637 74,574,964
Bonds payable (3,678,000)$
Loans payable (603,308)
Claims and judgments (387,471)
Compensated absences (1,132,259) (5,801,038)
(24,599)
Pension related deferred outflows of resources 9,255,689$
Aggregate net pension liability (32,921,231)
Pension related deferred inflows of resources (1,534,662) (25,200,204)
Pension related deferred outflows of resources 695,976$
Aggregate net pension liability (5,662,789)
Pension related deferred inflows of resources (81,428) (5,048,241)
1,412,572
2,155,727
Net Position of Governmental Activities 71,964,114$
City of Seal Beach
Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the
June 30, 2018
Government-wide Statement of Net Position
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position were reported differently because:
Long-term liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and accordingly are not reported as fund liabilities. All
liabilities, both current and long-term, are reported in the Statement of Net Position:
Capital assets used in governmental activities were not current financial resources. Therefore, they were not reported in the
Governmental Funds Balance Sheet.
Internal Service Funds were used by management to charge the costs of certain activities, such as insurance and equipment
replacement to individual funds. The assets and liabilities of the Internal Service Funds were included in the governmental
activities in the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position.
Revenue reported as unavailable revenue in the governmental funds when it is not received soon enough after year-end to be
considered available. The Availability criteria does not apply to the government-Wide Financial Statements and, therefore,
the revenue is recognized when eligibility requirements are met and earned.
Net other postemployment benefits liabilities and the related deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources
are not due and payable in the current period or not available for current expenditures and are not reported in the
governmental fund financial statements:
Interest payable on long-term debt does not require current financial resources. Therefore, interest payable is not reported as a
liability in the governmental funds.
Net pension liabilities and the related deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources are not due and
payable in the current period or not available for current expenditures and are not reported in the governmental fund financial
statements:
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
26
Citywide Other
General Grants Special Governmental
Fund Revenue Fund Funds Total
Revenues:
Taxes 22,573,324$ -$ 1,448,344$ 24,021,668$
Licenses and permits 1,480,971 - - 1,480,971
Intergovernmental 263,752 737,860 529,203 1,530,815
Charges for services 4,465,566 - 121,383 4,586,949
Use of money and property 300,750 - 46,367 347,117
Fines and forfeitures 1,089,515 - - 1,089,515
Contributions 15,765 - 40,000 55,765
Miscellaneous 520,420 - - 520,420
Total revenues 30,710,063 737,860 2,185,297 33,633,220
Expenditures:
Current:
General government 5,673,029 - 84,830 5,757,859
Public safety 17,711,226 - 437,645 18,148,871
Community development 1,162,448 - 326,473 1,488,921
Community services 954,018 - - 954,018
Public works 4,702,117 - 264,949 4,967,066
Capital outlay 331,283 - 2,235,797 2,567,080
Debt service:
Principal retirement 69,521 - 1,571,000 1,640,521
Interest and fiscal charges 22,290 - 209,489 231,779
Total expenditures 30,625,932 - 5,130,183 35,756,115
Revenues over (under) expenditures 84,131 737,860 (2,944,886) (2,122,895)
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in 1,641,597 - 4,073,017 5,714,614
Transfers out (3,170,831) (328,120) (1,407,766) (4,906,717)
Total other financing sources (uses):(1,529,234) (328,120) 2,665,251 807,897
Net change in fund balances (1,445,103) 409,740 (279,635) (1,314,998)
Fund Balances:
Beginning of Year 27,263,637 (138,909) 4,085,203 31,209,931
End of Year 25,818,534$ 270,831$ 3,805,568$ 29,894,933$
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances
Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
27
Net Change in Fund Balances - Total Governmental Funds (1,314,998)$
Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore are not
reported in governmental funds.
Capital outlay, net of $174,736 reported in Internal Service Fund 2,567,080$
Depreciation, net of $189,588 reported in Internal Service Fund (2,735,783)
Net effect on disposal of capital assets 5,549 (163,154)
Repayment of debt principal is an expenditure in the governmental funds, but the repayment
reduces long-term liabilities in the Statement of Net Position.1,640,521
Interest expense on long-term debt is reported in the Statement of Activities, but do not require the
use of current financial resources. Therefore, interest expense is not reported as expenditures in
governmental funds. This amount represents the change in accrued interest from the prior year.6,104
Claims and judgment changes reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of
current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds.40,124
Compensated absences were reported in the Government-Wide Statement of Activities, but they
did not require the use of current financial resources. Therefore, compensated absences were not
reported as expenditures in the governmental funds.91,755
Certain pension income (expenses) reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of
current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds,
net of contribution made during the measurement period in the amount of $2,781,394.(2,031,354)
Certain other postemployment benefits income (expenses) reported in the Statement of Activities
do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures
in governmental funds, net of contribution made during the measurement period in the amount of
$695,976.110,495
Revenues reported as unavailable revenue in the governmental funds and recognized in the
Statement of Activities. 815,619
Internal Service Funds are used by management to charge the costs of certain activities, such as
insurance and equipment replacement, to individual funds. The net revenue of the Internal Service
Funds is reported in governmental activities.(557,270)
Change in Net Position of Governmental Activities (1,362,158)$
Governmental activities in the Statement of Activities were reported differently because:
City of Seal Beach
Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
and Changes in Fund Balances to the Government-Wide Statement of Activities
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
28
PROPRIETARY FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
29
Governmental
Activities
Vehicle
Replacement
Internal
Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Service Fund
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and investments 9,657,598$ 7,740,024$ 17,397,622$ 1,107,459$
Accounts receivable 1,035,403 440,995 1,476,398 -
Prepaid items 447,464 - 447,464 -
Total Current Assets 11,140,465 8,181,019 19,321,484 1,107,459
Noncurrent Assets:
Restricted cash 25,082 - 25,082
Advance to Successor Agency - 474,078 474,078 -
Capital assets, not being depreciated 1,095,639 307,136 1,402,775 -
Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 14,766,758 21,971,252 36,738,010 1,134,970
Total capital assets 15,862,397 22,278,388 38,140,785 1,134,970
Total Noncurrent Assets 15,887,479 22,752,466 38,639,945 1,134,970
Total Assets 27,027,944 30,933,485 57,961,429 2,242,429
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred charges on refunding - 132,774 132,774 -
Pension related items 503,973 420,955 924,928 -
Other postemployment benefits related items 86,417 61,521 147,938 -
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources 590,390 615,250 1,205,640 -
(Continued)
June 30, 2018
Proprietary Funds
Statement of Net Position
City of Seal Beach
Business-Type Activities
Enterprise Funds
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
30
Governmental
Activities
Vehicle
Replacement
Internal
Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Service Fund
LIABILITIES
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable 795,588 15,853 811,441 86,702
Accrued liabilities 40,347 31,597 71,944 -
Accrued interest 1,050 64,909 65,959 -
Deposits payable 20,435 2,150 22,585 -
Retention Payable 56,723 57,105 113,828 -
Unearned revenue 8,165 1,939 10,104 -
Compensated absences, due within one year 30,364 16,827 47,191 -
Long-term debt, due within one year 89,493 349,307 438,800 -
Total Current Liabilities 1,042,165 539,687 1,581,852 86,702
Noncurrent Liabilities:
Compensated absences, due in more than one year 43,781 40,945 84,726 -
Long-term debt, due in more than one year 783,062 5,274,383 6,057,445 -
Aggregate net pension liabilities 1,888,319 1,577,287 3,465,606 -
Net other postemployment benefits liabilities 703,127 500,566 1,203,693 -
Total Noncurrent Liabilities 3,418,289 7,393,181 10,811,470 -
Total Liabilities 4,460,454 7,932,868 12,393,322 86,702
DEFERRED INFLOW OF RESOURCES
Pension related items 195,016 162,894 357,910 -
Other postemployment benefits related items 10,111 7,198 17,309 -
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 205,127 170,092 375,219 -
NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 14,933,119 16,730,367 31,663,486 1,134,970
Restricted 25,082 - 25,082 -
Unrestricted 7,994,552 6,715,408 14,709,960 1,020,757
Total Net Position 22,952,753$ 23,445,775$ 46,398,528$ 2,155,727$
Enterprise Funds
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Net Position (Continued)
Proprietary Funds
June 30, 2018
Business-Type Activities
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
31
This page intentionally left blank.
32
Governmental
Activities
Vehicle
Replacement
Internal
Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Service
OPERATING REVENUES:
Sales and service charges 5,058,968$ 2,928,655$ 7,987,623$ -$
Miscellaneous 38,839 230 39,069 1,228
Total Operating Revenues 5,097,807 2,928,885 8,026,692 1,228
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Personnel expenses 1,145,032 1,067,501 2,212,533 -
Operating expenses 2,939,853 186,589 3,126,442 6,507
Amortization and depreciation expenses 567,602 1,082,967 1,650,569 189,588
Total Operating Expenses 4,652,487 2,337,057 6,989,544 196,095
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)445,320 591,828 1,037,148 (194,867)
NONOPERATING INCOME (LOSS):
Interest revenues 122,294 101,484 223,778 -
Interest expenses (3,511) (202,726) (206,237) -
Gain (loss) on sale of assets (12,620) - (12,620) 66,994
Total Nonoperating Income (Loss)106,163 (101,242) 4,921 66,994
(LOSS) BEFORE TRANSFERS 551,483 490,586 1,042,069 (127,873)
TRANSFERS:
Transfers out (324,500) (54,000) (378,500) (429,397)
Total Transfers (324,500) (54,000) (378,500) (429,397)
CHANGES IN NET POSITION 226,983 436,586 663,569 (557,270)
NET POSITION:
Beginning of the Year, as restated (Note 14) 22,725,770 23,009,189 45,734,959 2,712,997
End of the Year 22,952,753$ 23,445,775$ 46,398,528$ 2,155,727$
Enterprise Funds
Business-Type Activities
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position
City of Seal Beach
Proprietary Funds
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
33
Governmental
Activities
Vehicle
Replacement
Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Internal Service
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING
ACTIVITIES:
Cash received from customers and users 4,792,531$ 2,921,636$ 7,714,167$ -$
Cash paid to suppliers for goods and services (2,889,448) (210,249) (3,099,697) (2,844)
Cash paid to employees for services (1,312,827) (978,949) (2,291,776) -
Cash received from others 38,839 230 39,069 1,228
Net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities 629,095 1,732,668 2,361,763 (1,616)
CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL
FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Cash transfers out (324,500) (54,000) (378,500) (429,397)
Net cash used in noncapital financing
activities (324,500) (54,000) (378,500) (429,397)
CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND
RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Acquisition of capital assets (154,544) (153,454) (307,998) (174,736)
Proceeds from disposal of assets - - - 92,497
Principal paid on capital debt (22,373) (334,510) (356,883) -
Interest paid on debt (2,461) (206,352) (208,813) -
Net cash used in capital and related
financing activities (179,378) (694,316) (873,694) (82,239)
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING
ACTIVITIES:
Interest received 122,294 101,484 223,778 -
Receipt from collection of advances - 240,032 240,032 -
Net cash provided by investing activities 122,294 341,516 463,810 -
Net change in cash and cash equivalents 247,511 1,325,868 1,573,379 (513,252)
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS:
Beginning of year 9,435,169 6,414,156 15,849,325 1,620,711
End of year 9,682,680$ 7,740,024$ 17,422,704$ 1,107,459$
RECONCILIATION OF CASH AND CASH
EQUIVALENTS:
Cash and investments 9,657,598$ 7,740,024$ 17,397,622$ 1,107,459$
Restricted cash 25,082 - 25,082 -
Total cash and cash equivalents 9,682,680$ 7,740,024$ 17,422,704$ 1,107,459$
(Continued)
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Cash Flows
Proprietary Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Business-Type Activities
Enterprise Funds
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
34
Governmental
Activities
Vehicle
Replacement
Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Internal Service
Reconciliation of Operating Income (Loss) to
to Net Cash Provided by (Used in)
Operating Activities:
Operating income (loss) 445,320$ 591,828$ 1,037,148 (194,867)$
Adjustments to reconcile operating income
(loss) to net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities:
Amortization and depreciation expenses 567,602 1,082,967 1,650,569 189,588
Changes in assets and liabilities:
(Increase)/decrease in accounts receivables (283,102) (9,508) (292,610) -
(Increase)/decrease in deferred outflows of
resources related to pension (142,874) (161,409) (304,283) -
(Increase)/decrease in deferred outflows of
resources related to OPEB (16,562) (11,790) (28,352) -
Increase/(decrease) in accounts payable 50,405 (23,660) 26,745 3,663
Increase/(decrease) in accrued liabilities 529 8,364 8,893 -
Increase/(decrease) in deposits payable 8,500 550 9,050 -
Increase/(decrease) in unearned revenue 8,165 1,939 10,104 -
Increase/(decrease) in compensated absences (14,611) 6,546 (8,065) -
Increase/(decrease) in net pension liabilities 46,206 253,236 299,442 -
Increase/(decrease) in net OPEB liabilities (7,269) (5,175) (12,444) -
Increase/(decrease) in deferred inflows of
resources related to pension (43,325) (8,418) (51,743) -
Increase/(decrease) in deferred inflows of
resources related to OPEB 10,111 7,198 17,309 -
Net cash provided by (used in) operating
activities 629,095$ 1,732,668$ 2,361,763$ (1,616)$
Enterprise Funds
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Cash Flows (Continued)
Proprietary Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Business-Type Activities
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
35
This page intentionally left blank.
36
FIDUCIARY FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
37
This page intentionally left blank.
38
Successor Agency
Agency Private-purpose
Funds Trust Fund
ASSETS
Cash and investments 312,992$ 966,433$
Restricted Assets:
Investments with fiscal agent 957,167 751,248
Depreciable capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation - 50,121
Total Assets 1,270,159$ 1,767,802
LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:
Accrued interest -$ 33,478$
Deposit payable 60,596 -
Due to bondholders 1,209,563 -
Advances from the City's Sewer Fund, due within one year - 240,912
Bonds payable, due within one year - 635,000
Total current liabilities 1,270,159$ 909,390
Noncurrent liabilities:
Advances from the City's Sewer Fund, due in more than one year 233,166
Bonds payable, due in more than one year 1,290,000
Total noncurrent liabilities 1,523,166
Total liabilities 2,432,556
NET POSITION
Held in trust for Successor Agency (664,754)
Net position held in trust for Successor Agency (664,754)$
June 30, 2018
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position
City of Seal Beach
Fiduciary Funds
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
39
Successor Agency
Private-purpose
Trust Fund
ADDITIONS:
Redevelopment property tax trust fund 1,125,053$
Investment income 8,522
Total Additions 1,133,575
DEDUCTIONS:
Administrative expenses 212,625
Interest expense 103,923
Depreciation expenses 3,580
Total Deductions 320,128
Change in Net Position 813,447
NET POSITION:
Beginning of Year (1,478,201)
End of Year (664,754)$
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Change in Fiduciary Net Position
Fiduciary Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements.
40
41
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
42
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Seal Beach
Index to the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
43
Page
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies ..................................................................................... 45
A. Financial Reporting Entity .............................................................................................................. 45
B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus ................................................................................ 46
C. Cash and Investments ..................................................................................................................... 48
D. Fair Value Measurement ................................................................................................................. 49
E. Property Taxes Receivable ............................................................................................................. 49
F. Prepaid Items .................................................................................................................................. 49
G. Interfund Transactions .................................................................................................................... 49
H. Capital Assets ................................................................................................................................. 50
I. Unearned and Unavailable Revenue ............................................................................................... 50
J. Compensated Absences Payable ..................................................................................................... 50
K. Claims Payable ............................................................................................................................... 51
L. Pensions .......................................................................................................................................... 51
M. Other Postemployment Benefits ..................................................................................................... 51
N. Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources ....................................................................................... 52
O. Long-Term Liabilities ..................................................................................................................... 52
P. Net Position .................................................................................................................................... 52
Q. Fund Balances ................................................................................................................................. 52
R. Spending Policy .............................................................................................................................. 53
S. Use of Estimates ............................................................................................................................. 53
T. Tax Abatement ................................................................................................................................ 53
U. Accounting Changes ....................................................................................................................... 54
Note 2 – Cash and Investments .......................................................................................................................... 54
A. Demand Deposits ............................................................................................................................ 55
B. Investments Authorized by the California Government Code and the
City's Investment Policy ............................................................................................................ 55
C. Investments Authorized by Debt Agreements ................................................................................ 56
D. Fair Value Measurement ................................................................................................................. 56
E. Risk Disclosures ............................................................................................................................. 57
F. Investment in Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”) ............................................................... 59
Note 3 – Interfund Transactions ........................................................................................................................ 59
A. Due From/To Other Funds .............................................................................................................. 59
B. Transfers ......................................................................................................................................... 59
Note 4 – Advance to Successor Agency .............................................................................................................. 60
Note 5 – Capital Assets ........................................................................................................................................ 61
Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities .......................................................................................................................... 63
A. Governmental Activities ................................................................................................................. 63
B. Business-Type Activities ................................................................................................................ 65
C. Fiduciary Activities ........................................................................................................................ 67
City of Seal Beach
Index to the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
44
Page
Note 7 – Non-City Obligations ............................................................................................................................ 68
A. Heron Pointe Community Facilities District No 2002-01 .............................................................. 68
B. Pacific Gateway Business Center Community Facilities District No 2005-01 .............................. 68
Note 8 – Risk Management and Self Insurance Program ................................................................................ 68
A. Description of Self-Insurance Pool Pursuant to Joint Powers Agreement ...................................... 68
B. Self-Insurance Programs of the Authority ...................................................................................... 68
C. Purchased Insurance ....................................................................................................................... 69
D. Adequacy of Protection .................................................................................................................. 70
E. Claims Activity ............................................................................................................................... 70
Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans .............................................................................................................. 71
Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan .............................................................................. 78
Note 11 – Classification of Fund Balances .......................................................................................................... 82
Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies ....................................................................................................... 83
A. Commitments ................................................................................................................................... 83
B. Contingencies .................................................................................................................................. 83
C. Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 83
Note 13 – Individual Fund Disclosure ................................................................................................................. 83
A. Expenditures in Excess of Appropriation ........................................................................................ 83
B. Deficit Net Positions and Fund Balances......................................................................................... 84
Note 14 – Restatement of Beginning Net Position .............................................................................................. 84
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
45
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
The basic financial statements of the City of Seal Beach, California, (the “City”) have been prepared in accordance
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“U.S. GAAP”) as applied to governmental
agencies. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”) is the accepted standard setting body for
establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. The following is a summary of the City’s
significant policies:
A. Financial Reporting Entity
The City was incorporated on October 27, 1915, under the laws of the State of California and enjoys all the rights
and privileges applicable to a charter city. It is governed by an elected five-member council. As required by U.S.
GAAP these financial statements present the City (the primary government) and its component units. The
component unit discussed below is included in the reporting entity because of its operational or financial
relationships with the City.
In evaluating how to define the City for financial reporting purposes, management has considered all potential
component units. The primary criteria for including a potential component unit within the reporting entity are the
governing body’s financial accountability and a financial benefit or burden relationship and whether it is
misleading to exclude. A primary government is financially accountable and shares a financial benefit or burden
relationship, if it appoints a voting majority of an organization’s governing body and it is able to impose its will
on the organization, or if there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to, or
impose specific financial burdens on the primary government. A primary government may also be financially
accountable if an organization is fiscally dependent on the primary government regardless of whether the
organization has a separately elected governing board, a governing board appointed by a higher level of
government, or a jointly appointed board, and there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial
benefits to, or impose specific financial burdens on the primary government.
Blended Component Units:
Management determined that the following entities should be reported as blended component units based on the
criteria above. Although the following is legally separate from the City, it has been “blended” as though it is part
of the City because the component unit’s governing body is substantially the same as the City’s and there is a
financial benefit or burden relationship between the City and the component unit; management of the City has
operational responsibilities for the component unit; and/or the component unit provides services entirely, or
almost entirely, to the City or otherwise exclusively, or almost exclusively, benefits the City, even though it does
not provide services directly to it.
The Seal Beach Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) was formed May 8, 2000, pursuant to Articles 1
through 4 of Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the California Government Code, to create a joint exercise of
powers authority between the City and the former Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency. The City Council of the
City is the governing board. Management of the primary government has operational responsibility for the
blended component unit. The Authority was formed to undertake the financing of public capital improvements.
On June 12, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6741, to create the Parking Authority, and the
Parking Authority became a new member to the Authority. On the same date, the Successor Agency Board of
Directors adopted Resolution No. SA 17-3, approving the Successor Agency’s withdrawal of its Authority
membership. On June 28, 2017, the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency adopted Resolution No. OB17-03,
approving such withdrawal. Resolution No. OB17-03 became effective upon the State of California Department
of Finance’s approval, received by the Successor Agency on August 18, 2017.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
46
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
A. Financial Reporting Entity (Continued)
Blended Component Unit (Continued):
The Seal Beach Parking Authority (“the Parking Authority”) was formed on June 12, 2017, pursuant to the Part 2
of Division 18 of the California Streets and Highway Code. The Parking Authority is governed by the Board of
Director which is the City Council of the City of Seal Beach.
The Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation (the “Foundation”) was organized under the laws of the State
of California on August 27, 1984, to foster and promote civic advancement through activities related to cable
communications, community promotion, and other public services deemed appropriate by the foundation. The
Foundation is governed by a board of directors consisting of seven members, all appointed by the City Council of
the City of Seal Beach.
B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus
The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting
entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set of self-balancing accounts that
comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. City resources
are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and
the means by which spending activities are controlled.
Government-Wide Financial Statements
The government-wide financial statements are presented on an “economic resources” measurement focus and the
accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, all of the City’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and
deferred inflows of resources, including capital assets, as well as infrastructure assets, and long-term liabilities,
are included in the accompanying statement of net position. The statement of activities presents changes in net
position. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned
while expenses are recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred. Fiduciary activities of the City are
not included in these statements.
Certain types of transactions are reported as program revenues for the City in three categories:
Charges for services
Operating grants and contributions
Capital grants and contributions
Certain eliminations have been made in regards to interfund activities, payables and receivables. All internal
balances in the statement of net position have been eliminated. In the statement of activities, internal service fund
transactions have been included in the governmental activities. The following interfund activities have been
eliminated:
Due from and to other funds, which are short-term loans within the primary government
Transfers in and out, which are flows of assets between funds without the requirement for repayment
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
47
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus (Continued)
Governmental Fund Financial Statements (Continued)
All governmental funds are accounted for on a spending or “current financial resources” measurement focus and
the modified accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, only current assets, current liabilities, and deferred
inflows of resources are included on the balance sheet. The statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in
fund balances presents increases (revenue and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other
financing uses) in fund balances. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the
accounting period in which they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current
period.
Revenues are recorded when received in cash, except those revenues subject to accrual (generally 60 days after
year-end) which are recognized when due. The primary revenue sources that have been treated as susceptible to
accrual by the City are property taxes, intergovernmental revenues and other taxes. Business license fees are
recorded as received, except at year-end when they are accrued pursuant to the modified accrual basis of
accounting. The City recognizes business license revenue collected within 60 days as revenue at June 30.
Expenditures are recorded in the accounting period in which the related fund liability is incurred.
Reconciliations of the fund financial statements to the government-wide financial statements are provided to
explain the differences.
The City reports the following major Governmental Fund:
General Fund – The General Fund is the City’s principal operating fund. It accounts for all revenues and
expenditures used to finance the traditional services associated with a municipal government except those
required to be accounted for in another fund.
Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund – The Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund is used to account for
various Federal and State grants that are restricted to expenditures for specific projects or purposes.
Proprietary Fund Financial Statements
Proprietary Fund Financial Statements include a Statement of Net Position, a Statement of Revenues, Expenses
and Changes in Net Position, and a Statement of Cash Flows for each major Proprietary Fund.
Proprietary funds are accounted for using the "economic resources" measurement focus and the accrual basis of
accounting. Accordingly, all assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities (whether current or noncurrent), and
deferred inflows of resources are included on the Statement of Net Position. The Statement of Revenues,
Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position presents increases (revenues) and decreases (expenses) in total Net
Position. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned
while expenses are recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred. In these funds, receivables have
been recorded as revenue and provisions have been made for uncollectible amounts.
Operating revenues in the proprietary funds are those revenues that are generated from the primary operations of
the fund. All other revenues are reported as non-operating revenues. Operating expenses are those expenses that
are essential to the primary operations of the fund. All other expenses are reported as non-operating expenses.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
48
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus (Continued)
Proprietary Fund Financial Statements (Continued)
The City reports the following major Proprietary Funds:
Water Utility Enterprise Fund – This fund accounts for the operation and maintenance of the City’s water
distribution system.
Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund – This fund accounts for the financial transactions of the City’s waste water
collection system.
A separate column representing internal service funds is also presented in these statements. However, internal
service balances and activities have been combined with the governmental activities in the Government-Wide
Financial Statements. The City has Vehicle Replacement Internal Service Fund that provides services directly to
other City funds.
Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements
Fiduciary fund financial statements include a Statement of Net Position and a Statement of Changes in Fiduciary
Net Position. The City’s fiduciary funds represent agency funds and private purpose trust funds. Both agency
funds and the private purpose trust funds are accounted for on the full accrual basis of accounting.
The City reports the following fiduciary funds:
Agency Funds – These funds account for resources held by the City in a trustee capacity as an agent for
individuals, private organizations, other governments, and/or other funds. Agency Funds are custodial in
nature (assets equal liabilities) and do not involve measurement of results of operations.
Private-purpose Trust Fund – This fund accounts for the assets and liabilities of the former redevelopment
agency and its allocated revenue to pay estimated installment payments of enforceable obligations until
obligations of the former redevelopment agency are paid in full and assets have been liquidated.
C. Cash and Investments
The City’s cash and cash equivalents are comprised of cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term
investments with original maturity of three months or less from the date of acquisition. All cash and investments
of proprietary funds are held in the City’s investment pool. These cash pools have the general characteristics of a
demand deposit account, therefore, all cash and investments in the proprietary funds are considered cash and cash
equivalents for statement of cash flows purposes.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
49
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
D. Fair Value Measurement
Investments, unless otherwise specified, recorded at fair value in the financial statements, are categorized based
upon the level of judgment associated with the inputs used to measure their fair value.
The three levels of the fair value measurement hierarchy are described below:
Level 1 – Inputs are unadjusted, quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets at the
measurement date.
Level 2 – Inputs, other than quoted prices included in Level 1, that are observable for the assets or
liabilities through corroboration with market data at the measurement date.
Level 3 – Unobservable inputs that reflect management’s best estimate of what market participants would
use in pricing the assets or liabilities at the measurement date.
E. Property Taxes Receivable
Property tax revenue is recognized in the fiscal year for which the taxes have been levied providing they become
available. Available means due, or past due and receivable within the current period and collected within the
current period or expected to be collected soon enough thereafter (not to exceed 60 days) to be used to pay
liabilities in the current period.
Under California law, property taxes are assessed and collected by the counties at up to 1% of assessed value,
plus other increases approved by the voters. The property taxes go into a pool, and are then allocated to the cities
based on complex formulas.
The property tax calendar is as follows:
Lien Date: January 1
Levy Date: July 1
Due Date: First Installment - November 1
Second Installment - February 1
Delinquent Date: First Installment - December 11
Second Installment - April 11
F. Prepaid Items
Prepaid items are payments made to vendors for services that will benefit periods beyond the fiscal year
ended using purchase method.
G. Interfund Transactions
Activities between funds that are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements outstanding at the end of the
fiscal year are referred to as “due from/to other funds” (i.e., current portion of interfund loans).
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
50
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
H. Capital Assets
In the government-wide financial statements, capital assets, which include land, buildings, improvements,
equipment, furniture, and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, sidewalks, and similar items), are recorded at
historical cost or estimated historical if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are valued at the
estimated acquisition value on the date donated. City policy has set the capitalization threshold for reporting
capital assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 and an estimated useful life of one year or more.
The City defines infrastructure as the basic physical assets that allow the City to function. The assets include
street network, street appurtenances, and storm drains.
Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized as projects are constructed. Interest incurred
during the construction phase of capital assets of business-type activities is included as part of the capitalized
value of the assets constructed. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the
asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized.
Capital assets used in operations are depreciated over their estimated useful lives using the straight-line method.
The lives used for depreciation purposes are as follows:
Assets Years
Building and Improvements 20-99
Machinery and Equipment 5-50
Vehicles 4-10
Infrastructure 20-60
I. Unearned and Unavailable Revenue
In the government-wide and fund financial statements, unearned revenue is reported for transactions for which
revenue has not yet been earned. Typical transactions recorded as unearned revenues in the government-wide
financial statements are cell phone site license lease payments received in advance, prepaid charges for services,
facility rentals paid in advance, and quarterly encroachment fees, and advance registration for recreation classes.
In the governmental fund financial statements, unavailable revenue is reported when transactions have not yet
met the revenue recognition criteria based on the modified accrual basis of accounting. The City reports
unavailable revenue when an asset is reported in governmental fund financial statements but the revenue is not
available.
J. Compensated Absences Payable
City employees have vested interest in varying levels of vacation, sick leave and compensatory time based on
their length of employment. It is the policy of the City to pay all accumulated vacation pay and all or a portion of
sick pay when an employee retires or terminates. The long-term amount is included as a liability in the
governmental activities of the government-wide financial statements. A liability for these amounts is reported in
governmental funds only if they have matured, for example, as a result of employee resignations and retirements.
All of the liability for compensated absences applicable to proprietary funds is reported in those funds.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
51
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
K. Claims Payable
The City records a liability to reflect an actuarial estimate of ultimate uninsured losses for both general liability
claims (including property damage claims) and workers’ compensation claims. The estimated liability for
workers’ compensation claims and general liability claims includes “incurred but not reported” (“IBNR”) claims.
There is no fixed payment schedule to pay these liabilities.
L. Pensions
For purposes of measuring the aggregate net pension liability, deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of
resources related to pensions, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the plans and
additions to/deductions from the plans’ fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are
reported by the plans. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions) are recognized
when due and payable in accordance with benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value.
The following timeframes are used for pension reporting:
Valuation Date June 30, 2016
Measurement Date June 30, 2017
Measurement Period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017
Gains and losses related to changes in total pension liability and fiduciary net position are recognized in pension
expense systematically over time. The first amortized amounts are recognized in pension expense for the year the gain
or loss occurs. The remaining amounts are categorized as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related to
pensions and are to be recognized in future pension expense. The amortization period differs depending on the source
of the gain or loss. The difference between projected and actual earnings is amortized straight-line over 5 years. All
other amounts are amortized straight-line over the average expected remaining service lives of all members that are
provided with benefits (active, inactive, and retired) as of the beginning of the measurement period.
M. Other Postemployment Benefits
For purposes of measuring the net other postemployment benefits (“OPEB)” liability, deferred outflows of resources
and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB, and OPEB expense, information about the fiduciary net position of
the plans and additions to/deductions from the plans’ fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as
they are reported by the plans. For this purpose, benefit payments are recognized when due and payable in accordance
with benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value.
The following timeframes are used for pension reporting:
Valuation Date June 30, 2017
Measurement Date June 30, 2017
Measurement Period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017
Gains and losses related to changes in total OPEB liability and fiduciary net position are recognized in OPEB expense
systematically over time. The first amortized amounts are recognized in OPEB expense for the year the gain or loss
occurs. The remaining amounts are categorized as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB
and are to be recognized in future OPEB expense. The amortization period differs depending on the source of the gain
or loss. The difference between projected and actual earnings is amortized straight-line over 5 years. All other
amounts are amortized straight-line over the average expected remaining service lives of all members that are provided
with benefits (active, inactive, and retired) as of the beginning of the measurement period.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
52
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
N. Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources
The Statement of Net Position reports separate sections for deferred outflows of resources, and deferred inflows
of resources, when applicable.
Deferred Outflows of Resources represent outflows of resources (consumption of net position) that apply to
future periods and that, therefore, will not be recognized as an expense until that time.
Deferred Inflows of Resources represent inflows of resources (acquisition of net position) that apply to
future periods and that, therefore, are not recognized as revenue until that time.
O. Long-Term Liabilities
In the government-wide financial statements, long-term debt and other long-term liabilities are reported as
liabilities in the Statement of Net Position. Bond premiums and discounts are deferred and amortized over the life
of the bonds using the effective interest method. Bonds payable are reported net of the applicable bond premium
or discount.
P. Net Position
In the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund financial statements, net position is classified
as follows:
Net Investment in Capital Assets – This component of net position consists of capital assets, net of
accumulated depreciation, capital related debt and deferred charges, and retention payable.
Restricted – This component of net position consists of restricted assets reduced by liabilities and deferred
inflows of resources related to those assets.
Unrestricted – This component of net position is the amount of the assets, deferred outflows of resources,
liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources that are not included in the determination of net investment in
capital assets or the restricted component of net position.
Q. Fund Balances
In the governmental fund financial statements, fund balances are classified as follows:
Nonspendable – Nonspendable fund balances include amounts that cannot be spent because they are not in a
spendable form, such as unrestricted loans receivable or prepaid items, or because resources legally or
contractually must remain intact.
Restricted – Restricted fund balances are the portion of fund balance that have externally enforceable
limitations on their usage through legislation or limitations imposed by creditors, grantor, laws and
regulations of other governments or enabling legislation.
Committed – Committed fund balances are self-imposed limitations by the highest level of decision-making
authority, namely the City Council, prior to the end of the reporting period. City Council adoption of a
resolution is required to commit resources or to rescind the commitment.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
53
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
Q. Fund Balances (Continued)
Assigned – Assigned fund balances are limitations imposed by management based on the intended use of the
funds. Modifications or rescissions of the constraints can be removed by the same type of action that limited
the use of the funds. Assignment of resources can be done by the highest level of decision making or by a
committee or official designated for that purpose. The City Council has authorized the Finance Director for
that purpose.
Unassigned – Unassigned fund balances represent the residual net resources in excess of the other
classifications. The general fund is the only fund that reports a positive unassigned fund balance amount. In
other governmental funds, it is not appropriate to report a positive unassigned fund balance amount.
However, in governmental funds other than general fund, if expenditures incurred for specific purposes
exceed the amounts that are restricted, committed, or assigned to those purposes, it may be necessary to report
a negative unassigned fund balance in that fund.
R. Spending Policy
Government-Wide Financial Statements and the Proprietary Fund Financial Statements
When expenses are incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted components of net position
are available, the City’s practice is to apply the restricted component of net position first, then use the unrestricted
component of net position as needed.
Governmental Fund Financial Statements
When expenditures are incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted fund balances are
available, the City’s practice is to apply restricted fund balances first, then use unrestricted fund balances as
needed.
When expenditures are incurred for purposes where only unrestricted fund balances are available, the City uses
the unrestricted resources in the following order, except for instances wherein an ordinance specifies the fund
balance:
Committed
Assigned
Unassigned
S. Use of Estimates
The preparation of the basic financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP requires management to make
estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could
differ from those estimates.
T. Tax Abatement
Tax abatement is a reduction in tax revenues that results from an agreement between one or more governments
and an individual or entity in which (a) one or more governments promise to forgo tax revenues to which they are
otherwise entitled and (b) the individual or entity promises to take a specific action after the agreement has been
entered into that contributes to economic development or otherwise benefits the governments or the citizens of
those governments. City policy has set the threshold for reporting tax abatement with abatement agreements more
than $25,000.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
54
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
U. Accounting Changes
GASB has issued Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other
Than Pensions (GASB 75). This Statement replaces the requirements of Statements No. 45, Accounting and
Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions, as amended, and No. 57,
OPEB Measurements by Agent Employers and Agent Multiple-Employer Plans, for OPEB. This Statement
establishes standards for recognizing and measuring liabilities, deferred outflows of resources, deferred inflows of
resources, and expense/expenditures. For defined benefit OPEB, this Statement identifies the methods and
assumptions that are required to be used to project benefit payments, discount projected benefit payments to their
actuarial present value, and attribute that present value to periods of employee services. Note disclosure and
required supplementary information requirements about defined benefit OPEB also are addressed.
GASB has issued Statement No. 85, Omnibus 2017 (GASB 85). This Statement establishes accounting and
financing reporting requirements for blending component units, goodwill, fair value measurement and
application, and postemployment benefits (pensions and other postemployment benefits).
Note 2 – Cash and Investments
The City maintains a cash and investment pool, which includes cash balances and authorized investments of all
funds.
The City had the following cash and investments at June 30, 2018:
Government-Wide Statement of
Statement of Fiduciary
Net Position Net Position Total
Cash and investments 47,061,285$ 1,279,425$ 48,340,710$
Restricted cash and investment
with fiscal agent 771,335 1,708,415 2,479,750
Total cash and investments 47,832,620$ 2,987,840$ 50,820,460$
The City’s cash and investments at June 30, 2018 in more detail:
Cash and Investments:
Petty cash 8,851$
Demand deposits 1,987,140
Restricted cash 30,348
Investments 48,794,121
Total cash investments 50,820,460$
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
55
Note 2 – Cash and Investments (Continued)
A. Demand Deposits
The carrying amounts of the City’s demand deposits were $1,987,140 at June 30, 2018. Bank balances at that
date were $2,632,477, the total amount of which was insured or collateralized with accounts held by the pledging
financial institutions in the City’s name as discussed below.
The California Government Code requires California banks and savings and loan associations to secure the City’s
cash deposits by pledging securities as collateral. This Code states that collateral pledged in this manner shall
have the effect of perfecting a security interest in such collateral superior to those of a general creditor. Thus,
collateral for cash deposits is considered to be held in the City’s name.
The market value of pledged securities must equal at least 110% of the City’s cash deposits. California law also
allows institutions to secure City deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of
the City’s total cash deposits. The City may waive collateral requirements for cash deposits, which are fully
insured up to $250,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). The City, however, has not
waived the collateralization requirements.
B. Investments Authorized by the California Government Code and the City's Investment Policy
The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized by the City's investment policy and the
California Government Code. The table also identifies certain provisions of the California Government Code (or
the City's investment policy, if more restrictive) that address interest rate risk, credit risk, and concentration of
credit risk. This table does not address investments of debt proceeds held by bond trustee that are governed by the
provisions of debt agreements of the City, rather than the general provisions of the California Government Code
or the City's investment policy.
Maximum Maximum
Authorized Investment Type Maturity Portfolio* One Issuer*
U.S. Treasury securities 5 years 100% None
U.S. agency and U.S. government sponsored
enterprise securities 5 years 20% None
Obligation of the State of California
or any local agency 5 years 100% None
Registered treasury notes or bonds of any
of the 49 states in addition to California 5 years 100% None
Bankers' acceptance 180 days 40% 5%
Commercial paper 270 days 25% 10%
Nonnegotiable certificate of deposit 5 years 100% None
Negotiable certificate of deposit 5 years 30% None
Medium term notes 5 years 30% 10%
Money market mutual funds 89 days 15% None
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) None 100% 50 Million/account
*The table is based on state law requirements or investment policy requirements, whichever is more restrictive.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
56
Note 2 – Cash and Investments (Continued)
C. Investments Authorized by Debt Agreements
Maximum Maximum
Maximum Percentage of Investment in
Authorized Investment Type Maturity Portfolio* One Issuer*
U.S. treasury securities None None None
U.S. agency and U.S. government sponsored
enterprise securities None None None
Bankers' acceptance 180 days None 30%
Commercial paper 270 days None None
Money market mutual funds 89 days None None
Investment contracts 30 years None None
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) None None None
Investments of debt proceeds held by bond trustee are governed by provisions of the debt agreements, rather than
the general provisions of the California Government Code or the City's investment policy. The table on the
following page identifies the investment types that are authorized for investments held by bond trustee. The table
also identifies certain provisions of these debt agreements that address interest rate risk, and concentration of
credit risk.
D. Fair Value Measurement
At June 30, 2018, investments are reported at fair value. The following table presents the fair value measurement
of investments on a recurring basis and the levels within the fair value hierarchy in which the fair value
measurements fall at June 30, 2018:
Quoted Prices Significant
in Active Other
Markets for Observable
Identical Assets Inputs
Investment Type Value (Level 1) (Level 2) Uncategorized
Investments:
US Treasury bonds/notes 10,566,229$ 10,566,229$ -$ -$
Municipal bonds/notes 312,861 - 312,861 -
US government sponsored enterprise
securities 3,788,144 - 3,788,144 -
Corporate note 6,280,192 - 6,280,192 -
Negotiable certificates of deposit 5,277,987 - 5,277,987 -
LAIF 20,119,306 - - 20,119,306
Investments with Fiscal Agent:
Money Market Mutual Funds 2,449,402 - - 2,449,402
Total investments 48,794,121$ 10,566,229$ 15,659,184$ 22,568,708$
Fair Value Measurement
Investments in municipal bonds/notes, U.S. government sponsored enterprise securities, and corporate note are
valued based on institutional bond quotes. Investments in negotiable certificates of deposits are valued based on
certificate of deposits pricing.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
57
Note 2 – Cash and Investments (Continued)
E. Risk Disclosures
Disclosures Relating to Interest Rate Risk
Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an
investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment is, the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to
changes in market interest rates. One of the ways that the City manages its exposure to interest rate risk is by
purchasing a combination of shorter term and longer term investments and by timing cash flows from maturities
so that a portion of the portfolio is maturing or coming close to maturity evenly over time as necessary to provide
the cash flow and liquidity needed for operations.
Information about the sensitivity of the fair values of the City's investments (including investments held by bond
trustees) to market interest rate fluctuations is provided by the following table that shows the distribution of the
City's investments by maturity:
Investment Type Amount Less than 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5
Investments:
US Treasury bonds/notes 10,566,229$ -$ 1,405,985$ 2,963,559$ 4,282,788$ 1,913,897$
Municipal bonds/notes 312,861 312,861 - - - -
US government sponsored
enterprise securities 3,788,144 - 959,002 766,899 2,062,243 -
Corporate note 6,280,192 144,093 2,125,754 1,823,311 1,439,129 747,905
Negotiable certificates of deposit 5,277,987 1,918,153 2,840,901 518,933 - -
LAIF 20,119,306 20,119,306 - - - -
Investments with Fiscal Agent:
Money Market Mutual Funds 2,449,402 2,449,402 - - - -
Total investments 48,794,121$ 24,943,815$ 7,331,642$ 6,072,702$ 7,784,160$ 2,661,802$
Investment Maturities (in Years)
Disclosures Relating to Credit Risk
Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the
investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating
organization. Presented below is the minimum rating required by (where applicable) the California Government
Code or the City's investment policy, or debt agreements, and the actual rating as of fiscal year end for each
investment type.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
58
Note 2 – Cash and Investments (Continued)
E. Risk Disclosures (Continued)
Disclosures Relating to Credit Risk
Minimum
Legal
Investment Type Rating Total AAA AA- to AA+ A to A+ A- Unrated
Investments:
US Treasury bonds/notes N/A 10,566,229$ 10,566,229$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Municipal bonds/notes N/A 312,861 - - 312,861 - -
US government sponsored
enterprise securities A 3,788,144 - 3,788,144 - - -
Corporate note 6,280,192 306,039 1,666,635 2,543,279 1,262,568 501,671
Negotiable certificates of deposit N/A 5,277,987 - 1,374,411 3,903,576 - -
LAIF 20,119,306 - - - - 20,119,306
Investments with Fiscal Agent: N/A
Money Market Mutual Funds N/A 2,449,402 - - - - 2,449,402
Total investments 48,794,121$ 10,872,268$ 6,829,190$ 6,759,716$ 1,262,568$ 23,070,379$
Concentration of Credit Risk
The investment policy of the City contains no limitations on the amount that can be invested in any one issuer
beyond that stipulated by the California Government Code. The City’s investment in Fannie Mae Agency Note in
amount of $3,332,809 represented 7.2% of total City investments.
Custodial Credit Risk
Custodial credit risk for deposits is the risk that, in the event of the failure of a depository financial institution, a
government will not be able to recover its deposits or will not be able to recover collateral securities that are in the
possession of an outside party. The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that in the event of the failure
of the counterparty (e.g., broker dealer) to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of its
investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of another party. The California Government Code
and the City's investment policy do not contain legal or policy requirements that would limit the exposure to
custodial credit risk for deposits or investments, other than the following provision for deposits: The California
Government Code requires that a financial institution secure deposits made by state or local government units by
pledging securities in an undivided collateral pool held by a depository regulated under state law (unless so
waived by the governmental unit). The market value of the pledged securities in the collateral pool must equal at
least 110% of the total amount deposited by the public agencies. California law also allows financial institutions
to secure City deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of the secured public
deposits. At June 30, 2018, the City deposits (bank balances were insured by the Federal Depository Insurance
Corporation up to $250,000 and the remaining balances were collateralized under California law.
For investments identified herein as held by bond trustee, the bond trustee selects the investment under the terms
of the applicable trust agreement, acquires the investment, and holds the investment on behalf of the reporting
government.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
59
Note 2 – Cash and Investments (Continued)
F. Investment in Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”)
The City is a participant in LAIF, which is regulated by California Government Code Section 16429 under the
oversight of the Treasurer of the State of California. The City’s investments with LAIF at June 30, 2018 included
a portion of the pool funds invested in Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities, which included the
following:
Structured Notes: debt securities (other than asset-backed securities) whose cash flow characteristics (coupon
rate, redemption amount, or stated maturity) depend upon one or more indices and/or that have embedded
forwards or options.
Asset-Backed Securities: generally, mortgage-backed securities that entitle their purchasers to receive a share
of the cash flows from a pool of assets such as principal and interest repayments from a pool of mortgages
(for example, collateralized mortgage obligations), or credit card receivables.
As of June 30, 2018, the City had $20,119,306 invested in LAIF, which had invested 2.67% of the pool
investment funds in Structured Notes, Medium-term Asset-Backed Securities, and Short-term Asset Backed
Commercial Paper.
Note 3 – Interfund Transactions
A. Due From/To Other Funds
At June 30, 2018, the City had the following due from/to other funds:
Due To Other Funds
Nonmajor Governmental funds
Due From Other Funds
General Fund
52,215$
The above amounts resulted from deficit in the pooled cash account. Short-term loans were made to the
Community Development Block Grant Special Revenue Fund and Police Grant Special Revenue Fund to address
these deficits.
B. Transfers
During the year ended June 30, 2018, the City had the following transfers:
Nonmajor
General Governmental
Transfers out Fund Funds Total
General Fund -$ 3,170,831$ 3,170,831$
Citywide Grants Special Revenue
Fund - 328,120 328,120
Nonmajor Governmental
Funds 833,700 574,066 1,407,766
Water Utility 324,500 - 324,500
Sewer Utility 54,000 - 54,000
Internal Service funds 429,397 - 429,397
Total 1,641,597$ 4,073,017$ 5,714,614$
Transfers in
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
60
Note 3 – Interfund Transactions (Continued)
B. Transfers (Continued)
In general, transfers are used to 1) use unrestricted revenues collected in one fund to finance various programs
accounted for in other funds in accordance with budgetary authorizations, and 2) to transfer to the General Fund
to fund administration services.
Transfers totaling $1,212,200 from Water Utility, Sewer Utility, and Nonmajor Governmental Funds, were made
to the General Fund to provide funding for certain administrative costs and Internal Services Fund transferred
$429,397 to General Fund to fund operation of tidelands.
General Fund transferred $1,782,469 to City Debt Service Debt Service Fund to pay for debt service obligations.
General Fund, Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund, and nonmajor governmental funds transferred $2,231,645
to the Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund.
Note 4 – Advance to Successor Agency
In 2012, the Sewer Fund advanced $1,200,000 to the former redevelopment agency, but was subsequently denied by
the Department of Finance (DOF). The City appealed the DOF decision and, in 2014, this advance was approved.
Interest on the advance is consistent with the Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”) interest rate at the time the
Oversight Board made the finding that the advance was for legitimate redevelopment purposes, which was at
0.00367%. The balance of the advance at June 30, 2018, was $474,078.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
61
Note 5 – Capital Assets
The summary of changes in governmental activities capital assets for the year ended June 30, 2018 is as follows:
Balance Balance
July 1, 2017 Additions Deletions June 30, 2018
Capital assets not being depreciated:
Land 10,519,847$ -$ -$ 10,519,847$
Intangible asset-land easement 900,000 - - 900,000
Construction in progress 2,164,125 1,901,355 - 4,065,480
Total capital assets not being depreciated 13,583,972 1,901,355 - 15,485,327
Capital assets being depreciated:
Buildings and improvements 15,699,917 193,533 - 15,893,450
Machinery and equipment 2,104,579 33,573 (27,186) 2,110,966
Vehicles 2,744,274 613,355 (249,572) 3,108,057
Infrastructure 82,797,513 - - 82,797,513
Total capital assets being depreciated 103,346,283 840,461 (276,758) 103,909,986
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings and improvements (5,733,373) (392,158) - (6,125,531)
Machinery and equipment (1,862,606) (76,857) 27,186 (1,912,277)
Vehicles (1,374,797) (203,054) 229,618 (1,348,233)
Infrastructure (32,046,036) (2,253,302) - (34,299,338)
Total accumulated depreciation (41,016,812) (2,925,371) 256,804 (43,685,379)
Total capital assets being depreciated, net 62,329,471 (2,084,910) (19,954) 60,224,607
Total governmental activities 75,913,443$ (183,555)$ (19,954)$ 75,709,934$
Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of governmental activities for the year ended June 30, 2018
as follows:
General government 271,418$
Public safety 179,611
Community development 21,877
Public works 2,262,877
Internal service funds 189,588
Total depreciation expense 2,925,371$
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
62
Note 5 – Capital Assets (Continued)
The summary of changes in business-type activities capital assets for the year ended June 30, 2018 is as follows:
Balance Balance
July 1, 2017 Additions Deletions Reclassifications June 30, 2018
Capital assets not being depreciated:
Construction in progress-water 850,743$ 481,308$ -$ (236,412)$ 1,095,639$
Construction in progress-sewer 500,832 34,664 - (228,360) 307,136
Total capital assets not being depreciated 1,351,575 515,972 - (464,772) 1,402,775
Capital assets being depreciated:
Buildings and improvements - water 73,284 - - - 73,284
Machinery and equipment - water 605,151 - (18,036) - 587,115
Machinery and equipment - sewer 785,802 - - - 785,802
Vehicles - water 289,513 1,910 (18,362) - 273,061
Vehicles - sewer 420,651 - (17,524) - 403,127
Infrastructure - water 31,811,659 102,103 - 236,412 32,150,174
Infrastructure - sewer 38,077,381 102,103 - 228,360 38,407,844
Total capital assets being depreciated 72,063,441 206,116 (53,922) 464,772 72,680,407
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings and improvements - water (72,943) (341) - - (73,284)
Machinery and equipment - water (503,845) (14,688) 5,416 - (513,117)
Machinery and equipment - sewer (236,084) (14,928) - - (251,012)
Vehicles - water (158,478) (20,992) 18,362 - (161,108)
Vehicles - sewer (199,642) (43,668) 17,524 - (225,786)
Infrastructure - water (17,037,786) (531,581) - - (17,569,367)
Infrastructure - sewer (16,136,422) (1,012,301) - - (17,148,723)
Total accumulated depreciation (34,345,200) (1,638,499) 41,302 - (35,942,397)
Total capital assets being depreciated, net 37,718,241 (1,432,383) (12,620) 464,772 36,738,010
Total business-type activities 39,069,816$ (916,411)$ (12,620)$ -$ 38,140,785$
Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of business-type activities for the year ended June 30, 2018
as follows:
Water Utility 567,602$
Sewer Utility 1,070,897
Total depreciation expense 1,638,499$
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
63
Note 5 – Capital Assets (Continued)
The summary of changes in fiduciary activities capital assets for the year ended June 30, 2018 is as follows:
Balance Balance
July 1, 2017 Additions Deletions June 30, 2018
Capital assets being depreciated:
Buildings and improvements 370,804$ -$ -$ 370,804$
Machinery and equipment 64,784 - - 64,784
Total capital assets being depreciated 435,588 - - 435,588
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings and improvements (317,103) (3,580) - (320,683)
Machinery and equipment (64,784) - - (64,784)
Total accumulated depreciation (381,887) (3,580) - (385,467)
Total capital assets being depreciated, net 53,701$ (3,580)$ -$ 50,121$
Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities
A. Governmental Activities
Summary of changes in long-term liabilities for governmental activities for the year ended June 30, 2018 is as
follows:
Balance Balance Due within Due in more
July 1, 2017 Additions Deletions June 30, 2018 One Year than One Year
2008 Taxable Pension Obligation
Bonds, Series A-2 2,414,000$ -$ (1,151,000)$ 1,263,000$ 1,263,000$ -$
2009 Lease Revenue Bonds 2,835,000 - (420,000) 2,415,000 420,000 1,995,000
Municipal Finance Corporation 672,829 - (69,521) 603,308 71,904 531,404
Claims payable 427,595 - (40,124) 387,471 96,868 290,603
Compensated absences 1,224,014 583,220 (674,975) 1,132,259 326,929 805,330
Total 7,573,438$ 583,220$ (2,355,620)$ 5,801,038$ 2,178,701$ 3,622,337$
Classification
The General Fund has been used to liquidate the majority of the liability for compensated absences and net
pension liabilities.
2008 Taxable Pension Obligation Bonds
On June 1, 2008, the City issued Taxable Pension Obligation Bonds for the purpose of refunding the City’s
obligations to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System for pension benefits accruing for its members
in the amounts of $2,170,000 and $8,775,000 for Series 2008A-1 and 2008A-2, respectively. Interest rate on the
bonds varies from 4.9% to 5.66%. Payments have been presented as expenditures in the fund financial statements
and as prepaid assets in the government-wide financial statements. The balance in the Series 2008A-1 was paid
off during the year ended June 30, 2016. The balance in the 2008A-2 bonds at June 30, 2018 was $1,263,000.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
64
Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities (Continued)
A. Governmental Activities (Continued)
2008 Taxable Pension Obligation Bonds (Continued)
The annual debt service requirements are as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2019 1,263,000$ 39,129$ 1,302,129$
2009 Series Lease Revenue Bonds
On January 14, 2009, the City issued 2009 Series Lease Revenue Bonds for the purpose of financing the
construction of a new fire station in the City in the amount of $6,300,000 Interest rate on the bonds is 3.71%. The
total balance of the 2009 Series Lease Revenue bonds at June 30, 2018 was $2,415,000.
The annual debt service requirements are as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2019 420,000$ 83,753$ 503,753$
2020 420,000 68,171 488,171
2021 420,000 52,589 472,589
2022 420,000 37,007 457,007
2023 420,000 21,425 441,425
2024 315,000 5,844 320,844
Total 2,415,000$ 268,789$ 2,683,789$
Municipal Finance Corporation Loan
On May 8, 2014, the City entered into a Lease with Option to Purchase agreement with Municipal Finance
Corporation relating to a capital project to be performed by Climatec LLC in the amount of $1,546,931. Interest
rate on the loan is 3.40%. The balance of the Municipal Finance Corporation Loan at June 30, 2018 was
$603,308.
The annual debt service requirements are as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2019 71,904$ 19,906$ 91,810$
2020 74,370 17,441 91,811
2021 76,920 14,891 91,811
2022 79,558 12,253 91,811
2023 82,286 9,525 91,811
2024-2026 218,270 11,257 229,527
Tota l 603,308$ 85,273$ 688,581$
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
65
Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities (Continued)
B. Business-Type Activities
Summary of changes in long-term liabilities for business-type activities for the year ended June 30, 2018 is as
follows:
Balance Balance Due within Due in more
July 1, 2017 Additions Deletions June 30, 2018 One Year than One Year
2011 Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds 2,420,000$ -$ (150,000)$ 2,270,000$ 160,000$ 2,110,000$
Sewer Capital Improvement Project #1 2,086,731 - (115,525) 1,971,206 118,529 1,852,677
Sewer Capital Improvement Project #2 1,451,469 - (68,985) 1,382,484 70,778 1,311,706
West Orange County Water Board Loan - 894,928 (22,373) 872,555 89,493 783,062
Compensated absences 139,982 142,879 (150,944) 131,917 47,191 84,726
Total 6,098,182$ 1,037,807$ (507,827)$ 6,628,162$ 485,991$ 6,142,171$
Classification
The Water Utility Fund and Sewer Utility Fund have been used to liquidate the liability for compensated
absences and net pension liabilities.
2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds
On March 2, 2011, the City issued 2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds in the amount of $3,310,000 to
pay off the 2000 Sewer System Certificates of Participation. The 2000 Sewer System Certificates of Participation
were issued to provide for improvements to the City’s sewer system.
Interest rate on the 2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds is 4.8%, and the balance of the 2011 Sewer
System Revenue Refunding Bonds at June 30, 2018 was $2,270,000.
The annual debt service requirements are as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2019 160,000$ 107,040$ 267,040$
2020 170,000 99,240 269,240
2021 175,000 91,080 266,080
2022 185,000 82,560 267,560
2023 195,000 73,560 268,560
2024-2028 1,125,000 216,000 1,341,000
2029 260,000 9,360 269,360
Total 2,270,000$ 678,840$ 2,948,840$
Sewer Capital Improvement Project Loan #1
On April 6, 2011, the City entered into an agreement with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Control Board
for construction of the Sewer Capital Improvement project. The City may borrow up to $2,644,356 or the eligible
costs of the project, whichever is less. At June 30, 2018, the City had drawn down the entire loan fund. The loan
has an interest rate of 2.6% with maturities through 2031. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2018 was
$1,971,206.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
66
Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities (Continued)
B. Business-Type Activities (Continued)
Sewer Capital Improvement Project Loan #1 (Continued)
The annual debt service requirements are as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2019 118,529$ 51,251$ 169,780$
2020 121,610 48,170 169,780
2021 124,772 45,008 169,780
2022 128,017 41,764 169,781
2023 131,345 38,425 169,770
2024-2028 709,760 139,141 848,901
2029-2032 637,173 41,948 679,121
Tota l 1,971,206$ 405,707$ 2,376,913$
Sewer Capital Improvement Project Loan #2
On April 6, 2011, the City entered into an agreement with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Control Board
for construction of the Sewer Capital Improvement project. The City may borrow up to $2,125,112 or the eligible
costs of the project, whichever is less. At June 30, 2018, the State Water Resources Control Board had disbursed
$1,652,742. The loan has an interest rate of 2.6% with maturities through 2031. The outstanding balance at June
30, 2018 was $1,382,484.
The annual debt service requirements are as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2019 70,778$ 35,945$ 106,723$
2020 72,618 34,104 106,722
2021 74,506 32,216 106,722
2022 76,444 30,279 106,723
2023 78,431 28,292 106,723
2024-2028 423,826 109,788 533,614
2029-2033 481,863 51,751 533,614
2034 104,018 2,704 106,722
Total 1,382,484$ 325,079$ 1,707,563$
West Orange County Water Board Loan
On December 11, 2017, the City entered into financial participation agreement with the West Orange County
Water Board (the “WOCWB”) for relocation of the City’s allocated 14.3% ownership in the waterline. The
City’s portion of project costs was in the amount of $894,928. The repayments are due quarterly on the first of
the month commencing June 1, 2018. The interest rate ranges from 1.414% to 5.314% with maturity date on
March 1, 2028. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2018 was $872,555.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
67
Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities (Continued)
B. Business-Type Activities (Continued)
West Orange County Water Board Loan (Continued)
The annual debt service requirements are as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2019 89,493$ 13,932$ 103,425$
2020 89,493 15,484 104,977
2021 89,493 16,234 105,727
2022 89,493 16,311 105,804
2023 89,493 15,673 105,166
2024-2028 425,090 43,764 468,854
Total 872,555$ 121,398$ 993,953$
C. Fiduciary Activities
Balance Balance Due within Due in more
July 1, 2017 Additions Deletions June 30, 2018 One Year than One Year
2000 Tax Allocation Bonds Series A 2,410,000$ -$ (545,000)$ 1,865,000$ 575,000$ 1,290,000$
2000 Tax Allocation Bonds Series B 115,000 - (55,000) 60,000 60,000 -
Advance from Sewer Fund (Note 4) 714,110 - (240,032) 474,078 240,912 233,166
Total 3,239,110$ -$ (840,032)$ 2,399,078$ 875,912$ 1,523,166$
Classification
2000 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
On December 20, 2000, the Agency issued 2000 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series A and B for the
Riverfront Redevelopment Project in the amounts of $8,520,000 and $685,000, respectively. Interest rate on the
bonds varies from 4% to 5.375%. The Agency used the proceeds of Series A Bonds to finance the refunding and
defeasance of $1,380,000 of 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds and $3,715,000 of 1991 Tax Allocation Bonds. Series B
Bonds were used to pay bond issuance costs and finance certain redevelopment activities of the Agency. The
Series A Bonds are payable exclusively from Tax Revenues and certain funds and accounts held under the
indenture. Series B Bonds are to be paid exclusively from Surplus Tax Revenues and certain funds and accounts
held under the indenture. The total balance in the Series A and B bonds outstanding at June 30, 2018 was
$1,925,000. This liability was transferred to the Successor Agency upon dissolution of the redevelopment agency.
The annual debt service requirements are as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Principal Interest Principal Interest
2019 575,000$ 84,288$ 60,000$ 1,725$
2020 605,000 53,078 - -
2021 160,000 32,519 - -
2022 165,000 23,784 - -
2023 175,000 14,647
2024 185,000 4,972 - -
Total 1,865,000$ 213,288$ 60,000$ 1,725$
Series BSeries A
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
68
Note 7 – Non-City Obligations
A. Heron Pointe Community Facilities District No. 2002-01
The Heron Pointe Community Facilities District No. 2002-01 was formed to finance public facilities
improvements within Heron Pointe. The debt service payments on the bonds will be included on property tax bills
within community facilities district and will be collected by the City and then forwarded to the paying agent. A
Reserve Fund was established in which the City may make withdrawals enough to cover any delinquent payments
on the reassessments. The City has no liability for the bonds beyond the amount held in the Reserve Fund. The
bonds are not secured by the general taxing power of the City, county, state, or any political subdivision of the
state nor have the City, county, state, or any political subdivision thereof pledged its full faith and credit for the
repayment thereof. Since the City has no liability for these bonds, the reserve fund and debt service monies are
stored in the Agency Fund and the debt is not included in the financial statements. The outstanding balance at
June 30, 2018, was $3,230,000.
B. Pacific Gateway Business Center Community Facilities District No 2005-01
The Pacific Gateway Business Center Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 was formed to finance public
facilities within the Pacific Gateway. The debt service payments on the bonds will be included on property tax
bills within the community facilities district and will be collected by the City and then forwarded to the paying
agent. A Reserve Fund was established in which the City may make withdrawals enough to cover any delinquent
payments on the reassessments. The City has no liability for the bonds beyond the amount held in the Reserve
Fund. The bonds are not secured by the general taxing power of the City, county, state, or any political
subdivision of the state nor have the City, county, state, or any political subdivision thereof pledged its full faith
and credit for the repayment thereof. Since the City has no liability for these bonds, the reserve fund and debt
service monies are stored in the Agency Fund and the debt is not included in the financial statements. The
outstanding balance at June 30, 2018, was $8,050,000.
Note 8 – Risk Management and Self Insurance Program
A. Description of Self-Insurance Pool Pursuant to Joint Powers Agreement
The City is a member of the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (the “Authority”). The Authority is
composed of 116 California public entities and is organized under a joint powers agreement pursuant to
California Government Code §6500 et seq. The purpose of the Authority is to arrange and administer programs
for the pooling of self-insured losses, to purchase excess insurance or reinsurance, and to arrange for group
purchased insurance for property and other lines of coverage. The California JPIA began covering claims of its
members in 1978. Each member government has an elected official as its representative on the Board of
Directors. The Board operates through a nine-member Executive Committee.
B. Primary Self-Insurance Programs of the Authority
Each member pays an annual contribution at the beginning of the coverage period. A retrospective adjustment is
then conducted annually thereafter, for coverage years 2012-13 and prior. Coverage years 2013-14 and forward
are not subject to routine annual retrospective adjustment. The total funding requirement for self-insurance
programs is based on an actuarial analysis. Costs are allocated to individual agencies based on payroll and claims
history, relative to other members of the risk-sharing pool.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
69
Note 8 – Risk Management and Self Insurance Program (Continued)
B. Self-Insurance Programs of the Authority (Continued)
Primary Liability Program
Claims are pooled separately between police and general government exposures. (1) The payroll of each member
is evaluated relative to the payroll of other members. A variable credibility factor is determined for each member,
which establishes the weight applied to payroll and the weight applied to losses within the formula. (2) The first
layer of losses includes incurred costs up to $30,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the
pool’s total incurred costs within the first layer. (3) The second layer of losses includes incurred costs from
$30,000 to $750,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within
the second layer. (4) Incurred costs from $750,000 to $50 million, are distributed based on the outcome of cost
allocation within the first and second loss layers.
The overall coverage limit for each member, including all layers of coverage, is $50 million per occurrence.
Subsidence losses have a sub-limit of $40 million per occurrence. The coverage structure includes retained risk
that is pooled among members, reinsurance, and excess insurance. More detailed information about the various
layers of coverage is available on the following website: https://cjpia.org/protection/coverage-programs.
Primary Workers’ Compensation Program
Claims are pooled separately between public safety (police and fire) and general government exposures. (1) The
payroll of each member is evaluated relative to the payroll of other members. A variable credibility factor is
determined for each member, which establishes the weight applied to payroll and the weight applied to losses
within the formula. (2) The first layer of losses includes incurred costs up to $50,000 for each occurrence and is
evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within the first layer. (3) The second layer of losses
includes incurred costs from $50,000 to $100,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the
pool’s total incurred costs within the second layer. (4) Incurred costs from $100,000 to statutory limits are
distributed based on the outcome of cost allocation within the first and second loss layers.
For 2017-18 the Authority’s pooled retention is $2 million per occurrence, with reinsurance to statutory limits
under California Workers’ Compensation Law. Employer’s Liability losses are pooled among members to $2
million. Coverage from $2 million to $5 million is purchased as part of a reinsurance policy, and Employer’s
Liability losses from $5 million to $10 million are pooled among members.
C. Purchased Insurance
Pollution Legal Liability Insurance
The City participates in the pollution legal liability insurance program which is available through the Authority.
The policy covers sudden and gradual pollution of scheduled property, streets, and storm drains owned by the
City. Coverage is on a claims-made basis. There is a $50,000 deductible. The Authority has an aggregate limit
of $50 million for the 3-year period from July 1, 2017 through July 1, 2020. Each member of the Authority has a
$10 million sub-limit during the 3-year policy term.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
70
Note 8 – Risk Management and Self Insurance Program (Continued)
C. Purchased Insurance (Continued)
Property Insurance
The City participates in the all-risk property protection program of the Authority. This insurance protection is
underwritten by several insurance companies. City of Seal Beach property is currently insured according to a
schedule of covered property submitted by the City of Seal Beach to the Authority. City of Seal Beach property
currently has all-risk property insurance protection in the amount of $48,199,440. There is a $10,000 deductible
per occurrence except for non-emergency vehicle insurance which has a $2,500 deductible.
Earthquake and Flood Insurance
The City of purchases earthquake and flood insurance on a portion of its property. The earthquake insurance is
part of the property protection insurance program of the Authority. The City’s property currently has earthquake
protection in the amount of $48,078,735. There is a deductible of 5% per unit of value with a minimum
deductible of $100,000
Crime Insurance
The City purchases crime insurance coverage in the amount of $3,000,000 with a $2,500 deductible. The fidelity
coverage is provided through the Authority.
D. Adequacy of Protection
During the past three fiscal years, none of the above programs of protection experienced settlements or
judgments that exceeded pooled or insured coverage. There were also no significant reductions in pooled or
insured liability coverage in 2017-18.
E. Claims Activity
Claims expenses and liabilities are reported when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of that
loss can be reasonably estimated. There were workers’ compensation claims that remained outstanding for
claims occurred prior to joining the Authority. At June 30, 2018, the amount of these liabilities was $387,471
and was the City’s best estimate based on available information.
A summary of the changes in claims liabilities for the past three fiscal years is as follows:
Current Year
Claims and
Balance Changes in Claim Balance
Workers' Compensation July 1, 2017 Estimates Payments June 30, 2018
2015-2016 314,825 165,768 (102,695) 377,898
2016-2017 377,898 152,708 (103,011) 427,595
2017-2018 427,595 - (40,124) 387,471
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
71
Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans
The following is a summary of net pension liabilities and related deferred outflows and inflows of resources as of
June 30, 2018 and pension expenses for the year then ended June 30, 2018:
Governmental Business-type
Activities Activities Total
Deferred outflows of resources:
Pension contribution made after measurement date:
Miscellaneous 654,314$ 256,854$ 911,168$
Safety 2,127,080 - 2,127,080
Changes of assumptions:
Miscellaneous 1,367,118 536,681 1,903,799
Safety 3,375,736 - 3,375,736
Difference between expected and actual experience:
Safety 186,378 - 186,378
Difference in projected and actual earnings on
pension investments:
Miscellaneous 334,707 131,393 466,100
Safety 797,207 - 797,207
Adjustment due to differences in proportions:
Safety 413,149 - 413,149
Total deferred outflows of resources 9,255,689$ 924,928$ 10,180,617$
Aggregate net pension liabilities:
Aggregate net pension liabilities
Miscellaneous 8,828,135 3,465,606 12,293,741$
Safety 24,093,096 - 24,093,096
Total net pension liabilities 32,921,231$ 3,465,606$ 36,386,837$
Deferred inflows of resources:
Difference between expected and actual experience:
Miscellaneous 158,961$ 62,402$ 221,363$
Adjustment due to differences in proportions:
Miscellaneous 139,750 54,861 194,611
Difference between City's contributions and
proportionated share of contributions:
Miscellaneous 613,012 240,647 853,659
Safety 622,939 - 622,939
Total deferred inflows of Resources 1,534,662$ 357,910$ 1,892,572$
Pension expenses:
Miscellaneous 1,185,129$ 200,270$ 1,385,399$
Safety 3,627,619 - 3,627,619
Total pension expense 4,812,748$ 200,270$ 5,013,018$
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
72
Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued)
General Information about the Pension Plan
Plan Description
The City contributes to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”), a cost-sharing multiple-
employer defined benefit pension plan. CalPERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living
adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. CalPERS acts as a common investment and
administrative agent for participating public entities within the State of California. Benefit provisions and all other
requirements are established by State statute and City ordinance. Copies of the CalPERS annual financial report may
be obtained from https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/forms-publications.
Employees Covered by Benefit Terms
At June 30, 2016, the following employees were covered by the benefit terms:
Miscellaneous Misc PEPRA Safety Safety Fire
Safety Police
PEPRA
Active employees 44 9 34 - 1
Transferred and terminated employees 42 1 6 - -
Separated 24 3 3 1 -
Retired Employees and Beneficiaries 145 - 93 41 -
Total 255 13 136 42 1
Benefit Provided
CalPERS provide retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments, and death benefits to plan
members and beneficiaries. Classic and PEPRA Safety CalPERS member becomes eligible for service retirement
upon attainment of age 55 with at least 5 years of credited service. PEPRA miscellaneous members become eligible
for service retirement upon attainment of age 62 with at least 5 years of service. The service retirement benefit is a
monthly allowance equal to the product of the benefit factor, years of service, and final compensation. The final
compensation is the monthly average of the member's highest 36 full-time equivalent monthly pay.
Following are the benefit provisions for each plan:
Miscellaneous Rate
Plan*
PEPRA
Miscellaneous Rate
Plan Safety Rate Plan*
PEPRA Safety Rate
Plan
Hire date Prior to January 1,
2013
January 1, 2013 and
after
Prior to January 1,
2013
January 1, 2013 and
after
Benefit formula 2% @ 55 2% @ 62 3% @ 50 2.7% @ 57
Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service 5 years service 5 years service
Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life monthly for life monthly for life
Retirement age minimum 50 yrs minimum 52 yrs minimum 50 yrs minimum 50 yrs
Monthly benefits, as a % of eligible compensation 1.426% - 2.418%, 50
yrs - 63+ yrs,
respectively
1.000% - 2.500%, 52
yrs - 67+ yrs,
respectively
3.000%, 50+ yrs 2.000%-2.7000%, 50
yrs - 57+ yrs,
respectively
* Closed to new entrants
Cost-sharing Rate Plans
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
73
Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued)
General Information about the Pension Plan (Continued)
Benefit Provided (Continued)
Participants are eligible for non-industrial disability retirement if they become disabled and have at least 5 years of
credited service. There is no special age requirement. The standard non-industrial disability retirement benefit is a
monthly allowance equal to 1.8 percent of final compensation, multiplied by service. Industrial disability benefits are
not offered to miscellaneous employees.
An employee's beneficiary may receive the basic death benefit if the employee dies while actively employed. The
employee must be actively employed with the City to be eligible for this benefit. An employee's survivor who is
eligible for any other pre-retirement death benefit may choose to receive that death benefit instead of this basic death
benefit. The basic death benefit is a lump sum in the amount of the employee's accumulated contributions, where
interest is currently credited at 7.5 percent per year, plus a lump sum in the amount of one month's salary for each
completed year of current service, up to a maximum of six months' salary. For purposes of this benefit, one month's
salary is defined as the member's average monthly full-time rate of compensation during the 12 months preceding
death.
Upon the death of a retiree, a one-time lump sum payment of $500 will be made to the retiree's designated survivor(s),
or to the retiree's estate.
Benefit terms provide for annual cost-of-living adjustments to each employee’s retirement allowance. Beginning the
second calendar year after the year of retirement, retirement and survivor allowances will be annually adjusted on a
compound basis by 2 percent.
Contributions
Section 20814(c) of the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”) requires that the employer
contribution rates for all public employers be determined on an annual basis by the actuary and shall be effective on
the July 1 following notice of a change in the rate. The total plan contributions are determined through CalPERS’
annual actuarial valuation process. The Public agency cost-sharing plans covered by either the Safety risk pools, the
Plan’s actuarially determined rate is based on the estimated amount necessary to pay the Plan’s allocated share of the
risk pool’s costs of benefits earned by employees during the year, and any unfunded accrued liability. The employer
is required to contribute the difference between the actuarially determined rate and the contribution rate of employees.
For the measurement period ended June 30, 2017 (the measurement date), the contribution rates were as follows:
Miscellaneous Rate
Plan*
PEPRA
Miscellaneous Rate
Plan Safety Rate Plan*
PEPRA Safety Rate
Plan
Required employee contribution rates 6.891% 6.500% 8.986% 12.250%
Required employer contribution rates 9.558% 6.930% 21.230% 12.821%
* Closed to new entrants
Cost-sharing Rate Plans
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
74
Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued)
Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources
Related to Pension
Actuarial Methods and Assumptions Used to Determine Total Pension Liability
The June 30, 2016 valuation was rolled forward to determine June 30, 2017 total pension liability based on the
following actuarial methods and assumptions:
Actuarial Cost Method
Actuarial Assumptions:
Discount Rate 7.15%
Inflation 2.75%
Salary Increases
Mortality Rate Table
Post Retirement Benefit Increase
Varies by Entry Age and Service
Entry Age Normal
Contract COLA up to 2.75% until Purchasing Power Protection
Allowance Floor on Purchasing Power applies, 2.75% thereafter
Derived using CalPERS’ Membership Data for all Funds.
1The mortality table used was developed based on CalPERS’ specific data. The table includes 20 years of mortality
improvements using Society of Actuaries Scale BB. For more details on this table, please refer to 2014 experience
study report.
All other actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2016 valuation were based on the results of an actuarial
experience study for the period from 1997 to 2011, including updates to salary increase, mortality and retirement
rates. The Experience Study report can be obtained at CalPERS’ website at www.calpers.ca.gov under Forms and
Publications.
Change of Assumption
In 2017, the accounting discount rate reduced from 7.65 percent to 7.15 percent.
Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 7.15 percent. To determine whether the municipal
bond rate should be used in the calculation of the discount rate for each plan, CalPERS stress tested plans that would
most likely result in a discount rate that would be different from the actuarially assumed discount rate. The tests
revealed the assets would not run out. Therefore, the current 7.15 percent discount rate is appropriate and the use of
the municipal bond rate calculation is not deemed necessary. The long-term expected discount rate of 7.15 percent is
applied to all plans in the Public Employees Retirement Fund (“PERF”). The cash flows used in the testing were
developed assuming that both members and employers will make their required contributions on time and as
scheduled in all future years. The stress test results are presented in detailed report called “GASB Crossover Testing
Report” that can be obtained at CalPERS website under the GASB 68 section.
The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building-block method in
which expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are
developed for each major asset class.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
75
Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued)
Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources
Related to Pension (Continued)
Discount Rate (Continued)
In determining the long-term expected rate of return, staff took into account both short-term and long-term market
return expectations as well as the expected pension fund (PERF) cash flows. Taking into account historical returns of
all the Public Employees Retirement F asset classes (which includes the agent plan and two cost-sharing plans or
PERF A, B, and C funds), expected compound (geometric) returns were calculated over the short-term (first 10 years)
and the long-term (11-60 years) using a building-block approach. Using the expected nominal returns for both short-
term and long-term, the present value of benefits was calculated for each PERF fund. The expected rate of return was
set by calculating the single equivalent expected return that arrived at the same present value of benefits for cash
flows as the one calculated using both short-term and long-term returns. The expected rate of return was then set
equal to the single equivalent rate calculated above and rounded down to the nearest one quarter of one percent.
The table below reflects long-term expected real rate of return by asset class. The rate of return was calculated using
the capital market assumptions applied to determine the discount rate and asset allocation. The target allocation
shown was adopted by the Board effective on July 1, 2014.
Current Target Real Return Real Return
Asset Class Allocation Years 1-10
1 Years 11+2
Global Equity 47.0% 4.90% 5.38%
Global Fixed Income 19.0% 0.80% 2.27%
Inflation Sensitive 6.0% 0.60% 1.39%
Private Equity 12.0% 6.60% 6.63%
Real Estate 11.0% 2.80% 5.21%
Infrastructure and Forestland 3.0% 3.90% 5.36%
Liquidity 2.0% -0.40% -0.90%
100.0%
1An expected inflation of 2.5% used for this period
2An expected inflation of 3.0% used for this period.
Sensitivity of the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate
The following presents the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability of the Plan as of the measurement
date, calculated using the discount rate of 7.15%, as well as what the City’s proportionate share of the net pension
liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1 percentage-point lower (6.15%) or 1 percentage-
point higher (8.15%) than the current rate:
Discount Rate Current Discount Discount Rate
- 1% (6.15%) Rate (7.15%) + 1% (8.15%)
Miscellaneous 19,164,139$ 12,293,741$ 6,603,554$
Safety 36,022,371$ 24,093,096$ 14,341,508$
Plan's Net Pension Liability/(Asset)
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
76
Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plan (Continued)
Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources
Related to Pension (Continued)
Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position
Detail information about the plan’s fiduciary net position is available in the separately issued CalPERS financial
report and can be obtained from CalPERS’ website under Forms and Publications.
Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability and Pension Expense
The following table shows the plan’s proportionate share of the risk pool collective net pension liability over the
measurement period:
Plan Total Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Net Pension
Liability Position Liability/(Asset)
Miscellaneous
Balance at: 6/30/16 (Valuation date) 45,443,807$ 34,935,462$ 10,508,345$
Balance at: 6/30/17 (Measurement date) 49,390,227 37,096,486 12,293,741
Net Changes during 2016-2017 3,946,420 2,161,024 1,785,396
Safety
Balance at: 6/30/16 (Valuation date) 79,167,112$ 58,139,603$ 21,027,509$
Balance at: 6/30/17 (Measurement date) 86,327,879 62,234,783 24,093,096
Net Changes during 2016-2017 7,160,767 4,095,180 3,065,587
Increase (Decrease)
The following is the approach established by the plan actuary to allocate the net pension liability and pension expense
to the individual employers within the risk pool.
(1) In determining a cost-sharing plan’s proportionate share, total amounts of liabilities and assets are first
calculated for the risk pool as a whole on the valuation date (June 30, 2016). The risk pool’s fiduciary net
position (“FNP”) subtracted from its total pension liability (“TPL”) determines the net pension liability
(“NPL”) at the valuation date.
(2) Using standard actuarial roll forward methods, the risk pool TPL is then computed at the measurement date
(June 30, 2017). Risk pool FNP at the measurement date is then subtracted from this number to compute the
NPL for the risk pool at the measurement date. For purposes of FNP in this step and any later reference
thereto, the risk pool’s FNP at the measurement date denotes the aggregate risk pool’s FNP at June 30, 2017
less the sum of all additional side fund (or unfunded liability) contributions made by all employers during the
measurement period (2016-2017).
(3) The individual plan’s TPL, FNP and NPL are also calculated at the valuation date. TPL is allocated based on
the rate plan’s share of the actuarial accrued liability. FNP is allocated based on the rate plan’s share of the
market value assets.
(4) Two ratios are created by dividing the plan’s individual TPL and FNP as of the valuation date from (3) by the
amounts in step (1), the risk pool’s total TPL and FNP, respectively.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
77
Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plan (Continued)
Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources
Related to Pension (Continued)
Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability and Pension Expense (Continued)
(5) The plan’s TPL as of the Measurement Date is equal to the risk pool TPL generated in (2) multiplied by the
TPL ratio generated in (4). The plan’s FNP as of the Measurement Date is equal to the FNP generated in (2)
multiplied by the FNP ratio generated in (4) plus any additional side fund (or unfunded liability) contributions
made by the employer on behalf of the plan during the measurement period.
(6) The plan’s NPL at the Measurement Date is the difference between the TPL and FNP calculated in (5).
Deferred outflows of resources, deferred inflows of resources, and pension expense is allocate based on the City’s
share of contributions during measurement period.
The City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability was as follows:
Miscellaneous Safety
June 30, 2016 0.12144% 0.24301%
June 30, 2017 0.12396% 0.24294%
Change - Increase (Decrease) 0.00252% -0.00007%
The amortization period differs depending on the source of the gain or loss. The difference between projected and
actual earnings is amortized over 5-years straight line. All other amounts are amortized straight-line over the average
expected remaining service lives of all members that are provided with benefits (active, inactive and retired) as of the
beginning of the measurement period.
The expected average remaining service lifetime (“EARSL”) is calculated by dividing the total future service years by
the total number of plan participants (active, inactive, and retired) in the risk pool. The EARSL for risk pool for the
2016-2017 measurement period is 3.8 years, which was obtained by dividing the total service years of 490,088 (the
sum of remaining service lifetimes of the active employees) by 130,595 (the total number of participants: active,
inactive, and retired).
At June 30, 2018, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to
pensions from the following sources:
Deferred outflows Deferred inflows Deferred outflows Deferred inflows
of Resources of Resources of Resources of Resources
Pension contribution after measurement date 911,168$ -$ 2,127,080$ -$
Difference between expected and actual experience - (221,363) 186,378 -
Changes of assumptions 1,903,799 - 3,375,736 -
Difference between projected and actual earning on
pension plan investments 466,100 - 797,207 -
Adjustment due to differences in proportions - (194,611) 413,149 -
Difference between City contributions and
proportionate share of contributions - (853,659) - (622,939)
Total 3,281,067$ (1,269,633)$ 6,899,550$ (622,939)$
Miscellaneous Safety
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
78
Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plan (Continued)
Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources
Related to Pension (Continued)
Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability and Pension Expense (Continued)
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from the City’s contributions made subsequent to the
measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the collective net pension liability in the year ended June 30,
2019. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions
will be recognized in pension expense as follows:
Measurement
Period
Ended June 30, Miscellaneous Safety
2018 (164,231)$ 1,228,885$
2019 981,137 2,107,587
2020 560,093 1,279,531
2021 (276,733) (466,472)
2022 - -
Thereafter - -
1,100,266$ 4,149,531$
Deferred Outflows/
(Inflows) of Resources
Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan
The following is a summary of net other postemployment benefits (“OPEB”) liabilities and related deferred outflows
and inflows of resources as of June 30, 2018 and pension expenses for the year then ended June 30, 2018:
Governmental Business-type
Activities Activities Total
Deferred outflows of resources:
OPEB contribution made after measurement date 695,976$ 147,938$ 843,914$
Aggregate Net OPEB liabilities 5,662,789$ 1,203,693$ 6,866,482$
Deferred inflows of Resources:
Difference in projected and actual earnings on
OPEB investments 81,428$ 17,309$ 98,737$
OPEB expenses 585,481$ 124,451$ 709,932$
General Information about the OPEB Plan
Plan Description
The City provides postretirement medical benefits to employees who retire directly from the City under CalPERS
under a single-employer defined benefit post-employment benefits plan. Eligible retirees can continue participation in
the City medical plans (“PEMHCA”). For miscellaneous retirees, the City contributes up to a capped dollar amount
which varies by bargaining unit, medical coverage, and years of service. For police safety retirees, the City
contribution rate varies by date of hire and date of retirement.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
79
Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan (Continued)
General Information about the OPEB Plan (Continued)
Benefits Provided
Future Retirees are eligible for PEMCHA minimum medical benefits ($128 per month in 2017) if they retire at Age
50 and above. For legacy hires, reimbursements are generally subject to a maximum, which varies by bargaining
group and service years. Dependents are eligible to enroll subject to service year requirements.
Employees Covered by Benefit Term
Active employees 87
106
-
Total 193
Inactive employees, spouses, or beneficiaries currently receiving benefit payments
Inactive employees entitled to but not yet receiving benefit payments
Contributions
The City makes contributions based on an actuarially determined rate.
Net OPEB Liability
The City's net OPEB liability was measured as of June 30, 2017, and the total OPEB liability used to calculate the net
OPEB liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2017.
Actuarial Assumptions
The total OPEB liability in the June 30, 2017 actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial
assumptions, applied to all periods included in the measurement, unless otherwise specified:
Actuarial Cost Method
Actuarial Assumptions:
Inflation 2.75%
Salary increases
Investment rate of return 7.00%
Healthcare cost trend rates
Mortality rate
Base salary increases in subsequent years: 2.875%
Additional merit-based increases based on CalPERS.
7.00% in the first year, trending down to 3.84% over 58 years.
Entry age normal level percentage of salary
Base salary increases in year one: 2.875%
Derived using CalPERS’ Membership Data for all Funds.
Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total OPEB liability was 7.00%. The projection of cash flows used to determine
the discount rate assumed that the City contribution will be made at rates equal to the actuarially determined
contribution rates. Based on those assumptions, the OPEB plan's fiduciary net position was projected to cover all
future OPEB payments. Therefore, the discount rate was set equal to the long-term expected rate of return.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
80
Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan (Continued)
Changes in the Net OPEB Liability
Total OPEB Fiduciary Net Net OPEB
Liability Position Liability/(Asset)
Balances as of June 30, 2016 10,770,030$ 3,832,565$ 6,937,465$
Changes during the measurement period:
Normal cost 267,961 - 267,961
Interest 752,721 - 752,721
Differences between expected and actual experience - - -
Contributions:
Employer - City's contribution - 567,185 (567,185)
Employer - implicit subsidy - 114,993 (114,993)
Employee - - -
Net investment income - 411,482 (411,482)
Benefit payments, including refunds of employee
Contributions (454,685) (454,685) -
Implicit rate subsidy fulfilled (114,993) (114,993) -
Administrative expenses - (1,995) 1,995
Net changes during measurement period 2016-2017 451,004 521,987 (70,983)
Balances as of June 30, 2017 (Measurement Date) 11,221,034$ 4,354,552$ 6,866,482$
Increase (Decrease)
Sensitivity of the Net OPEB Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate
The net OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City's net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using a
discount rate that is one percentage point lower (6.00%) or one percentage point higher (8.00%) follows:
Discount Rate Current Discount Discount Rate
- 1% (6.00%) Rate (7.00%) + 1% (8.00%)
8,783,964$ 6,866,482$ 6,158,159$
Net OPEB Liability/(Asset)
Sensitivity of the Net OPEB Liability to Changes in the Healthcare Cost Trend Rates
The net OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City's net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using
healthcare cost trend rates that are one percentage point lower (6.00%) or one percentage point higher (8.00%) than
current healthcare cost trend rates follows:
Healthcare
1% Decrease Cost Trend Rate 1% Increase
(6.00% to 2.84%) (7.00% to 3.84%) (8.00% to 4.84%)
6,246,486$ 6,866,482$ 8,705,120$
Net OPEB Liability/(Asset)
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
81
Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan (Continued)
OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB
For the year ended June 30, 2018, the City recognized an OPEB expense of $709,932. At June 30, 2018, the City
reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB from the following
sources:
Deferred outflows Deferred inflows
of Resources of Resources
OPEB contribution after measurement date 843,914$ -$
Difference between expected and actual experience - -
Changes of assumptions - -
Difference between projected and actual earning on
OPEB plan investments - (98,737)
Total 843,914$ (98,737)$
Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB resulting from City’s contributions subsequent to the measurement
date in the amount of $843,914 will be recognized as a reduction of the net OPEB liability in the year ended June 30,
2019. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB
will be recognized in OPEB expense as follows:
Measurement
Period Ending
June 30,
Deferred Outflows/
(Inflows) of
Resources
2018 (24,684)$
2019 (24,684)
2020 (24,684)
2021 (24,685)
2022 -
Thereafter -
(98,737)$
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
82
Note 11 – Classification of Fund Balances
At June 30, 2018, fund balances are classified in the governmental funds as follows:
Citywide Grants Nonmajor
General Special Revenue Governmental
Fund Fund Funds Total
Nonspendable:
Prepaid items 32,495$ -$ -$ 32,495$
Restricted:
Employee benefits 5,266 - - 5,266
Citywide Grants - 270,831 - 270,831
Supplemental Law Enforcement - - 64,969 64,969
Detention Center - - 17,944 17,944
Police Asset Forfeiture - - 127,418 127,418
Air Quality Improvement Projects - - 8,220 8,220
Parks Improvement - - 16,660 16,660
Traffic Impact - - 165,002 165,002
State Gasoline Tax - - 490,166 490,166
Measure M2 - - 1,039,214 1,039,214
Community Development Block Grant - - 10,241 10,241
Landscape District - - 458,581 458,581
Heron Pointe - - 69,749 69,749
Pacific Gateway - - 145,519 145,519
Seal Beach Cable - - 363,419 363,419
SB 1 - - 121,638 121,638
City Debt Service - - 740,987 740,987
Total restricted 5,266 270,831 3,839,727 4,115,824
Assigned:
College Park East 477,000 - - 477,000
Swimming Pool 4,712,441 - - 4,712,441
Economic Contingency 1,750,000 - - 1,750,000
Street Improvement 117,167 - - 117,167
Buildings 57,450 - - 57,450
Community Services 1,175,092 - - 1,175,092
Total assigned 8,289,150 - - 8,289,150
Unassigned (deficit)17,491,623 - (34,159) 17,457,464
Total fund balances 25,818,534$ 270,831$ 3,805,568$ 29,894,933$
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
83
Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies
A. Commitments
The City had several outstanding or planned construction and other projects as of June 30, 2018. These projects
are evidenced by contractual commitments with contractors and include:
Project Name
Contract
Amount
Expenditures to
date as of June
30, 2018
Remaining
Commitments
New swimming pool 238,930$ $ 79,614 159,316$
Pier improvement project 7,537,581 - 7,537,581
7,776,511$ 79,614$ 7,696,897$
B. Contingencies
The City is a defendant in a number of lawsuits, which have arisen in the normal course of business. While
substantial damages are alleged in some of these actions, their outcome cannot be predicted with certainty.
C. Grants
Amounts received or receivable from granting agencies are subject to audit and adjustment by grantor agencies.
While no matters of noncompliance were disclosed by the audit of the financial statements or single audit of the
Federal grant programs, grantor agencies may subject grant programs to additional compliance tests, which may
result in disallowed costs. In the opinion of management, future disallowances of current or prior grant
expenditures, if any, would not have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the City.
Note 13 – Individual Fund Disclosure
A. Expenditures in Excess of Appropriation
The following funds report expenditures in excess of appropriations for the year ended June 30, 2018.
Expenditure
in Excess of
Expenditure Appropriation Appropriation
Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds:
Supplemental law Enforcement
Public safety 137,881$ 116,200$ (21,681)$
Air Quality Improvement
Public works 31,538 30,600 (938)
Seal Beach cable
General government 84,830 75,000 (9,830)
Nonmajor Debt Service Fund:
City Debt Service Fund
Interest and fiscal charges 206,489 201,000 (5,489)
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
84
Note 13 – Individual Fund Disclosure (Continued)
B. Deficit Net Positions and Fund Balances
Funds with deficit fund balances at June 30, 2018 are as follows:
Deficit
Police Grants Special Revenue Funds (30,903)$
Capital Projects and Equipments
Capital Projects Fund (3,256)
The City plans to eliminate the deficit fund balances with future grant revenues.
Note 14 – Restatement of Beginning Net Position
Net position as of July 1, 2017 was restated due to implementation of GASB Statement No. 75.
Governmental Business-type Water Sewer
Activities Activities Utility Utility
Beginning net position, as previously reported 79,210,232$ 46,831,510$ 23,366,311$ 23,465,199$
Net OPEB assets (725,223) - - -
Deferred outflows of resources 562,592 119,586 69,855 49,731
Net other postemployment benefits liabilities (5,721,328) (1,216,137) (710,396) (505,741)
Beginning net position, as restated 73,326,273$ 45,734,959$ 22,725,770$ 23,009,189$
Enterprise Funds
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)
85
This page intentionally left blank.
86
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes 22,544,600$ 22,544,600$ 22,573,324$ 28,724$
Licenses and permits 1,306,700 1,306,700 1,480,971 174,271
Intergovernmental 130,300 202,300 263,752 61,452
Charges for services 4,746,000 4,761,000 4,465,566 (295,434)
Use of money and property 752,500 752,500 300,750 (451,750)
Fines and forfeitures 1,119,500 1,119,500 1,089,515 (29,985)
Contributions 5,000 5,000 15,765 10,765
Miscellaneous 422,800 422,800 520,420 97,620
Total revenues 31,027,400 31,114,400 30,710,063 (404,337)
Expenditures:
Current:
General government 5,731,600 5,819,700 5,673,029 146,671
Public safety 17,524,200 18,101,000 17,711,226 389,774
Community development 1,067,500 1,391,200 1,162,448 228,752
Community services 1,057,000 1,098,100 954,018 144,082
Public works 4,936,300 5,134,800 4,702,117 432,683
Debt service:
Principal retirement 69,600 69,600 69,521 79
Interest and fiscal charges 22,300 22,300 22,290 10
Total expenditures 30,408,500 31,636,700 30,625,932 1,010,768
Revenues over (under) expenditures 618,900 (522,300) 84,131 606,431
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in 4,594,100 8,208,100 1,641,597 (6,566,503)
Transfers out (14,690,000) (22,732,900) (3,170,831) 19,562,069
Total other financing sources (uses)(10,095,900) (14,524,800) (1,529,234) 12,995,566
Net change in fund balance (9,477,000)$ (15,047,100)$ (1,445,103) 13,601,997$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 27,263,637
End of year 25,818,534$
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Budgeted Amounts
Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund
87
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental 550,000$ 670,600$ 737,860$ 67,260$
Other Financing Uses:
Transfers out (780,000) (903,400) (328,120) 575,280
Net change in fund balances (230,000)$ (232,800)$ 409,740 642,540$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year (138,909)
End of Year 270,831$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Budgetary Comparison Schedule – Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
88
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Notes to the Budgetary Comparison Schedule
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Budgetary Control and Accounting Policy
The City prepares its budgets on the basis of estimated revenues and expenditures and, accordingly, the budget amounts included in
the accompanying financial statements are presented on a basis substantially consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
Encumbrance accounting is utilized during the fiscal year, whereby purchase orders, contracts and other commitmentsare recorded in
order to control appropriations. However, at fiscal year end, all appropriations lapse. Accordingly, encumbrances are cancelled and
generally are re-appropriated as part of the following year’s budget. Encumbrances are not included in reported expenditures.
Annual budgets are adopted for the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, and Capital Projects Funds, except
for Parks Improvement Special Revenue Fund and SB1 Special Revenue Fund. The City Council approves total budgeted
appropriations and any amendments to appropriations throughout the year.
The budgetary level of control for all governmental fund types is the fund level. The City Manager has the discretion to transfer
appropriations between departments within a fund, but transfers between funds must be approved by the City Council.
89
Measurement Date June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 June 30, 2014 1
City's Proportion of the Net Pension Liability 0.12396% 0.12144% 0.11333% 0.11644%
City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability 12,293,741$ 10,508,345$ 7,778,736$ 7,245,313$
City's Covered Payroll 4,723,816$ 4,226,024$ 4,710,212$ 4,503,370$
City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability
as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll 260.25% 248.66% 165.15% 160.89%
Plan's Proportionate Share of the Fiduciary Net Position
as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 75.11% 76.88% 82.15% 83.18%
Measurement Date June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 June 30, 2014 1
City's Proportion of the Net Pension Liability 0.24294% 0.24301% 0.23685% 0.19002%
City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability 24,093,096$ 21,027,509$ 16,257,122$ 11,823,793$
City's Covered Payroll 4,551,250$ 4,454,998$ 4,734,950$ 4,290,168$
City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability
as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll 529.37% 472.00% 343.34% 275.60%
Plan's Proportionate Share of the Fiduciary Net Position
as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 72.09% 73.44% 78.58% 81.42%
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
1 Historical information is presented only for measurement periods for which GASB 68 is applicable. Additional years will be presented as they
become available.
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Miscellaneous Plan
California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Safety Plan
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Schedule of the City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liabilities and Related Ratios
90
Fiscal year end 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 2013-141
Actuarially Determined Contribution 437,498$ 415,323$ 399,656$ 614,667$ 452,594$
Contribution in Relation to the
Actuarially Determined Contribution (911,168) (791,754) (709,945) (734,255) (614,667)
Contribution Deficiency (Excess) (473,670)$ (376,431)$ (310,289)$ (119,588)$ (162,073)$
Covered Payroll2 4,865,530$ 4,723,816$ 4,226,024$ 4,710,212$ 4,597,510$
Contributions as a Percentage
of Covered Payroll 18.73% 16.76% 16.80% 15.59% 13.37%
Fiscal year 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 2013-141
Actuarially Determined Contribution 993,433$ 920,480$ 916,387$ 1,342,325$ 1,196,592$
Contribution in Relation to the
Actuarially Determined Contribution (2,127,080) (1,748,129) (1,608,716) (1,476,452) (2,157,763)
Contribution Deficiency (Excess) (1,133,647)$ (827,649)$ (692,329)$ (134,127)$ (961,171)$
Covered Payroll2 4,687,788$ 4,551,250$ 4,454,998$ 4,734,950$ 3,995,001$
Contributions as a Percentage
of Covered Payroll 45.37% 38.41% 36.11% 31.18% 54.01%
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Schedule of Contributions - Pension
California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Miscellaneous Plan
California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Safety Plan
Changes of Assumptions: In 2017, the accounting discount rate reduced from 7.65 percent to 7.15 percent. In 2016, there were no changes. In
2015, amounts reported reflect an adjustment of the discount rate from 7.5 percent (net of administrative expense) to 7.65 percent (without a
reduction for pension plan administrative expense.) In 2014, amounts reported were based on the 7.5 percent discount rate.
Notes to Schedule:
1 Historical information is presented only for measurement periods for which GASB 68 is applicable. Additional years will be presented as they
become available.
2 Includes one year’s payroll growth using 3.00 percent payroll assumption from fiscal year 2016-17.
91
Measurement period June 30, 2017 1
Total OPEB liability
Service cost 267,961$
Interest 752,721
Differences between expected and actual experience -
Changes of assumption -
Benefit payments (454,685)
Inplicit rate subsidy fulfilled (114,993)
Net change in total OPEB liability 451,004
Total OPEB liability, beginning 10,770,030
Total OPEB liability, ending (a)11,221,034$
OPEB fiduciary net position
Contributions:
Employer - City's contribution 567,185$
Employer - Implicit subidy 114,993
Net investment income 411,482
Benefit payments (454,685)
Inplicit rate subsidy fulfilled (114,993)
Administrative expense (1,995)
Net change in plan fiduciary net position 521,987
Plan fiduciary net position, beginning 3,832,565
Plan fiduciary net position, ending (b)4,354,552
Plan net OPOEB liability - ending (a) - (b)6,866,482$
Plan's fiduciary net position as a percentage
of the total OPEB liability 38.81%
Covered payroll 8,807,230$
Net OPEB liability as a percentage of covered payroll 77.96%
1 Historical information is presented only for measurement periods for which GASB 75 is applicable.
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Schedule of Changes in Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability and Related Ratios
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Other Postemployment Benefits ("OPEB")
92
Fiscal year end 2017-18 2016-17 1
Actuarially determined contribution2 833,241$ 812,317$
Contribution in relation to the actuarially
determined contribution 2 (843,914) (682,178)
Contribution deficiency/(excess)(10,673)$ 130,139$
Covered payroll3 9,060,438$ 8,807,230$
Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll 9.31% 7.75%
Notes to Schedule:
Valuation date:
Actuarial cost method:
Amortization method:
Amortization period:
Inflation:
Assumed payroll growth:
Healthcare cost trend:
Rate of return on assets:
Mortality:
Retirement rates: CalPERS rates (Miscellaneous Rx PA Misc 2.0% at 55)
CalPERS rates (Miscellaneous Rx PA Misc 2.0% at 60)
CalPERS rates (Miscellaneous Rx PA Misc 2.0% at 62)
CalPERS rates (Safety Rx Safety Police 2.0% at 50)
CalPERS rates (Safety Rx Safety Police 2.0% at 55)
CalPERS rates (Safety Rx Safety Police 2.7% at 57)
CalPERS rates (Safety Rx Safety Police 3.0% at 50)
1 Historical information is presented only for measurement periods for which GASB 75 is applicable.
2 The June 30, 2017 actuarial valuation provided the actuarially determined contributions for fiscal year ended June 30, 2018.
June 30, 2017
Methods and assumptions used to determine contribution rates:
20 years
3 Includes one year’s payroll growth using 2.875 percent payroll assumption from fiscal year 2016-17.
Entry age normal, level percent of pay
Closed period, level percent of pay
2.75% per year
7.00%
7.00%, trending down to 3.84%
2.875% year one and thereafter
CalPERS rates (Miscellaneous-Mort and Disb Rates_PA Misc)
CalPERS rates (Police Employees-Mort and Disb Rates_PA Police)
Other Postemployment Benefits ("OPEB")
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Schedule of Contributions - Other Postemployment Benefits
For the Years Ended June 30, 2018
Last Ten Fiscal Years
93
This page intentionally left blank.
94
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
95
This page intentionally left blank.
96
Heron Pointe Special Revenue Fund : To account for the construction and acquisition of certain public street improvements, water
and sanitary sewer improvements, dry utility improvements, park and landscaping improvements.
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Detention Center Special Revenue Fund : To account for funds initially funded by monies seeded the previous jail services vendor.
The revenues also derived from sales of commissary items to the prisoners for their benefit.
Police Asset Forfeiture Special Revenue Fund : To accounts for revenues derived from monies and property seized in drug-related
incidents.
Street Lighting Special Revenue Fund : To account for special assessments that are restricted for the maintenance of streetlights and
to finance the electricity used by the streetlights.
Police Grants Special Revenue Fund : To account for various grants include the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), the Office
of Traffic Safety (OTS) DUI grant reimburses funds advanced by the City for DUI enforcement, the Bullet Proof Vest Protection
(BVP) grant which provides matching funds that are restricted for the purchase of bullet-resistant vests, the Alcoholic Beverage
Control (ABC) grant and the Justice Assistance Grant (JAG).
Supplemental Law Enforcement Special Revenue Fund : To account for funds received from the State under the State Citizens
Option for Public Safety Program. Certain procedures are required to be implemented prior to the use of the funds, and the funds
cannot be used to supplant existing funding for law enforcement.
Air Quality Improvement Special Revenue Fund : To accounts for supplemental vehicle license fee revenue distributed to Cities by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District pursuant to Assembly Bill 2766. Expenditures are restricted for programs that will
reduce air pollution by reducing, directly or indirectly, mobile source emission pollutants.
Park Improvement Special Revenue Fund : To account for the Quimby Act Fees received by developers that are restricted for the
improvement of parks and recreation facilities.
Traffic Impact Special Revenue Fund : To account for fair-share based fees that will serve to offset, or mitigate, the traffic impacts
caused by new development.
State Gasoline Tax Special Revenue Fund : To accounts for locally shared gas tax monies collected by the State. Expenditures are
restricted for repair, construction, maintenance and right-of-way acquisitions relating to streets and highways.
Measure M2 Special Revenue Fund : To account for funds for transportation improvements through the Measure M Transportation
Investment Plan (M2) such as major improvement plans target Orange County freeways, streets and roads, transit and environmental
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Special Revenue Fund : To account for resources that are restricted for a wide
variety of unique community development needs.
Landscape District Special Revenue Fund : To account for special assessment that are restricted for costs related to the maintenance
of parks, parkways and open space within the Community Facility District 2002-02 (Landscape Maintenance).
Capital Projects and Equipment : To account for major capital projects with various revenues sources but excludes the Water and
Sewer Capital Fund. These sources get transferred into the Capital Imrovement Project Fund.
City Debt Service Debt Service Fund : To accounts for resources that are restricted for the payments of long-term debt.
Pacific Gateway Special Revenue Fund : To account for special assessment that are restricted for costs related to the maintenance
of parks, parkways and open space within the District (Landscape Maintenance).
SB 1 Special Revenue Fund : To account for revenue restricted for a wide range of transportation improvement projects.
Seal Beach Cable Special Revenue Fund : To account for revenues derived from PEGS fees which provide for channel capacity to
be designated for public, education, or government use.
97
Supplemental
Street Law Detention Police Asset
Lighting Enforcement Center Forfeiture
ASSETS
Cash and investments 13,879$ 85,693$ 17,999$ 36,462$
Receivables:
Accounts - - 7 101,687
Taxes 582 - - -
Interest - - - -
Due from other governments - - - -
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents - - - -
Total Assets 14,461$ 85,693$ 18,006$ 138,149$
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF
RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 14,461$ 11,417$ 62$ -$
Accrued wages and benefits payable - 9,307 - 10,731
Unearned revenues - - - -
Due to other funds - - - -
Retentions payable - - - -
Total Liabilities 14,461 20,724 62 10,731
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailable revenues - - - -
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources - - - -
Fund Balances:
Restricted - 64,969 17,944 127,418
Unassigned (deficit) - - - -
Total Fund Balances - 64,969 17,944 127,418
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows
of Resources and Fund Balances 14,461$ 85,693$ 18,006$ 138,149$
Special Revenue
City of Seal Beach
Combining Balance Sheet
June 30, 2018
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
98
Air Quality Parks Traffic State
Improvement Improvement Impact Gasoline Tax
ASSETS
Cash and investments 26$ 16,660$ 165,002$ 447,096$
Receivables:
Accounts 8,194 - - 45,950
Taxes - - - -
Interest - - - -
Due from other governments - - - -
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents - - - -
Total Assets 8,220$ 16,660$ 165,002$ 493,046$
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF
RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities -$ -$ -$ 2,880$
Accrued wages and benefits payable - - - -
Unearned revenues - - - -
Due to other funds - - - -
Retentions payable - - - -
Total Liabilities - - - 2,880
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailable revenues - - - -
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources - - - -
Fund Balances:
Restricted 8,220 16,660 165,002 490,166
Unassigned (deficit) - - - -
Total Fund Balances 8,220 16,660 165,002 490,166
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows
of Resources and Fund Balances 8,220$ 16,660$ 165,002$ 493,046$
(Continued)
Special Revenue
City of Seal Beach
Combining Balance Sheet (Continued)
June 30, 2018
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
99
Community
Development Police Landscape
Measure M2 Block Grant Grants District
ASSETS
Cash and investments 969,789$ -$ -$ 463,328$
Receivables:
Accounts 69,425 29,611 23,608 -
Taxes - - - -
Interest - - - -
Due from other governments - - 14,444 -
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents - - - -
Total Assets 1,039,214$ 29,611$ 38,052$ 463,328$
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF
RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities -$ 2,061$ -$ 2,644$
Accrued wages and benefits payable - - 1,055 2,103
Unearned revenues - - 18,550 -
Due to other funds - 17,309 34,906 -
Retentions payable - - - -
Total Liabilities - 19,370 54,511 4,747
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailable revenues - - 14,444 -
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources - - 14,444 -
Fund Balances:
Restricted 1,039,214 10,241 - 458,581
Unassigned (deficit) - - (30,903) -
Total Fund Balances 1,039,214 10,241 (30,903) 458,581
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows
of Resources and Fund Balances 1,039,214$ 29,611$ 38,052$ 463,328$
City of Seal Beach
Special Revenue
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Combining Balance Sheet (Continued)
June 30, 2018
100
Pacific Seal Beach
Heron Pointe Gateway Cable SB 1
ASSETS
Cash and investments 69,749$ 147,986$ 332,087$ 121,638$
Receivables:
Accounts - - 30,593 -
Taxes - - - -
Interest - - 739 -
Due from other governments - - - -
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents - - - -
Total Assets 69,749$ 147,986$ 363,419$ 121,638$
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF
RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities -$ 365$ -$ -$
Accrued wages and benefits payable - 2,102 - -
Unearned revenues - - - -
Due to other funds - - - -
Retentions payable - - - -
Total Liabilities - 2,467 - -
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailable revenues - - - -
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources - - - -
Fund Balances:
Restricted 69,749 145,519 363,419 121,638
Unassigned (deficit) - - - -
Total Fund Balances 69,749 145,519 363,419 121,638
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows
of Resources and Fund Balances 69,749$ 147,986$ 363,419$ 121,638$
(Continued)
City of Seal Beach
Combining Balance Sheet (Continued)
June 30, 2018
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Special Revenue
101
Debt Service Capital Projects
Capital Total Other
City Debt Projects and Governmental
Service Equipment Funds
ASSETS
Cash and investments -$ 180,304$ 3,067,698$
Receivables:
Accounts - - 309,075
Taxes - - 582
Interest - - 739
Due from other governments - - 14,444
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents 740,987 - 740,987
Total Assets 740,987$ 180,304$ 4,133,525$
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF
RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities -$ 159,400$ 193,290$
Accrued wages and benefits payable - - 25,298
Unearned revenues - - 18,550
Due to other funds - - 52,215
Retentions payable - 24,160 24,160
Total Liabilities - 183,560 313,513
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailable revenues - - 14,444
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources - - 14,444
Fund Balances:
Restricted 740,987 - 3,839,727
Unassigned (deficit) - (3,256) (34,159)
Total Fund Balances 740,987 (3,256) 3,805,568
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows
of Resources and Fund Balances 740,987$ 180,304$ 4,133,525$
(Concluded)
City of Seal Beach
Combining Balance Sheet (Continued)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
June 30, 2018
102
Supplemental
Street Law Detention Police Asset
Lighting Enforcement Center Forfeiture
Revenues:
Taxes 142,875$ -$ -$ -$
Intergovernmental - 139,416 - 114,469
Charges for services - - 37 -
Use of money and property - 1,432 3,668 1,891
Contributions - - - -
Total revenues 142,875 140,848 3,705 116,360
Expenditures:
Current:
General government - - - -
Public safety - 137,881 6,738 244,203
Community development - - - -
Public works 186,615 - - -
Capital outlay - - - -
Debt service:
Principal - - - -
Interest and fiscal charges - - - -
Total expenditures 186,615 137,881 6,738 244,203
Revenues over (under) expenditures (43,740) 2,967 (3,033) (127,843)
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in 53,909 - - -
Transfers out - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses)53,909 - - -
Net change in fund balances 10,169 2,967 (3,033) (127,843)
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year (10,169) 62,002 20,977 255,261
End of Year -$ 64,969$ 17,944$ 127,418$
(Continued)
Special Revenue
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances
City of Seal Beach
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
103
Air Quality Parks Traffic State
Improvement Improvement Impact Gasoline Tax
Revenues:
Taxes -$ -$ -$ 552,206$
Intergovernmental 31,567 10,000 - -
Charges for services - - 1,465 -
Use of money and property 44 217 1,804 4,863
Contributions - - - -
Total revenues 31,611 10,217 3,269 557,069
Expenditures:
Current:
General government - - - -
Public safety - - - -
Community development - - - -
Public works 31,538 - - 28,210
Capital outlay - - - -
Debt service:
Principal - - - -
Interest and fiscal charges - - - -
Total expenditures 31,538 - - 28,210
Revenues over (under) expenditures 73 10,217 3,269 528,859
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in - - 4,994 -
Transfers out - - - (778,059)
Total other financing sources (uses)- - 4,994 (778,059)
Net change in fund balances 73 10,217 8,263 (249,200)
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 8,147 6,443 156,739 739,366
End of Year 8,220$ 16,660$ 165,002$ 490,166$
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Special Revenue
City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
104
Community
Development Police Landscape
Measure M2 Block Grant Grants District
Revenues:
Taxes 401,885$ -$ -$ 168,819$
Intergovernmental - 180,000 53,751 -
Charges for services - - - -
Use of money and property 13,140 - - 5,442
Contributions - - - -
Total revenues 415,025 180,000 53,751 174,261
Expenditures:
Current:
General government - - - -
Public safety - - 48,823 -
Community development - 180,000 - 78,955
Public works 18,586 - - -
Capital outlay - - - -
Debt service:
Principal - - - -
Interest and fiscal charges - - - -
Total expenditures 18,586 180,000 48,823 78,955
Revenues over (under) expenditures 396,439 - 4,928 95,306
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in - - - -
Transfers out (588,307) - - (13,000)
Total other financing sources (uses)(588,307) - - (13,000)
Net change in fund balances (191,868) - 4,928 82,306
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 1,231,082 10,241 (35,831) 376,275
End of Year 1,039,214$ 10,241$ (30,903)$ 458,581$
(Continued)
City of Seal Beach
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Special Revenue
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
105
Pacific Seal Beach
Heron Pointe Gateway Cable SB1
Revenues:
Taxes -$ 61,173$ -$ 121,386$
Intergovernmental - - - -
Charges for services - - 119,881 -
Use of money and property - - 4,150 252
Contributions 15,000 25,000 - -
Total Revenues 15,000 86,173 124,031 121,638
Expenditures:
Current:
General government - - 84,830 -
Public safety - - - -
Community development 7,509 60,009 - -
Public works - - - -
Capital outlay - - - -
Debt service:
Principal - - - -
Interest and fiscal charges - - - -
Total Expenditures 7,509 60,009 84,830 -
Revenues over (under) expenditures 7,491 26,164 39,201 121,638
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in - - - -
Transfers out (11,000) (17,400) - -
Total other financing sources (uses)(11,000) (17,400) - -
Net Change in Fund Balances (3,509) 8,764 39,201 121,638
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 73,258 136,755 324,218 -
End of Year 69,749$ 145,519$ 363,419$ 121,638$
(Continued)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Special Revenue
City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
106
Debt Service Capital Projects
Capital Total Other
City Debt Projects and Governmental
Service Equipment Funds
Revenues:
Taxes -$ -$ 1,448,344$
Intergovernmental - - 529,203
Charges for services - - 121,383
Use of money and property 9,464 - 46,367
Contributions - - 40,000
Total revenues 9,464 - 2,185,297
Expenditures:
Current:
General government - - 84,830
Public safety - - 437,645
Community development - - 326,473
Public works - - 264,949
Capital outlay - 2,235,797 2,235,797
Debt service:
Principal 1,571,000 - 1,571,000
Interest and fiscal charges 209,489 - 209,489
Total expenditures 1,780,489 2,235,797 5,130,183
Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,771,025) (2,235,797) (2,944,886)
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in 1,782,469 2,231,645 4,073,017
Transfers out - - (1,407,766)
Total other financing sources (uses)1,782,469 2,231,645 2,665,251
Net change in fund balances 11,444 (4,152) (279,635)
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 729,543 896 4,085,203
End of Year 740,987$ (3,256)$ 3,805,568$
(Concluded)
City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
107
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes 141,700$ 141,700$ 142,875$ 1,175$
Expenditures:
Current:
Public works 196,400 196,400 186,615 9,785
Revenues over (under) expenditures (54,700) (54,700) (43,740) 10,960
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers in 54,700 54,700 53,909 (791)
Net change in fund balances -$ -$ 10,169 10,169$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year (10,169)
End of Year -$
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
Budgeted Amounts
Street Lighting Special Revenue Fund
108
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental 130,000$ 130,000$ 139,416$ 9,416$
Use of money and property 500 500 1,432 932
Total revenues 130,500 130,500 140,848 10,348
Expenditures:
Current:
Public safety 116,200 116,200 137,881 (21,681)
Revenues over (under) expenditures 14,300 14,300 2,967 (11,333)
Net change in fund balances 14,300$ 14,300$ 2,967 (11,333)$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 62,002
End of Year 64,969$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Supplemental Law Enforcement Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
109
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Charges for services -$ -$ 37$ 37$
Use of money or property 10,000 10,000 3,668 (6,332)
Total revenues 10,000 10,000 3,705 (6,295)
Expenditures:
Current:
Public safety 18,000 18,000 6,738 11,262
Revenues over (under) expenditures (8,000) (8,000) (3,033) 4,967
Net change in fund balances (8,000)$ (8,000)$ (3,033) 4,967$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 20,977
End of Year 17,944$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Detention Center Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
110
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental 250,000$ 250,000$ 114,469$ (135,531)$
Use of money and property 500 500 1,891 1,391
Total revenues 250,500 250,500 116,360 (134,140)
Expenditures:
Current:
Public safety 334,300 334,300 244,203 90,097
Revenues over (under) expenditures (83,800) (83,800) (127,843) (44,043)
Net change in fund balances (83,800)$ (83,800)$ (127,843) (44,043)$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 255,261
End of Year 127,418$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Police Asset Forfeiture Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
111
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental 30,000$ 30,000$ 31,567$ 1,567$
Use of money and property - - 44 44
Total revenues 30,000 30,000 31,611 1,611
Expenditures:
Current:
Public works 30,600 30,600 31,538 (938)
Revenues over (under) expenditures (600) (600) 73 673
Net change in fund balances (600)$ (600)$ 73 673$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 8,147
End of Year 8,220$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Air Quality Improvement Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
112
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Charges for services 20,000$ 20,000$ 1,465$ (18,535)$
Use of money and property 5,000 5,000 1,804 (3,196)
Total revenues 25,000 25,000 3,269 (21,731)
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in - - 4,994 4,994
Transfers out (35,000) (35,000) - 35,000
Total other financing sources (uses)(35,000) (35,000) 4,994 39,994
Net change in fund balances (10,000)$ (10,000)$ 8,263 18,263$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 156,739
End of Year 165,002$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Traffic Impact AB 1600 Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
113
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes 706,600$ 706,600$ 552,206$ (154,394)$
Use of money and property 6,000 6,000 4,863 (1,137)
Total revenues 712,600 712,600 557,069 (155,531)
Expenditures:
Current:
Public works 77,000 77,000 28,210 48,790
Revenues over (under) expenditures 635,600 635,600 528,859 (106,741)
Other Financing Uses:
Transfers out (1,466,800) (1,495,000) (778,059) 716,941
Net change in fund balances (831,200)$ (859,400)$ (249,200) 610,200$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 739,366
End of Year 490,166$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
State Gasoline Tax Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
114
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes 400,000$ 400,000$ 401,885$ 1,885$
Use of money and property 8,000 8,000 13,140 5,140
Total revenues 408,000 408,000 415,025 7,025
Expenditures:
Current:
Public works 60,600 60,600 18,586 42,014
Revenues over (under) expenditures 347,400 347,400 396,439 49,039
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers out (1,541,000) (1,542,700) (588,307) 954,393
Net change in fund balances (1,193,600)$ (1,195,300)$ (191,868) 1,003,432$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 1,231,082
End of Year 1,039,214$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Measure M2 Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
115
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental 180,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$ -$
Expenditures:
Current:
Community development 180,000 180,000 180,000 -
Revenues over (under) expenditures - - - -
Net change in fund balances -$ -$ - -$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 10,241
End of Year 10,241$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Community Development Block Grant Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
116
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental 149,700$ 195,100$ 53,751$ (141,349)$
Expenditures:
Current:
Public safety 119,400 164,800 48,823 115,977
Revenues over (under) expenditures 30,300 30,300 4,928 (25,372)
Net change in fund balances 30,300$ 30,300$ 4,928 (25,372)$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year (35,831)
End of Year (30,903)$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Police Grant Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
117
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes 166,700$ 166,700$ 168,819$ 2,119$
Use of money and property 2,000 2,000 5,442 3,442
Total revenues 168,700 168,700 174,261 5,561
Expenditures:
Current:
Community development 156,800 156,800 78,955 77,845
Revenues over (under) expenditures 11,900 11,900 95,306 83,406
Other Financing Uses:
Transfers out (13,000) (13,000) (13,000) -
Net change in fund balances (1,100)$ (1,100)$ 82,306 83,406$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 376,275
End of Year 458,581$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Landscape District Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
118
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenue:
Contributions 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ -$
Expenditures:
Current:
Community development 8,000 8,000 7,509 491
Revenues over (under) expenditures 7,000 7,000 7,491 491
Other Financing Uses:
Transfers out (11,000) (11,000) (11,000) -
Net change in fund balances (4,000)$ (4,000)$ (3,509) 491$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 73,258
End of Year 69,749$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Heron Pointe Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
119
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes 58,000$ 58,000$ 61,173$ 3,173$
Contributions 25,000 25,000 25,000 -
Total revenues 83,000 83,000 86,173 3,173
Expenditures:
Current:
Community development 101,300 101,300 60,009 41,291
Revenues over (under) expenditures (18,300) (18,300) 26,164 44,464
Other Financing Uses:
Transfers out (148,000) (148,000) (17,400) 130,600
Net change in fund balances (166,300)$ (166,300)$ 8,764 175,064$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 136,755
End of Year 145,519$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Pacific Gateway Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
120
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Charges for services 90,000$ 90,000$ 119,881$ 29,881$
Use of money and property 2,000 2,000 4,150 2,150
Total revenues 92,000 92,000 124,031 32,031
Expenditures:
Current:
General government 75,000 75,000 84,830 (9,830)
Revenues over (under) expenditures 17,000 17,000 39,201 22,201
Other Financing Uses:
Transfers out (30,000) (30,000) - 30,000
Net change in fund balances (13,000)$ (13,000)$ 39,201 52,201$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 324,218
End of Year 363,419$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Seal Beach Cable Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
121
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Use of money and property -$ -$ 9,464$ 9,464$
Expenditures:
Debt service:
Principal retirement 1,580,000 1,580,000 1,571,000 9,000
Interest and fiscal charges 207,000 207,000 209,489 (2,489)
Total Expenditures 1,787,000 1,787,000 1,780,489 6,511
Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,787,000) (1,787,000) (1,771,025) 15,975
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers in 1,787,000 1,787,000 1,782,469 (4,531)
Net change in fund balances -$ -$ 11,444 11,444$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 729,543
End of Year 740,987$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
City Debt Service Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
122
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Expenditures:
Capital outlay 12,737,500$ 17,952,900$ 2,235,797$ 15,717,103$
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers in 12,737,500 17,952,900 2,231,645 (15,721,255)
Net change in fund balances -$ -$ (4,152) (4,152)$
Fund Balance:
Beginning of Year 896
End of Year (3,256)$
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
123
This page intentionally left blank.
124
AGENCY FUNDS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
125
This page intentionally left blank.
126
Community Community
Facilities Facilities
District District - Heron
Deposits Heron Pointe Pacific Gateway Total
Assets:
Cash and investments 60,596$ 96,712$ 155,684$ 312,992$
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents - 256,832 700,335 957,167
Total Assets 60,596$ 353,544$ 856,019$ 1,270,159$
Liabilities:
Deposits payable 60,596$ -$ -$ 60,596$
Due to bondholders - 353,544 856,019 1,209,563
Total Liabilities 60,596$ 353,544$ 856,019$ 1,270,159$
City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Assets and Liabilities
Agency Funds
June 30, 2018
127
Balance Balance
July 1, 2016 Additions Deletions June 30, 2017
Deposits
Assets:
Cash and investments 44,836$ 15,880$ (120)$ 60,596$
Total Assets 44,836$ 15,880$ (120)$ 60,596$
Liabilities:
Deposits payable 44,836$ 15,880$ (120)$ 60,596$
Total Liabilities 44,836$ 15,880$ (120)$ 60,596$
Community Facilities District
Heron Pointe
Assets:
Cash and investments 81,686$ 276,934$ (261,908)$ 96,712$
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents 255,307 2,910 (1,385) 256,832
Taxes receivable 5,056 - (5,056) -
Total Assets 342,049$ 279,844$ (268,349)$ 353,544$
Liabilities:
Due to bondholders 342,049$ 279,844$ (268,349)$ 353,544$
Total Liabilities 342,049$ 279,844$ (268,349)$ 353,544$
Community Facilities District
Pacific Gateway
Assets:
Cash and investments 145,031$ 508,357$ (497,704)$ 155,684$
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents 696,178 7,903 (3,746) 700,335
Taxes receivable 1,785 - (1,785) -
Total Assets 842,994$ 516,260$ (503,235)$ 856,019$
Liabilities:
Due to bondholders 842,994$ 516,260$ (503,235)$ 856,019$
Total Liabilities 842,994$ 516,260$ (503,235)$ 856,019$
Agency Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities
128
Balance Balance
July 1, 2016 Additions Deletions June 30, 2017
Total
Assets:
Cash and investments 271,553$ 801,171$ (759,732)$ 312,992$
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents 951,485 10,813 (5,131) 957,167
Taxes receivable 6,841 - (6,841) -
Total Assets 1,229,879$ 811,984$ (771,704)$ 1,270,159$
Liabilities:
Deposits payable 44,836$ 15,880$ (120)$ 60,596$
Due to bondholders 1,185,043 796,104 (771,584) 1,209,563
Total Liabilities 1,229,879$ 811,984$ (771,704)$ 1,270,159$
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities (Continued)
Agency Fund
129
This page intentionally left blank.
130
STATISTICAL SECTION
131
This page intentionally left blank.
132
Page
These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City's financial
performance and well-being have changed over time.134 - 143
These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the factors affecting the City's ability
to generate it's property and sales taxes.144 - 147
These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City's current
levels of outstanding debt and the City's ability to issue additional debt in the future.148 - 154
These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the
environment within which the City's financial activities take place and to help make comparisons
over time and with other governments.155 - 156
These schedules contain information about the City's operations and resources to help the reader
understand how the City's financial information relates to the services the City provides and the
activities it performs.157 - 160
Demographic and Economic Information
Operating Information
Statistical Section
Description of Statistical Section Contents
City of Seal Beach
For the Year Ended June 30, 2018
This part of the City of Seal Beach comprehensive annual financial report presents detailed information as a context
for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary
information says about the government’s overall financial health.
Financial Trends
Revenue Capacity
Debt Capacity
133
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Governmental activities:
Net investment in capital assets, 64,630,230$ 64,607,970$ 68,117,517$ 70,801,667$ 73,693,829$
Restricted 5,004,891 6,190,852 5,179,337 2,662,285 3,271,671
Unrestricted 32,204,164 30,050,739 27,557,417 29,666,427 23,570,750
Total governmental activities net position 101,839,285$ 100,849,561$ 100,854,271$ 103,130,379$ 100,536,250$
Business-type activities:
Net investment in capital assets, 27,007,845$ 27,416,082$ 29,552,934$ 32,020,831$ 32,645,747$
Restricted 396,321 294,407 - - -
Unrestricted 12,314,589 14,376,270 13,633,764 11,318,443 12,593,950
Total business-type activities net position 39,718,755$ 42,086,759$ 43,186,698$ 43,339,274$ 45,239,697$
Primary government:
Net investment in capital assets, 91,638,075$ 92,024,052$ 97,670,451$ 102,822,498$ 106,339,576$
Restricted 5,401,212 6,485,259 5,179,337 2,662,285 3,271,671
Unrestricted 44,518,753 44,427,009 41,191,181 40,984,870 36,164,700
Total primary government net position 141,558,040$ 142,936,320$ 144,040,969$ 146,469,653$ 145,775,947$
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach.
City of Seal Beach
Net Position by Component
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
134
2017
2014 2015 2016 (As Restated) 2018
Governmental activities:
Net investment in capital assets, 72,498,068$ 74,296,935$ 73,939,948$ 72,399,752$ 72,667,466$
Restricted 4,426,990 3,842,792 3,866,679 4,587,081 4,207,675
Unrestricted 25,953,129 4,097,282 4,713,193 (3,660,561) (4,911,027)
Total governmental activities net position 102,878,187$ 82,237,009$ 82,519,820$ 73,326,272$ 71,964,114$
Business-type activities:
Net investment in capital assets, 32,360,440$ 34,451,074$ 34,145,069$ 33,109,258$ 31,663,486$
Restricted - - - 25,082
Unrestricted 15,532,304 12,470,553 13,544,158 12,625,701 14,709,960
Total business-type activities net position 47,892,744$ 46,921,627$ 47,689,227$ 45,734,959$ 46,398,528$
Primary government:
Net investment in capital assets, 104,858,508$ 108,748,009$ 108,085,017$ 105,509,010$ 104,330,952$
Restricted 4,426,990 3,842,792 3,866,679 4,587,081 4,232,757
Unrestricted 41,485,433 16,567,835 18,257,351 8,965,140 9,798,933
Total primary government net position 150,770,931$ 129,158,636$ 130,209,047$ 119,061,231$ 118,362,642$
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach.
City of Seal Beach
Net Position by Component (Continued)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
135
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Expenses:
Governmental activities:
General government 5,713,338$ 6,462,182$ 8,135,200$ 6,477,795$ 5,373,180$
Public safety 13,191,707 14,322,026 13,493,413 14,152,774 15,005,590
Community development 1,979,889 3,332,329 1,654,009 1,372,334 1,781,188
Community services 978,504 1,109,303 1,040,723 940,754 1,272,680
Public works 5,307,470 7,745,817 6,304,343 6,577,233 6,212,516
Interest on long-term debt 1,083,063 889,721 1,012,516 693,065 574,763
Total governmental activities expenses 28,253,971 33,861,378 31,640,204 30,213,955 30,219,917
Business-type activities:
Water utility 3,815,798 4,063,497 4,005,747 4,165,575 4,267,840
Sewer utility 1,331,610 1,452,748 1,412,326 1,402,249 1,520,478
Total business-type activities expenses 5,147,408 5,516,245 5,418,073 5,567,824 5,788,318
Total primary government expenses 33,401,379 39,377,623 37,058,277 35,781,779 36,008,235
Program revenues:
Governmental activities:
Charges for services:
General government 2,506,070 2,190,386 1,770,024 1,462,840 450,911
Public safety 1,424,996 1,725,519 1,515,727 1,667,184 1,565,527
Community development 95,824 92,163 92,131 130,118 111,008
Community services 619,334 737,470 815,779 930,501 981,440
Public works 1,909,011 1,817,794 1,738,965 1,869,575 1,980,116
Operating contributions and grants 1,604,904 1,999,260 1,775,825 5,890,556 5,837,093
Capital grants and contributions 224,264 422,645 23,967 44,405 -
Total governmental activities
program revenues 8,384,403 8,985,237 7,732,418 11,995,179 10,926,095
Business-type activities:
Charges for services:
Water utility 5,818,135 5,655,433 4,190,824 4,376,906 4,924,109
Sewer utility 2,075,431 2,184,287 2,212,559 2,442,608 2,675,201
Total business-type activities
program revenues 7,893,566 7,839,720 6,403,383 6,819,514 7,599,310
Total primary government
program revenues 16,277,969 16,824,957 14,135,801 18,814,693 18,525,405
Net revenues (expenses):
Governmental activities (19,869,568) (24,876,141) (23,907,786) (18,218,776) (19,293,822)
Business-type activities 2,746,158 2,323,475 985,310 1,251,690 1,810,992
Total net revenues (expenses) (17,123,410)$ (22,552,666)$ (22,922,476)$ (16,967,086)$ (17,482,830)$
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach.
City of Seal Beach
Changes in Net Position
Fiscal Year
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
136
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
General revenues and other changes in net position:
Governmental activities:
Taxes:
Property taxes 11,054,451$ 10,738,530$ 10,794,375$ 10,337,486$ 9,958,198$
Transient occupancy taxes 1,198,376 1,108,785 1,221,491 970,275 1,289,007
Sales tax 3,974,341 4,680,846 4,160,359 4,930,037 5,408,756
Franchise taxes 980,148 941,785 1,030,736 1,008,031 1,126,398
Utility users taxes 5,326,486 5,056,233 5,310,666 5,484,256 4,732,597
Other taxes 393,570 151,724 228,449 338,176 328,743
Motor vehicle in lieu, unrestricted 88,304 76,234 119,022 12,868 13,333
Use of money and property 892,341 752,771 735,082 714,342 372,693
Other 43,881 319,134 312,316 230,997 331,175
Transfers - 60,375 - - -
Extraordinary Gain(loss) - - - (3,531,584) -
Total governmental activities 23,951,898 23,886,417 23,912,496 20,494,884 23,560,900
Business-type activities:
Use of money and property 278,754 92,259 109,160 96,774 84,371
Other 800 12,645 5,469 4,112 5,060
Transfers - (60,375) - - -
Extraordinary Gain(loss) - - - (1,200,000) -
Total business-type activities 279,554 44,529 114,629 (1,099,114) 89,431
Total primary government 24,231,452 23,930,946 24,027,125 19,395,770 23,650,331
Changes in net position:
Governmental activities 4,082,330 (989,724) 4,710 2,276,108 4,267,078
Business-type activities 3,025,712 2,368,004 1,099,939 152,576 1,900,423
Total primary government 7,108,042$ 1,378,280$ 1,104,649$ 2,428,684$ 6,167,501$
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach.
City of Seal Beach
Changes in Net Position (Continued)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
Fiscal Year
137
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Expenses:
Governmental activities:
General government 5,040,070$ 6,551,584$ 6,264,368$ 5,894,947$ 6,161,230$
Public safety 15,999,900 16,022,465 16,972,880 19,867,060 19,877,068
Community development 1,306,898 1,393,712 1,100,110 1,218,902 1,593,008
Community services 1,079,006 1,129,300 1,036,627 995,468 964,634
Public works 6,902,521 7,862,892 6,956,443 6,992,604 7,367,882
Interest on long-term debt 487,221 444,132 349,652 342,951 225,675
Total governmental activities expenses 30,815,616 33,404,085 32,680,080 35,311,932 36,189,497
Business-type activities:
Water utility 4,439,797 4,037,798 4,102,228 4,977,160 4,668,618
Sewer utility 1,730,940 1,661,225 1,676,651 2,639,043 2,539,783
Total business-type activities expenses 6,170,737 5,699,023 5,778,879 7,616,203 7,208,401
Total primary government expenses 36,986,353 39,103,108 38,458,959 42,928,135 43,397,898
Program revenues:
Governmental activities:
Charges for services:
General government 1,632,975 1,820,019 2,074,448 1,913,909 2,062,987
Public safety 1,384,701 2,132,176 1,521,220 2,045,589 1,903,530
Community development 182,021 186,858 192,878 217,486 300,640
Community services 1,062,796 1,020,316 1,015,517 707,813 733,456
Public works 1,962,242 1,937,305 1,832,289 2,105,747 2,398,039
Operating contributions and grants 2,402,490 2,768,435 2,122,139 1,721,167 2,334,480
Capital grants and contributions 10,000 20,000 10,000 174,685 79,175
Total governmental activities
program revenues 8,637,225 9,885,109 8,768,491 8,886,396 9,812,307
Business-type activities:
Charges for services:
Water utility 5,092,152 4,556,001 4,261,566 4,782,468 5,097,807
Sewer utility 2,775,332 2,765,357 2,466,869 2,784,942 2,928,885
Total business-type activities
program revenues 7,867,484 7,321,358 6,728,435 7,567,410 8,026,692
Total primary government
program revenues 16,504,709 17,206,467 15,496,926 16,453,806 17,838,999
Net revenues (expenses):
Governmental activities (22,178,391) (23,518,976) (23,911,589) (26,425,536) (26,377,190)
Business-type activities 1,696,747 1,622,335 949,556 (48,793) 818,291
Total net revenues (expenses) (20,481,644)$ (21,896,641)$ (22,962,033)$ (26,474,329)$ (25,558,899)$
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach.
City of Seal Beach
Changes in Net Position (Continued)
Fiscal Year
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
138
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
General revenues and other changes in net position:
Governmental activities:
Taxes:
Property taxes 9,498,277$ 10,050,815$ 10,408,505$ 11,012,246$ 11,180,197$
Transient occupancy taxes 1,509,095 1,525,723 1,655,376 1,693,515 1,666,996
Sales tax 4,742,859 4,246,080 4,228,730 4,379,341 4,303,618
Franchise taxes 1,324,860 1,163,595 955,922 1,016,938 1,059,581
Utility users taxes 4,644,218 4,646,434 4,445,180 4,177,713 4,186,554
Other taxes 555,804 344,789 197,166 190,510 163,277
Motor vehicle in lieu, unrestricted 11,035 10,659 9,960 11,235 13,102
Use of money and property 674,875 725,720 1,004,572 425,014 300,817
Other 544,406 356,749 536,175 214,219 1,762,390
Transfers 378,500 378,500 378,500 378,500 378,500
Extraordinary Gain(loss) - 694,585 - - -
Total governmental activities 23,883,929 24,143,649 23,820,086 23,499,231 25,015,032
Business-type activities:
Use of money and property 133,995 109,575 176,437 167,661 223,778
Other 805 3,698 20,107 - -
Transfers (378,500) (378,500) (378,500) (378,500) (378,500)
Extraordinary Gain(loss) 1,200,000 - - - -
Total business-type activities 956,300 (265,227) (181,956) (210,839) (154,722)
Total primary government 24,840,229 23,878,422 23,638,130 23,288,392 24,860,310
Changes in net position:
Governmental activities 1,705,538 624,673 (91,503) 23,499,231 (1,362,158)
Business-type activities 2,653,047 1,357,108 767,600 (210,839) 663,569
Total primary government 4,358,585$ 1,981,781$ 676,097$ 23,288,392$ (698,589)$
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach.
City of Seal Beach
(accrual basis of accounting)
Fiscal Year
Changes in Net Position (Continued)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
139
2009 2010 2011(1)2012 2013
General fund:
Reserved 211,000$ 30,300$ -$ -$ -$
Unreserved 36,254,127 29,988,551 - - -
Total general fund 36,465,127$ 30,018,851$ -$ -$ -$
All other governmental funds:
Reserved 1,888,229$ 1,880,130$ -$ -$ -$
Unreserved, reported in:
Low and moderate housing 1,699,688 1,268,309 - - -
Special revenue funds 2,397,828 2,264,014 - - -
Debt service funds 2,108,727 1,922,685 - - -
Capital project funds 4,202,108 4,126,432 - - -
Total all other governmental funds 12,296,580$ 11,461,570$ -$ -$ -$
General Fund:
Nonspendable -$ -$ 100$ -$ -$
Restricted - - - - -
Assigned - - 9,371,679 9,106,458 8,301,699
Unassigned - - 16,952,806 19,263,118 21,149,350
Total general fund -$ -$ 26,324,585$ 28,369,576$ 29,451,049$
All Other government funds:
Nonspendable -$ -$ 1,957,603$ -$ -$
Restricted - - 5,179,337 2,662,285 3,271,671
Assigned - - 2,825,953 87,375 89,004
Unassigned - - (134,079) (470,485) (56,810)
Total all Other government funds: -$ -$ 9,828,814$ 2,279,175$ 3,303,865$
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
(1) Fund balances classification was changed in fiscal year 2011 due to implementation of GASB 54.
Fiscal Year
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
City of Seal Beach
140
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
General fund:
Reserved -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Unreserved - - - - -
Total general fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
All other governmental funds:
Reserved -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Unreserved, reported in:
Low and moderate housing - - - - -
Special revenue funds - - - - -
Debt service funds - - - - -
Capital project funds - - - - -
Total all other governmental funds -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
General Fund:
Nonspendable 1,549,735$ 666,102$ 682,859$ 2,877$ 32,495$
Restricted - - - 12,277 5,266
Assigned 8,227,258 7,623,994 7,610,286 7,478,281 8,289,150
Unassigned 22,314,838 21,711,517 20,811,037 19,770,202 17,491,623
Total general fund 32,091,831$ 30,001,613$ 29,104,182$ 27,263,637$ 25,818,534$
All Other government funds:
Nonspendable -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Restricted 4,426,990 3,842,792 3,866,679 4,131,203 4,110,558
Assigned 71,993 - - - -
Unassigned (368,629) (525,408) (51,254) (184,908) (34,159)
Total all Other government funds: 4,130,354$ 3,317,384$ 3,815,425$ 3,946,295$ 4,076,399$
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds (Continued)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
141
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Revenues:
Taxes 23,399,203$ 22,689,660$ 23,624,925$ 24,165,883$ 23,831,431$
Licenses and permits 1,527,024 1,586,337 1,179,759 926,761 1,247,750
Intergovernmental 1,572,675 1,644,511 949,294 5,058,175 3,002,321
Charges for services 4,183,018 4,150,239 3,769,165 4,044,566 4,117,034
Use of money and property 893,879 626,019 735,082 714,342 372,693
Fines and forfeitures 944,950 1,029,510 983,702 1,085,291 1,063,172
Contributions from other governments - - - - 10,209
Miscellaneous 76,510 337,986 312,316 234,597 301,771
Total revenues 32,597,259 32,064,262 31,554,243 36,229,615 33,946,381
Expenditures
Current:
General government 5,611,104 6,280,260 7,211,870 5,169,799 5,062,467
Public safety 12,485,796 13,377,245 13,297,057 13,948,663 14,460,833
Community development 1,949,425 3,346,961 1,649,921 1,353,068 1,420,065
Community services 908,708 1,036,376 965,222 880,983 1,182,716
Public works 3,557,704 2,817,379 4,059,001 4,047,013 4,156,616
Capital outlay 4,725,348 9,438,315 6,622,692 5,530,575 3,316,684
Debt service:
Principal retirement 1,418,230 1,942,476 2,066,373 2,195,014 1,734,446
Interest and fiscal charges 1,048,026 903,286 1,027,743 790,581 562,184
Bond issuance costs 1,316 - - -
Total expenditures 31,705,657 39,142,298 36,899,879 33,915,696 31,896,011
Excess (deficiency) of revenue over
(under) expenditures 891,602 (7,078,036) (5,345,636) 2,313,919 2,050,370
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 11,180,500 12,577,549 9,370,333 8,209,025 5,825,432
Transfers out (13,180,500) (12,780,799) (9,370,333) (8,209,025) (6,135,432)
Debt issuance 6,300,000 - - - -
Proceeds on sale of assets - - 18,614 - -
Total other financing sources (uses) 4,300,000 (203,250) 18,614 - (310,000)
Extraordinary gain/(loss) on dissolution
of redevelopment agency - - - (7,818,567) -
Net change in fund balances 5,191,602$ (7,281,286)$ (5,327,022)$ (5,504,648)$ 1,740,370$
Debt service as a percentage of
noncapital expenditures 9.1% 9.6% 10.2% 10.5% 8.0%
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
Fiscal Year
Note: On December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld Assembly Bill 1X26 that provides for the dissolution of all redevelopment
agencies in the State of California. The Redevelopment Agency was dissolved on February 1, 2012.
City of Seal Beach
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
142
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Revenues:
Taxes 23,476,034$ 23,114,876$ 22,828,144$ 23,368,371$ 24,021,668$
Licenses and permits 1,369,275 1,377,131 1,304,924 1,234,590 1,480,971
Intergovernmental 869,294 1,725,127 1,388,056 744,904 1,530,815
Charges for services 3,895,371 3,961,691 4,214,690 5,349,083 4,586,949
Use of money and property 674,875 725,720 1,004,572 426,418 347,117
Fines and forfeitures 1,013,695 1,146,509 1,110,606 152,845 1,089,515
Contributions from other governments 341,698 330,885 283,222 180,511 55,765
Miscellaneous 579,125 375,588 537,777 492,245 520,420
Total revenues 32,219,367 32,757,527 32,671,991 31,948,967 33,633,220
Expenditures
Current:
General government 4,493,594 5,462,668 5,351,130 5,673,309 5,757,859
Public safety 15,439,757 15,811,773 16,378,416 17,395,965 18,148,871
Community development 1,298,071 1,362,308 1,175,339 1,186,081 1,488,921
Community services 1,048,427 1,129,497 1,075,282 1,004,690 954,018
Public works 4,871,887 5,631,015 4,862,058 4,586,373 4,967,066
Capital outlay 2,094,120 4,578,308 2,645,823 1,506,476 2,567,080
Debt service:
Principal retirement 1,265,135 1,337,573 1,490,150 2,162,379 1,640,521
Interest and fiscal charges 492,935 441,040 355,819 353,322 231,779
Bond issuance costs
31,003,926 35,754,182 33,334,017 33,868,595 35,756,115
Excess (deficiency) of revenue over
(under) expenditures 1,215,441 (2,996,655) (662,026) (1,919,628) (2,122,895)
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 4,363,955 7,012,848 5,602,944 4,472,129 5,714,614
Transfers out (4,295,455) (6,919,381) (5,340,308) (4,262,176) (4,906,717)
Debt issuance 1,546,931 - - - -
Proceeds on sale of assets - - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses) 1,615,431 93,467 262,636 209,953 807,897
Extraordinary gain/(loss) on dissolution
of redevelopment agency - - - - -
Net change in fund balances 2,830,872$ (2,903,188)$ (399,390)$ (1,709,675)$ (1,314,998)$
Debt service as a percentage of
noncapital expenditures 6.1% 5.7% 6.0% 7.8% 5.6%
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds (Continued)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
143
Fiscal Year Taxable Taxable Total
Ended Assessed Assessed Direct Tax
June 30 Secured Unsecured Value Secured Unsecured Value Rate
2009 4,031,469,067$ 225,415,156$ 4,256,884,223$ 427,188,898$ 5,536,607$ 432,725,505$ 1.00%
2010 4,067,713,475 173,507,894 4,241,221,369 434,606,835 9,702,557 444,309,392 1.00%
2011 4,114,053,573 167,978,268 4,282,031,841 408,349,567 10,330,287 418,679,854 1.00%
2012 4,219,133,372 215,211,254 4,434,344,626 410,499,845 6,813,130 417,312,975 1.00%
2013 4,304,310,243 176,246,398 4,480,556,641 424,660,008 7,294,003 431,954,011 1.00%
2014 4,408,299,607 172,172,784 4,580,472,391 453,448,325 8,270,821 461,719,146 1.00%
2015 4,706,609,532 184,449,987 4,891,059,519 556,548,983 3,863,246 560,412,229 1.00%
2016 4,794,299,125 287,392,225 5,081,691,350 530,597,248 32,693,247 563,290,495 1.00%
2017 4,978,010,106 189,618,406 5,167,628,512 300,533,393 2,090,757 302,624,150 1.00%
2018 5,233,421,188 194,765,328 5,428,186,516 309,374,617 2,150,646 311,525,263 1.00%
1 Beginning with the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, exemptions are netted
directly against the individual property categories.
NOTE:
In 1978 the voters of the State of California passed Proposition 13 which limited
property taxes to a total maximum rate of 1% based upon the assessed value of the
property being taxed. Each year, the assessed value of property may be increased by an
"inflation factor" (limited to a maximum increase of 2%). With few exceptions,
property is only re-assessed at the time it is sold to a new owner. At that point, the
new assessed value is reassessed at the purchase price of the property sold. The
assessed valuation data shown above represents the only data currently available with
respect to the actual market value of taxable property and is subject to the limitations
described above.
Source: County of Orange, Auditor - Controller Assessed Valuations Detail
City of Seal Beach
Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property
Last Ten Fiscal Years
City Redevelopment Agency
144
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
City Direct Rates:
City Direct Rate 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000
Overlapping Rates:
Orange County Bonds 0.01472 0.01673 0.01750 0.01754 0.01881 0.03015 0.03015 0.03092 0.03092 0.03116
Metropolitan Water District 0.00430 0.00430 0.03347 0.00370 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350
Other Districts 0.00000 0.01995 0.00370 0.03603 0.04124 0.04830 0.04821 0.05219 0.05219 0.04833
Total Direct Rate 1.01951 1.01902 1.04098 1.05467 1.05727 1.06355 1.08195 1.08661 1.08661 1.08299
Source: County of Orange, Auditor-Controller's Office
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates
Last Ten Fiscal Years
NOTE:
In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13 which sets the property tax rate at a 1.00% fixed amount. This 1.00% is shared by all taxing
agencies for which the subject property resides within. In addition to the 1.00% fixed amount, property owners are charged taxes as a percentage
of assessed property values for the payment of the School District bonds.
145
Percent of Percent of
Total City Total City
Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable
Assessed Assessed Assessed Assessed
Taxpayer Value Value Value Value
Seal Beach Mutual 914,668,738$ 17.05% 656,751,714$ 15.42%
Rossmoor Shops LLC 142,839,149 3.35%
Bixbybit-Bixby Office Park LLC 127,500,000 2.99%
CPT Shops at Rossmoor LLC 124,331,977 2.32%
ASN Long Beach LLC 119,697,477 2.23%
Boeing North American 119,397,863 2.23% 119,666,567 2.81%
Terra Funding-Bixby Ranch LLC 90,490,380 1.69%
ASN Long Beach LLC 81,964,792 1.92%
Al United States Seal Beach Senior Housing 51,215,709 0.95%
OXY Long Beach Inc 50,791,103 0.95%
Ranch Town Center LLC 45,923,783 0.86%
Al United States Seal Beach Senior Housing 44,906,682 1.05%
DCOR LLC 40,981,013 0.96%
Ranch Town Center LLC 40,086,501 0.94%
OXY Long Beach Inc 38,000,000 0.89%
Columbia Regency Retail Partners LLC 37,422,519 0.88%
Columbia Regency Retail Partners LLC 24,983,179 0.47%
Old Ranch Country Club LLC 22,693,175 0.42%
1,564,193,384$ 29.17% 1,330,118,937$ 31.21%
The amounts shown above include assessed value data for both the City and the Redevelopment Agency.
Source: HDL Coren & Cone
City of Seal Beach
Current Year and Nine Years Ago
Principal Property Taxpayers
2018 2009
146
Fiscal Taxes Levied Collections in
Year Ended for the Percent Subsequent Percent
June 30 Fiscal Year Amount of Levy Years Amount of Levy
2009 8,567,293$ 8,285,120$ 96.71% 107,589$ 8,392,709$ 97.96%
2010 8,362,560 7,314,382 87.47% 257,026 7,571,408 90.54%
2011 8,385,415 8,190,860 97.68% 178,283 8,369,142 99.81%
2012 8,608,773 8,404,621 97.63% 125,019 8,529,640 99.08%
2013 8,814,252 8,629,271 97.90% 118,645 8,747,916 99.25%
2014 9,407,263 9,240,201 98.22% 103,007 9,343,208 99.32%
2015 10,438,079 10,222,017 97.93% 73,362 10,295,379 98.63%
2016 10,472,603 10,196,356 97.36% 81,860 10,278,216 98.14%
2017 10,945,834 10,710,665 97.85% 65,706 10,776,371 98.45%
2018 11,415,167 11,226,591 98.35% 66,149 11,292,740 98.93%
Source: Orange County Tax Ledger
Total Collections to Date
Collected within the
Fiscal Year of Levy
Property Tax Levies and Collections
City of Seal Beach
Last Ten Fiscal Years
NOTE:
The amounts presented include City property taxes and Redevelopment Agency tax increment. This schedule also includes
amounts collected by the City and Redevelopment Agency that were passed-through to other agencies. On December 29, 2011, the
California Supreme Court upheld Assembly Bill 1X26 that provides for the dissolution of all redevelopment agencies in the State
of California. The Redevelopment Agency was dissolved on February 1, 2012.
147
Fiscal Year Countrywide Tax Pension Fire Total
Ended Capital Financing Allocation Obligation Station Governmental
June 30 Lease Authority Lease Bonds Bonds Bonds Climatec Activities
2009 534,444$ 335,000$ 6,410,000$ 10,219,000$ 6,195,000$ -$ 23,693,444$
2010 433,968 230,000 6,005,000 9,307,000 5,775,000 - 21,750,968
2011 323,595 120,000 5,575,000 8,311,000 5,355,000 - 19,684,595
2012 202,581 - - 7,227,000 4,935,000 - 12,364,581
2013 70,135 - - 6,045,000 4,515,000 - 10,630,135
2014 - - - 5,270,000 4,095,000 1,562,400 10,927,400
2015 - - - 4,411,000 3,675,000 1,488,358 9,574,358
2016 - - - 3,461,000 3,255,000 1,368,208 8,084,208
2017 - - - 2,414,000 2,835,000 672,829 5,921,829
2018 - - - 1,263,000 2,415,000 603,308 4,281,308
Notes:
Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements
In addition on December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld Assembly Bill 1X26
that provides for the dissolution of all redevelopment agencies in the State of California. The
Redevelopment Agency was dissolved on February 1, 2012. The debt was transferred to the
Successor Agency to the Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency.
1See the schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics on page 155 for personal income and
population data.
*Data not readily available.
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
Governmental Activities
City of Seal Beach
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type
148
Economic
Fiscal Year Development Sewer Sewer 2011 Sewer Total Total Percentage Debt
Ended Administration Certificates of Installment State Revolving Business-type Primary of Personal Per
June 30 Loan Participation Agreement Agreement Activities Government Income 1 Capita 1
2009 121,962$ 3,555,000$ -$ -$ 3,676,962$ 27,370,406$ * 1,058
2010 111,016 3,460,000 - - 3,571,016 25,321,984 * 974
2011 99,521 - 3,200,000 - 3,299,521 24,184,116 * 930
2012 87,453 - 3,085,000 - 3,172,453 16,737,034 * 687
2013 74,780 - 2,965,000 4,645,401 7,685,181 19,515,316 * 750
2014 - - 2,835,000 4,068,778 6,903,778 19,031,178 * 732
2015 - - 2,705,000 3,893,311 6,598,311 17,125,013 * 697
2016 - - 2,565,000 3,718,034 6,283,034 15,081,352 * 613
2017 - - 2,420,000 3,538,201 5,958,201 5,958,201 * 483
2018 - - 2,270,000 3,353,690 5,623,690 9,904,998 * 398
Notes:
Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements
In addition on December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld Assembly Bill 1X26
that provides for the dissolution of all redevelopment agencies in the State of California. The
Redevelopment Agency was dissolved on February 1, 2012. The debt was transferred to the
Successor Agency to the Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency.
1See the schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics on page 155 for personal income and
population data.
*Data not readily available.
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
Business-type Activities
City of Seal Beach
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type (Continued)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
149
Fiscal Year Private Percent of
Ended Placement Total Assessed Per
June 30 Bonds Bonds Bonds Value 1 Capita
2009 6,410,000$ 16,414,000$ 22,824,000$ 0.47% 882$
2010 6,005,000 15,082,000 21,087,000 0.43% 811
2011 5,575,000 13,666,000 19,241,000 0.38% 790
2012 - 12,162,000 12,162,000 0.24% 497
2013 - 10,560,000 10,560,000 0.21% 406
2014 - 9,365,000 9,365,000 0.19% 360
2015 - 8,086,000 8,086,000 0.15% 329
2016 - 6,716,000 6,716,000 0.12% 273
2017 - 4,507,180 5,249,000 0.10% 213
2018 - 2,937,013 2,937,013 0.05% 118
1Assessed value has been used because the actual value of taxable property is not readily available in the State of California.
Note:
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
City of Seal Beach
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Ratio of General Bonded Debt Outstanding
On December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld Assembly Bill 1X26 that provides for the dissolution of all redevelopment agencies
in the State of California. The Redevelopment Agency was dissolved on February 1, 2012. The debt was transferred to the Successor Agency to the
Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency
General bonded debt is debt payable with governmental fund resources and general obligation bonds recorded in enterprise funds (of which, the
City has none).
150
2017-18 Assessed Valuation:$5,428,186,516
Total Debt City’s Share of
OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT:% Applicable (1)6/30/2018 Debt 6/30/18
Metropolitan Water District 0.198% 60,600,000$ 119,988$
Coast Community College District 2.926% 781,334,504 22,861,848
North Orange Jt. Community College District 1.245% 206,054,001 2,565,372
Los Alamitos Unified School District School Facilities Imp District No.1 49.737% 103,895,227 51,674,369
Huntington Beach Union High School District 0.0001% 187,014,998 187
Ocean View School District 0.0003% 45,000,000 135
City of Seal Beach Community Facilities District No. 2002-1 100.000% 3,230,000 3,230,000
City of Seal Beach Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 100.000% 8,050,000 8,050,000
TOTAL OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT 88,501,899$
OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT:
Orange County General Fund Obligations 0.973% 210,347,000$ 2,046,676$
Orange County Pension Obligations 0.973% 383,564,389 3,732,082
Orange County Board of Education Certificates of Participation 0.973% 13,990,000 136,123
North Orange County Regional Occupation Program Certificates of Participation 4.495% 9,610,000 431,970
Coast Community College District Certificates of Participation 2.926% 3,285,000 96,119
Los Alamitos Unified School District Certificates of Participation 54.682% 41,431,230 22,655,425
Other School District General Fund Obligations 0.0001-0.0003% 86,101,090 132
City of Seal Beach Fire Station Lease Revenue Bonds 100% 2,415,000 2,415,000
City of Seal Beach Taxable Pension Obligations 100% 1,263,000 1,263,000
TOTAL DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT 32,776,527$
OVERLAPPING TAX INCREMENT DEBT (Successor Agency):100%1,925,000$ 1,925,000$
TOTAL DIRECT DEBT 5,249,000$
TOTAL OVERLAPPING DEBT 117,954,426$
COMBINED TOTAL DEBT 123,203,426$ (2)
(1) Percentage of overlapping agency's assessed valuation located within boundaries of the city.
(2) Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and tax allocation bonds and
non-bonded capital lease obligations.
Ratios to Adjusted Assessed Valuation:
Total Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt 1.63%
Total Direct Debt ($3,378,000) 0.07%
Combined Total Debt 2.27%
Total Overlapping Tax Increment Debt 0.62%
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
Ratios to Redevelopment Incremental Valuation ($310,198,060):
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Direct and Overlapping Debt
June 30, 2018
151
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Debit limit 703,441,459$ 702,829,614$ 705,106,754$ 760,030,328$ 736,876,598$
Total net debt applicable to limit - - - - -
Legal debt margin 703,441,459$ 702,829,614$ 705,106,754$ 760,030,328$ 736,876,598$
Total debt applicable to the limit
as a percentage of debt limit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Note: 1Under state finance law, the City of Seal Beach's outstanding general obligation debt should
not exceed 15 percent of total assessed property value. By law, the general obligation debt
subject to the limitation may be offset by amounts set aside for repaying general obligation bonds.
Source: Orange County Tax Assessor's Office
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
Legal Debt Margin Information
Last Ten Years
152
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Debit limit 756,328,731$ 817,720,762$ 846,747,277$ 820,537,899$ 860,757,686$
Total net debt applicable to limit - - - - -
Legal debt margin 756,328,731$ 817,720,762$ 846,747,277$ 820,537,899$ 860,757,686$
Total debt applicable to the limit
as a percentage of debt limit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year 2018
Assessed Valuation 5,738,384,576$
Debt percentage 1 15%
Debt limit 860,757,686$
Debt applicable to limit -
Legal debt margin 860,757,686$
Note: 1Under state finance law, the City of Seal Beach's outstanding general obligation debt should
not exceed 15 percent of total assessed property value. By law, the general obligation debt
subject to the limitation may be offset by amounts set aside for repaying general obligation bonds.
Source: Orange County Tax Assessor's Office
City of Seal Beach
Legal Debt Margin Information (Continued)
Last Ten Years
Fiscal Year
153
Fiscal Year
Ended Tax
June 30 Increment Principal Interest Coverage
2009 1,930,719$ 390,000$ 338,879$ 2.65
2010 1,768,919 405,000 318,054 2.45
2011 1,784,964 430,000 296,183 2.46
2012 1,034,695 450,000 396,408 1.22
2013 1,790,960 470,000 330,684 2.24
2014 1,222,425 495,000 229,406 1.69
2015 1,084,135 515,000 204,269 1.51
2016 1,329,344 545,000 177,413 1.84
2017 1,218,363 575,000 148,759 1.68
2018 1,125,053 600,000 118,302 1.57
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
City of Seal Beach
Pledged-Revenue Coverage
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Debt Service
Note: Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements.
2000 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
154
Personal Per Capita
Calendar Income Personal Unemployment
Year Population (in thousands) Income Rate
2008 25,851 1,236,921 47,848 3.8%
2009 25,881 1,194,776 46,164 6.6%
2010 26,010 1,045,654 40,202 7.1%
2011 24,354 1,035,313 42,511 6.4%
2012 24,487 1,065,674 43,520 4.1%
2013 24,591 1,082,963 44,039 3.7%
2014 24,586 1,074,777 43,715 4.8%
2015 25,078 1,141,053 45,500 3.9%
2016 24,890 1,164,182 46,773 3.5%
2017 24,890 1,199,969 48,210 3.2%
Sources: HDL Coren & Cone
City of Seal Beach
Demographic and Economic Statistics
Last Ten Calendar Years
155
Business
Business Name 2017-18 2008-09 Category
76 X X Service Stations
AT&T Mobility X X Electronics/Appliance Store
Bed Bath & Beyond X X Home Furnishings
Chevron X X Service Stations
Chevron & Auto Repair X X Service Stations
Chick Fil A X Quick-Service Restaurants
Circuit City X Electronics/Appliance Store
CVS Pharmacy X X Drug Stores
Energy Tubulars X X Petroleum Prod/Equip
Home Goods X X Home Furnishings
In N Out Burgers X Quick-Service Restaurants
Islands X Casual Dining
Kohls X X Department Stores
Leisure World Automotive 76 X Service Stations
Mahe X Casual Dining
Marshalls X Family Apparel
Mobil X X Service Stations
Old Ranch Country Club X X Leisure/Entertainment
Original Parts Group X X Automotive Supply Stores
Pavillions X Grocery Stores Liquor
Pinnacle Petroleum X Petroleum Prod/Equip
Ralphs X X Grocery Stores Liquor
Roger Dunn Golf Shop X X Sporting Goods/Bike Stores
Seal Beach Chevron X X Service Stations
Seal Beach Chevron X Service Stations
Smog Pros X Service Stations
Spaghettini X X Fine Dining
Sprouts Farmers Market X Grocery Stores Beer/Wine
Target X X Discount Dept Stores
Toys R Us X Specialty Stores
Ulta Beauty X Specialty Stores
Walts Wharf X X Fine Dining
2017-18 Percent of Fiscal Year Total Paid by Top 25 Accounts = 60.26%
2008-09 Percent of Fiscal Year Total Paid by Top 25 Accounts = 78.62%
Firms Listed Alphabetically: Period April Thru March
Source: Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates, State Board of Equalization
City of Seal Beach
Current Year and Nine Years Ago
Top 25 Sales Tax Producers
156
Function 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
General government 13.12 14.52 14.52 13.83 10.97 10.56 14.64 14.34 15.92 13.00
Public safety 59.07 65.88 65.88 64.77 63.91 76.78 79.13 74.12 77.19 78.50
Public works 14.76 15.40 15.40 8.36 11.49 11.03 10.94 4.97 3.98 6.00
Community
development 13.70 10.18 10.18 8.80 10.60 12.01 18.16 17.25 16.53 13.60
Water 13.00 12.55 12.68 12.48 12.29 12.60 13.80 13.82 12.60 12.90
Sewer 3.95 3.42 3.75 3.95 3.95 5.28 5.91 7.11 7.69 6.71
Total 117.60 121.95 122.41 112.19 113.21 128.26 142.58 131.61 133.91 130.71
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
Employees as of June 30,
City of Seal Beach
Full-time and Part-time City Employees by Function
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Full-Time and Part-Time
157
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Police:
Arrests 851 1,151 834 705 819
Parking citations issued 18,464 18,824 17,377 18,528 18,451
Public works:
Street centerline miles resurfaced - 4 3 2 2
Number of public right of way permits issued 208 420 141 127 96
Number of street related service requests 282 25 124 121 134
Parks and recreation:
Number of recreation classes 423 799 457 456 2,156
Number of facility rentals 342 402 308 562 3,182
Water:
Number of water meters replaced 172 148 158 112 128
Acre feet of water used 3,900 3,680 3,498 3,534 3,818
Sewer:
Number of feet of sewer cleaned 158,400 239,209 184,047 203,584 245,986
Number of catch basins cleaned 400 388 350 417 417
Source: City of Seal Beach
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
Operating Indicators by Function
Last Ten Fiscal Years
158
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Police:
Arrests 758 798 790 781 854
Parking citations issued 18,931 21,043 19,264 18,319 19,929
Public works:
Street centerline miles resurfaced 1 2 1 - 1
Number of public right of way permits issued 140 151 184 259 231
Number of street related service requests 35 45 40 68 109
Parks and recreation:
Number of recreation classes 678 781 680 710 1,070
Number of facility rentals 1,763 2,633 557 585 1,030
Water:
Number of water meters replaced 85 57 76 56 49
Acre feet of water used 3,878 3,540 3,208 3,259 3,208
Sewer:
Number of feet of sewer cleaned 253,099 253,099 217,619 - 217,619
Number of catch basins cleaned 401 434 458 216 216
Source: City of Seal Beach
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
Operating Indicators by Function (Continued)
159
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Police:
Stations 2222222222
Patrol units 35 36 36 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
Public works:
Streets (center line miles) 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
Sidewalk (miles) 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Signalized intersections 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
Parks and recreation:
Parks 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Community centers 3333333333
Water:
Water pipe (miles) 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72
Reservoirs 2222222222
Sewer
Sanitary sewers (miles)37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37
Storm sewers (miles)4444444444
Sewer lift/pump stations 7777777777
Source: City of Seal Beach
City of Seal Beach
Capital Asset Statistics by Function
Last Ten Fiscal Years
160
City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
Independent Accountants’ Report on
Agreed-Upon Procedures Applied to
Appropriations Limit Schedule
For the Year Ending June 30, 2018
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS’ REPORT ON
APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
We have performed the procedures enumerated below, which were agreed to by the City of Seal Beach, California
(the “City”) and the League of California Cities (as presented in the publication entitled Agreed-upon Procedures
Applied to the Appropriations Limitation Prescribed by Article XIII-B of the California Constitution) on assisting
you in meeting the requirements of Section 1.5 of Article XIII-B of the California Constitution for the year ending
June 30, 2018. The City’s management is responsible for the Appropriations Limit Schedule. The sufficiency of
these procedures is solely the responsibility of the City. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the
sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or any
other purpose.
The procedures performed and associated findings are as follows:
1. We obtained the completed worksheets used by the City to calculate its appropriations limit for the year
ending June 30, 2018, and determined that the limit and annual calculation factors were adopted by
resolution of the City Council. We also determined that the population and inflation options were selected
by a recorded vote of the City Council.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
2. For the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule, we added the prior year’s limit to the total
adjustments, and agreed the resulting amount to the current year’s limit.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
3. We agreed the current year information presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule to
corresponding information in worksheets used by the City.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
4. We agreed the appropriations limit presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule to the
appropriations limit adopted by the City Council.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
200 East Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600, Santa Ana, California 92707
Tel: 949-777-8800 • Fax: 949-777-8850
www.pungroup.com
3939352 Pun & McGeady_L_final.pdf 2 1/14/14 3:48 PM
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
Page 2
2
This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. We were not engaged to and did not conduct an
examination or review, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion or conclusion, respectively, on
assisting you in meeting the requirements of Section 1.5 of Article XIII-B of the California Constitution.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion or conclusion. Had we performed additional procedures, other
matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and management of the City and is
not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Santa Ana, California
July 25, 2017
City of Seal Beach
Appropriations Limit Schedule
For the Year Ending June 30, 2018
3
Amount Source
A. Appropriations Limit FY 2016-2017 28,179,039$ Prior year appropriation
limit adopted by the City
B. Calculation Factors:
1) Population increase % 0.9986 California Department of Finance
2) Inflation increase % 1.0369 California Department of Finance
3) Total adjustment % 1.0354 (B1 x B2)
C. Annual Adjustment Increase 998,900 {(B3-1) x A}
D. Other Adjustments:
1) Loss responsibility (-) - N/A
2) Transfer to private (-) - N/A
3) Transfer to fees (-) - N/A
4) Assumed responsibility (+) - N/A
E. Total Adjustments 998,900 (C + D)
F. Appropriations Limit FY 2017-2018 29,177,939$ (A + E)
See Accompanying Notes to Appropriations Limit Schedule.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to Appropriations Limit Schedule
For the Year Ending June 30, 2018
4
Note 1 – Purpose of Limited Procedures Review
Under Article XIIIB of the California Constitution (the Gann Spending Limitation Initiative), California
governmental agencies are restricted as to the amount of annual appropriations from proceeds of taxes. Effective
for years beginning on or after July 1, 1990, under Section 1.5 of Article XIIIB, the annual calculation of the
appropriations limit is subject to a limited procedures review in connection with the annual audit.
Note 2 – Method of Calculation
Under Section 10.5 of Article XIIIB, for fiscal years beginning on or after July 1990, the appropriations limit is
required to be calculated based on the limit for the fiscal year 1986-87, adjusted for the inflation and population
factors discussed in Notes 3 and 4 below.
Note 3 – Population Factors
A California governmental agency may use as its population factor either the annual percentage change of the
jurisdiction’s own population or the annual percentage change in population of the county where the jurisdiction is
located. The factor adopted by the City for the year ending June 30, 2018, represents the annual percentage
change in population for the City of Seal Beach.
Note 4 – Inflation factors
A California governmental agency may use as its inflation factor either the annual percentage change in the 4th
quarter per capita personal income (which percentage is supplied by the California Department of Finance) or the
percentage change in the local assessment roll from the preceding year due to the change of local nonresidential
construction. The factor adopted by the City for the year ending June 30, 2018, represents the annual percentage
change in per capital personal income.
Note 5 – Other Adjustments
A California government agency may be required to adjust its appropriations limit when certain events occur, such
as the transfer of responsibility for municipal services to, or from, another government agency or private entity.
The City had no such adjustments for the year ending June 30, 2018.
Agenda Item E
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:February 11, 2019
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU:Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM:Patrick Gallegos, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT:Orange County Fire Authority’s (OCFA) Fourth Amendment
to the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Agreement
________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council approve the Orange County Fire Authority’s Fourth
Amendment to the Amended Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Agreement to formalize
the OCFA’s commitment to its “snowball” accelerated pension liability paydown
plan and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
OCFA’s “Snowball” Accelerated Pension Paydown Plan
At its meeting of September 26, 2013, the OCFA Board of Directors adopted an
accelerated pension liability paydown plan, otherwise known as the “snowball”
plan. The snowball plan calls for the OCFA to accelerate payment of its unfunded
pension liability more quickly than the timeframe required for payment by the
Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS), thereby saving future
interest costs and improving the funding status of the OCFA’s pension plan.
Since the plan was adopted, the OCFA’s unfunded pension liability has steadily
declined from $473.8 million to $400.6 million, and the funding status has
consistently improved from 65% to 79%. Per OCERS’ actuary, OCFA is on track
to achieve an 85% funding level by December 2020, and has achieved interest
savings to date totaling $18.3 million.
City of Irvine’s June 13 Proposal and June 27 Notice of Withdrawal
On June 13, 2018, the City of Irvine provided a proposal to the OCFA requesting,
among other proposal elements, that OCFA commit to a pension pay down
strategy. On June 21 and June 25, the OCFA responded to the City’s proposal
reiterating its commitment to OCFA’s “snowball” accelerated pension liability
paydown plan, in addition to other commitments made by OCFA regarding
proposed service enhancements. On June 27, 2018, the City provided OCFA with
a Notice of Withdrawal seeking the initiation of good faith negotiations.
4
2
0
OCFA desires to retain Irvine as a member agency, and OCFA staff will continue
to negotiate in good faith, as requested by Irvine. At the same time, OCFA desires
to continue progress on the commitments made in its June 21 and June 25
responses to the City. The OCFA is hopeful that, with these continued actions
honoring its commitments, the City will elect to rescind its Notice of Withdrawal.
JPA History and Proposed Fourth Amendment to the Amended JPA
Agreement
The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) was formed in 1995 to provide regional
fire protection and related services to the County of Orange and 18 member cities.
Subsequent to formation, 6 additional cities have become members of the OCFA.
The original JPA Agreement was amended on September 23, 1999, and renewed
in 2010 by the First Amendment, which provided for a term that runs through 2030.
In 2013, OCFA’s members approved a Second Amendment to the Amended JPA,
in attempt to address these same “Overpayment” concerns by the City of Irvine;
however, the Second Amendment was subsequently invalidated by court
judgment. In 2015, a Third Amendment was approved by OCFA’s members which
eliminated alternate Directors to the OCFA Board.
OCFA is now seeking approval of a Fourth Amendment to formalize the OCFA’s
commitment to its “snowball” accelerated pension liability paydown plan
(Attachment). In order to become effective, the Fourth Amendment must be
approved by at least two-thirds (e.g., 16 of 24) of the member agencies’ governing
bodies.
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:
There is no fiscal impact related to approval of this item.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the Orange County Fire Authority’s Fourth
Amendment to the Amended Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Agreement to formalize
the OCFA’s commitment to its “snowball” accelerated pension liability paydown
plan and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
4
2
0
Patrick Gallegos Jill R. Ingram
Patrick Gallegos, Assistant City
Manager
Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proposed Fourth Amendment to Amended Joint Powers Authority
Agreement
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1328404.2 1
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AMENDED JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AGREEMENT
ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
This Fourth Amendment (“Fourth Amendment”) to the Amended Joint Powers
Authority Agreement is made and entered into by and between the following public
entities (collectively referred to as “members”): Aliso Viejo, Buena Park, Cypress, Dana
Point, Irvine, La Palma, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Los
Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Placentia, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan
Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, and Yorba
Linda (collectively referred to as “Cities” and individually as "City") and the County of
Orange (referred to as the “County”), each of whom is a member of the Joint Powers
Authority, Orange County Fire Authority (“the Authority”). This Fourth Amendment
requires the approval of two thirds of the members to go into effect, and it shall be effective
when approved by a sixteenth member.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Authority presently provides fire protection, prevention and
suppression services and related and incidental services (collectively, "Fire Services") to
Cities as well as to the unincorporated area of the County and State Responsibility Areas
(“SRA”); and
WHEREAS, the County and several of the Cities entered into a Joint Powers
Authority Agreement to form the Authority as of February 3, 1995 , pursuant to the
provisions of Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title I (commencing with Section 6500) of
the Government Code of the State of California ("Joint Powers Statutes"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Joint Powers Statutes the members are authorized to
jointly provide for the methods of the provision of Fire Services, including the method of
financing the provision of Fire Services; and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 1999, the members entered into an amended Joint
Powers Authority Agreement (“1999 Amended Agreement”) which superseded all prior
agreements between the members and is incorporated herein by reference; and
1328404.2 2
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1999 Amended Agreement the members provided for
the provision of Fire Services and the joint financing of Fire Services; and
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2010, the members entered into the First Amendment to
the Amended Joint Powers Agreement (“First Amendment”) which amended several
provisions of the 1999 Amended Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2012, the City of Santa Ana joined the Authority and
became a party to the 1999 Amended Agreement and the First Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2013, the required number of member agencies
approved the Second Amendment to the Amended Joint Powers Agreement (“Second
Amendment”) which amended several provisions of the 1999 Amended Agreement.
However, a final court judgment subsequently invalidated the Second Amendment, so the
Second Amendment became, and remains, inoperative; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2015, the required number of member agencies approved
the Third Amendment to the Amended Joint Powers Agreement (“Third Amendment”) to
eliminate alternative Board Directors;
WHEREAS, the Amended Joint Powers Agreement, as amended by the First
Amendment and Third Amendment, is referred to herein as the “Amended Joint Powers
Agreement And Its Operative Amendments”;
WHEREAS, the members wish to adopt this Fourth Amendment to the Amended
Joint Powers Agreement And Its Operative Amendments to formalize the OCFA’s
commitment to its “snowball” accelerated pension liability paydown plan on the terms and
conditions set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, the members agree to amend the Amended Joint Powers
Agreement And Its Operative Amendments as follows:
1328404.2 3
AGREEMENT
1. Article IV of the Amended Joint Powers Authority Agreement And Its Operative
Amendments is amended to add Section 7, to read as follows:
7. Payments to Reduce Unfunded Pension Liability.
A. Except as provided in subsection C, the OCFA Board shall appropriate funds
in its budget annually consistent with, or greater than, the budgetary payments
called for in the “snowball” accelerated pension liability paydown plan approved
by the OCFA Board of Directors on September 26, 2013 , and amended on
November 19, 2015, November 17, 2016, and March 23, 2017.
B. Payments will be greater than those appropriated in the OCFA’s budget
annually when triggered by a Net General Fund Surplus (per the Financial
Stability Budget Policy). Payments from the “Net General Fund Surplus” are
hereby deemed as derived from revenues received by overfunded structural
fire fund cities as determined by the equity calculation required under Article
IV, Section 4 – Equity.
C. Appropriations and payments required by subsection A and B may be reduced
to the extent the Board determines, by vote approved by two -thirds of the
Board, is necessary to address a fiscal hardship.
1) For purposes of this section, “fiscal hardship” shall refer to a substantial
reduction in OCFA anticipated revenue and/or a signif icant increase in
anticipated expenses that are beyond the reasonable control of the
OCFA Board.
2. This Fourth Amendment amends the 1999 Amended Agreement And Its
Operative Amendments, and except as specifically amended herein, the 1999
Amended Agreement And its Operative Amendments shall remain in full force
and effect.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
Dated:____________________________
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
NOTICE TO CITY TO BE GIVEN TO:
City Manager
City of Seal Beach
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Phone: (562) 431-2527
Fax: (562) 431-4067
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:_______________________________
City Attorney
Dated:____________________________
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
By:_______________________________
Mayor