HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-19 - Agenda Pkg - Regular MtgTuesday, January 8, 2019
6:00 PM
City of Hermosa Beach
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
City Council
Mayor
Stacey Armato
Mayor Pro Tem
Mary Campbell
Councilmembers
Hany S. Fangary
Justin Massey
Jeff Duclos
Regular Meeting Agenda
Closed Session - 6:00 PM and Regular Meeting - 7:00 PM
Councilmember Hany Fangary Teleconference Location:
The Citizen Hotel, 926 J Street Sacramento California 95814
Meeting Location: City Hall Council Chambers
Executive Team
Viki Copeland, Finance Director
Glen Kau, Public Works Director
Sharon Papa, Police Chief
Ken Robertson, Community Development Director
Vanessa Godinez, Human Resources Manager
Kelly Orta, Community Resources Manager
City Clerk
Elaine Doerfling
City Treasurer
Karen Nowicki
City Attorney
Mike Jenkins
Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
Nico De Anda-Scaia, Assistant to the City Manager
January 8, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
6:00 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION
(LOCATION: Meetings convene in the Council Chambers and move to the Second Floor Conference
Room after Public Comment)
CALL TO ORDER IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION IN SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
1.19-0026 MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session held on December 11, 2018.
2.19-0027 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: Airspace at 51 Pier Avenue (Loreto Plaza)
City Negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating Party: Pierside Properties, LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease of Airspace
ADJOURNMENT OF CLOSED SESSION
Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
January 8, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
7:00 P.M. - REGULAR AGENDA
All council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND.
The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly every agenda
item. City Council agenda packets are available for your review on the City's website located at
www.hermosabch.org. Complete agenda packets are also available for public inspection in the Office
of the City Clerk.
During the meeting, a packet is also available in the Council Chambers foyer or you can access the
packet at our website, www.hermosabch.org, on your laptop, tablet or smartphone through the wireless
signal available in the City Council chambers - Network ID: CHB-Guest, Password: chbguest
Written materials pertaining to matters listed on the agenda of a regular City Council meeting must be
submitted by noon of the Tuesday, one week before the meeting in order to be included in the agenda
packet (tentative future agendas can be found as Item 8 in every regular agenda packet). However,
written materials received after that deadline will nonetheless be posted under the relevant agenda item
on the City's website at the same time as they are distributed to the City Council by email and provided
to the City Council and the public at the meeting.
Submit your comments via eComment in three easy steps:
Note: Your comments will become part of the official meeting record. You must provide your full name,
but please do not provide any other personal information (i.e. phone numbers, addresses, etc) that you
do not want to be published.
1. Go to the Agendas/Minutes/Video webpage and find the meeting you’d like to submit comments on.
Click on the eComment button for your selected meeting.
2. Find the agenda item for which you would like to provide a comment. You can select a specific
agenda item/project or provide general comments under the Oral/Written Communications item.
3. Sign in to your SpeakUp Hermosa Account or as a guest, enter your comment in the field provided,
provide your name, and if applicable, attach files before submitting your comment.
eComments can be submitted as soon as the meeting materials are published, but will only be
accepted until 12:00 pm on the date of the meeting to ensure Council and staff have the ability to review
comments prior to the meeting.
Persons who wish to address an issue of general nature (not pertaining to matters listed on the
agenda) to the City Council for the official record may submit written material to the Council in lieu of or
in addition to speaking under the Public Participation section of the meeting. Such written
correspondence must be delivered to the City Manager's office (anny@hermosabch.org) by noon of the
Tuesday, one week before the regular Council meeting in order to be included in the agenda packet.
To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) will be
available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting,
you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0203 at least
48 hours prior to the meeting.
Page 3 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
January 8, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
ANNOUNCEMENTS
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
a)19-0011 RECOGNIZING MIKE HEDRICK AND HOMAYOUN BEHBOODI
FOR THEIR SERVICE TO THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
b)19-0024 PROCLAMATION RETRO-ACTIVELY RECOGNIZING
NOVEMBER 16, 2018 AS THE DAY OF TOLERANCE
IN HERMOSA BEACH
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
a)19-0012 UPDATES TO THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
AGENDA PREPRATION PROCESS
b)19-0023 INFILTRATION PROJECT UPDATE
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Although the City Council values your comments, the Brown
Act generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter not listed on the
posted agenda as a business item.
1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: This is the time for members of the public
to address the City Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction not on this
agenda, on items on this agenda as to which public comment will not be taken
(Miscellaneous Items and Reports – City Council and Other Matters), or to request the
removal of an item from the consent calendar. Public comments on the agenda items
called Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters will only be heard at this time.
Comments on public hearing items are heard only during the public hearing. Members
of the audience may also speak:
1) during discussion of items removed from the Consent Calendar;
2) during Public Hearings; and,
Page 4 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
January 8, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
3) during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters. Comments from the
public are limited to three minutes per speaker. The City Council acknowledges receipt
of the written communications listed below. No action will be taken on matters raised in
written communications. The Council may take action to schedule issues raised in oral
and written communications for a future agenda. Citizens with comments regarding City
management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the
City Manager.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters will be acted upon by
one vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council member removes an item from the
Consent Calendar. Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 4, with public
comment permitted at that time.
a)REPORT
19-0004
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
(Deputy City Clerk Linda Abbott)
1. 072516 draft min.docx
2. 082716 Retreat draft minutes.docx
3. 120417 draft.docx
4. 120717 draft.docx
5. 042518 Budget Workshop draft.docx
Attachments:
b)REPORT
19-0013
CHECK REGISTERS
(Finance Director Viki Copeland)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council ratify the following check registers.
1. 12-06-18
2. 12-13-18
Attachments:
c)REPORT
19-0003
REVENUE REPORT, EXPENDITURE REPORT,
AND CIP REPORT BY PROJECT FOR NOVEMBER 2018
(Finance Director Viki Copeland)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the November 2018 Financial
Reports.
1. Nov 2018 Revenue Report
2. Nov 2018 Expenditure Report
3. CIP Report by Project- Nov 2018
Attachments:
d)REPORT
19-0002
CITY TREASURER’S REPORT AND CASH BALANCE REPORT
(City Treasurer Karen Nowicki)
Recommendation:City Treasurer recommends that the City Council receive and file the November 2018 City
Treasurer's Report and Cash Balance Report.
1. November 2018 Treasurer's Report
2. November 2018 Cash Balance Report
Attachments:
Page 5 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
January 8, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
e)REPORT
19-0001
RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT CLAIM
(Human Resources Manager Vanessa Godinez)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council reject the following claim and refer it to the City's
Liability Claims Administrator.
Claimant: Brian Anstey
Date of Loss: June 26, 2018
Date Filed: November 19, 2018
Allegation: Police officers from an outside agency were chasing a suspect. The suspect
damaged the claimant's fence while trying to escape.
Brian Anstey claim_date of loss 6-26-18Attachments:
3. CONSENT ORDINANCES
a)REPORT
19-0005
ORDINANCE NO. 18-1389 - “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 5.78 TO THE
HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (TOBACCO RETAILERS)
REQUIRING LICENSURE OF TOBACCO RETAILERS AND LIMITING
SALE OF ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICES AND FLAVORED
TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO REDUCE THE ILLEGAL SALE OF
TOBACCO TO YOUTH AND AMENDING SECTION 1.10.040 TO
MAKE VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 5.78 SUBJECT TO
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY PROCEDURES”
(City Clerk Elaine Doerfling)
Recommendation:The City Clerk recommends that the City Council waive full reading and adopt by title
Ordinance No. 18-1389.
18-1389 Tobacco Retailer Licensure-Limit Sales.docxAttachments:
4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION
* Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M.
a)REPORT
19-0015
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AND REGULATE
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CORRESPONDING DESIGN STANDARDS,
AND UPDATE ON AT&T’S PROPOSAL FOR MULTIPLE
INSTALLATIONS OF SMALLER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES TO PROVIDE REPLACEMENT COVERAGE TO
EXISTING SITES LOCATED AT 20TH AND 29TH COURT
(Continued from meeting of September 25, 2018)
(Assistant City Attorney Lauren Langer,
Community Development Director Ken Robertson,
Page 6 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
January 8, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
and Public Works Director Glen Kau)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance (Exhibit A) to amend Municipal Code,
Title 12 to regulate wireless telecommunication facilities in the public right of way, and
determine the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution to approve the corresponding Design Standards for
wireless telecommunication facilities in the public right of way;
3. Direct staff to bring back a master license agreement with a standard lease rate for
use of any public property for these facilities; and
4. Direct Public Works staff to bring back an amendment to the master fee schedule to
establish application fees and penalty fees.
1. Draft Ordinance (Exhibit A)
2. Draft Design Standards (Exhibit B)
3. Photos of Sample Wireless Facility Designs- Prohibited and Allowed
4. Link to November 28, 2017, City Council staff report and attachments
(Page 8 of Agenda, Municipal Matters Item c)
5. Link to January 26, 2016, City Council staff report and attachments
(Page 11 of Agenda, Municipal Matters Item d)
6. Link to October 20, 2015, Planning Commission staff report and
attachments (Section II Public Hearing Item 6)
7. Link to July 21, 2015, Planning Commission staff report and
attachments (Section II Public Hearing Item 6)
8. Link to January 27, 2015, City Council staff report
Attachments:
b)REPORT
19-0009
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE ALLOCATION OF APPROXIMATELY $71,298 OF
FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDS FOR SIDEWALK CURB RAMPS, AUTHORIZING USE
OF CDBG FUNDS FOR CONTRACTORS, AND GRANTING
THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AUTHORITY TO
SUBMIT A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
(Community Development Director Ken Robertson)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the FY 2019-20 budget resolution which:
1. Approves the FY 2019-2020 CDBG allocation of approximately $71,298;
2. Approves the allocation of approximately $71,298 of Federal CDBG funds in FY
2019-20 for the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) sidewalk ramp project;
3. Authorizes the use of CDBG funds in FY 2019-20 for a construction contractor and a
Contract/Labor Compliance Officer to provide direct project related services, including, but
not limited to, construction management and inspections; and
4. Grants the Public Works Director authority to submit a notice of completion once work
is complete.
1. Resolution Approving FY 2019-20 Budget
2. CIP-33 - 18-691 ADA Improvements - Various Locations
Attachments:
6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
a)REPORT
19-0006
APPROVAL TO IMPLEMENT THE VENDINI ONLINE
TICKETING SERVICE FOR THE COMMUNITY THEATER
Page 7 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
January 8, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
AND 2ND STORY THEATER; AND RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
A PER TICKET SERVICE FEE AND A SETUP FEE FOR ITS
USE BY RENTERS OF THE COMMUNITY THEATER
AND 2ND STORY THEATER FACILITIES
(Community Resources Manager Kelly Orta)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve the implementation of the Vendini online ticketing service for the Community
Theater and 2nd Story Theater; and
2. Approve the resolution establishing a per ticket service fee; and a setup fee for
Vendini's use by renters of the Community Theater and 2nd Story Theater facilities.
1. Vendini Member Services Agreement
2. Resolution 19-xxx Establishing Per Ticket and Set-up Fees
Attachments:
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL
a)REPORT
19-0008
APPOINTMENT OF CITY REPRESENTATIVE
TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST VECTOR AND
VECTOR-BORNE CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD
(City Clerk Elaine Doerfling)
Recommendation:City Clerk recommends that the City Council appoint a Hermosa Beach representative to
the Los Angeles County West Vector and Vector-Borne Control District Board for the
January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020 two-year term.
Trustee Info SheetAttachments:
b)REPORT
19-0028
CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING A
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVE ON THE NEW
KHHR COMMUNITIES NETWORK COMMITTEE - A STANDING
COMMITTEE CREATED BY THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE
TO ADDRESS AIRPORT NOISE IMPACTS
(City Manager Suja Lowenthal)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Appoint a Council representative to serve on the new KHHR Communities Network
Committee; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to sign an official letter of appointment addressed to City
of Hawthorne Interim City Manager, Arnold Shadbehr.
1. City of Hawthorne Resolution No. 8038 and 12-11-18 Staff Report.pdf
2. Link to City of Hawthorne 12-11-18 Meeting Video-Agenda Item No.13
3. Email from Guido Fernandez 12-14-18.pdf
4. Draft City of Hermosa Beach Appointment Letter.docx
Attachments:
8. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items. No discussion or
debate of these requests shall be undertaken; the sole action is whether to schedule the
Page 8 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
January 8, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
item for consideration on a future agenda. No public comment will be taken.
Councilmembers should consider the city's work plan when considering new items.
a)REPORT
19-0007
TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the tentative future agenda items.
Tentative Future Agenda.pdfAttachments:
ADJOURNMENT
Page 9 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
January 8, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
FUTURE MEETINGS AND CITY HOLIDAYS
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS:
January 14, 2019 - Monday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Joint City Council and EPAC Study Session
January 22, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
February 6, 2019 - Wednesday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Study Session
February 12, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
February 26, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
March 6, 2019 - Wednesday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Study Session
March 9, 2019 - Saturday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
9:00 AM - City Council Retreat
March 12, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
March 18, 2019 - Monday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
7:00 PM - Joint Meeting with School Board
March 26, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
April 9, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
April 23, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
April 24, 2019 - Wednesday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - FY 2019-2020 Capital Improvement Program
May 1, 2019 - Wednesday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Study Session
May 14, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
May 22, 2019 - Wednesday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Budget Workshop
May 28, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
June 5, 2019 - Wednesday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Study Session
June 11, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
June 25, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
July 9, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
July 18, 2019 - Thursday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Joint Meeting with All Boards and Commissions
July 23, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
Page 10 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
January 8, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS - CONTINUED:
August 13, 2019 - Tuesday - No Meeting (Dark)
August 27, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
September 4, 2019 - Wednesday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Study Session
September 10, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
September 24, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
October 2, 2019 - Wednesday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Study Session
October 8, 2019 - Tuesday - No Meeting (Re-scheduled to Oct. 10)
October 10, 2019 - Thursday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Closed Session and 7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
October 22, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
November 6, 2019 - Wednesday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Study Session
November 12, 2019 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Closed Session,
7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
November 18, 2019 - Monday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Closed Session and 7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
November 21, 2019 - Thursday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Mayor Rotation
November 26, 2019 - Tuesday - No Meeting (Re-scheduled to Nov. 18)
December 4, 2019 - Wednesday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Study Session
December 10, 2019 - Tuesday - No Meeting (Re-scheduled to Dec. 12)
December 12, 2019 - Thursday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Closed Session and 7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
December 24, 2019 - Tuesday - No Meeting (Dark)
Page 11 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
January 8, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS:
January 14, 2019 - Monday - Adjourned Regular Meeting:
6:00 PM - Joint City Council and EPAC Study Session
January 15, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2019 - Wednesday - 7:00 PM - Public Works Commission Meeting
February 5, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
February 19, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 2019 - Monday - 7:00 PM - Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission Meeting
March 5, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
March 19, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting
March 20, 2019 - Wednesday - 7:00 PM - Public Works Commission Meeting
April 2, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
April 16, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 2019 - Monday - 7:00 PM - Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission Meeting
May 7, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
May 15, 2019 - Wednesday - 7:00 PM - Public Works Commission Meeting
May 21, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting
June 4, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
June 18, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting
July 2, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
July 8, 2019 - Monday - 7:00 PM - Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission Meeting
July 16, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 2019 - Wednesday - 7:00 PM - Public Works Commission Meeting
August 6, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
August 20, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting
September 3, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
September 9, 2019 - Monday - 7:00 PM - Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission Meeting
September 17, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting
September 18, 2019 - Wednesday - 7:00 PM - Public Works Commission Meeting
October 1, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
October 15, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 2019 - Monday - 7:00 PM - Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission Meeting
November 5, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
November 19, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting
November 20, 2019 - Wednesday - 7:00 PM - Public Works Commission Meeting
December 3, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
December 9, 2019 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting
CITY OFFICES CLOSED FRIDAY-SUNDAY AND ON THE FOLLOWING DAYS:
January 21, 2019 - Monday - Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday
February 18, 2019 - Monday - President's Day
May 27, 2019 - Monday - Memorial Day
July 4, 2019 - Thursday - Independence Day
September 2, 2019 - Monday - Labor Day
November 11, 2019 - Monday - Veteran's Day
November 28, 2019 - Thursday, Thanksgiving Day
December 25, 2019 - Wednesday - Christmas Day
January 1, 2020 - Wednesday - New Year's Day (2020)
Page 12 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
19-0011
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
RECOGNIZING MIKE HEDRICK AND HOMAYOUN BEHBOODI
FOR THEIR SERVICE TO THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
19-0024
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
PROCLAMATION RETRO-ACTIVELY RECOGNIZING
NOVEMBER 16, 2018 AS THE DAY OF TOLERANCE
IN HERMOSA BEACH
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
19-0012
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
UPDATES TO THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
AGENDA PREPRATION PROCESS
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
19-0023
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
INFILTRATION PROJECT UPDATE
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
6:00 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION
(LOCATION: Meetings convene in the Council Chambers and move to the Second Floor Conference
Room after Public Comment)
CALL TO ORDER IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS I call to order the January 8th Closed Session Meeting of the City Council.
ROLL CALL Roll call please.
PUBLIC COMMENT Please come forward if you have comments on the closed session agenda.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION IN SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
[After any comments]
We will now close public comment and recess to the 2nd floor conference room.
1. 19-0026 MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session held on December 11, 2018.
2. 19-0027 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: Airspace at 51 Pier Avenue (Loreto Plaza)
City Negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating Party: Pierside Properties, LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease of Airspace
ADJOURNMENT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
7:00 P.M. - REGULAR AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER I call to order the January 8th Regular Meeting of the City Council.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Will _____________ please lead us in the pledge of allegiance?
ROLL CALL Roll call please.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT Mr. City Attorney, will you deliver the closed session report?
ANNOUNCEMENTS Do my colleagues have any announcements?
I’m pleased to announce that on Nov. 29, 2018, the South Bay Cities Council of
Governments presented the City of Hermosa Beach with the 2018 Energy
Efficiency Award for continued excellence in municipal energy savings
achievements.
Metro is currently conducting a countywide NextGen Bus Study and will be
holding 10 public workshops throughout the county from Jan. 8 through Feb. 6,
2019. Participants will be able to share their thoughts on how Metro can improve
the bus system, including bus routes, frequencies, and days and times of
operation. Attendees will receive a free $2 Metro TAP card, while supplies last,
and can enter a raffle to win other prizes. The South Bay workshops will be on
Jan. 17th from 5:30-8:30pm at El Camino College and Jan. 31st from 4-7pm at
Inglewood City Hall. For more information, please visit www.metro.net/Nextgen
Fri, Jan. 11th – Sun, Jan. 13th from 11am-6pm: Enjoy the downtown winter
sidewalk sale and take advantage of special promotions and sales, discounted
items and in-store activities for families throughout downtown Hermosa Beach.
Live music on Saturday and Sunday at Java Man and Stars Antique Market.
Sat, Jan. 19th from 8am-1pm: Free Document Shredding event for Hermosa Beach
residents. The paper shredding will be done onsite at the Community Center
Parking Lot. There is no limit on how much you can bring but please remove all
binder clips.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
Sat, Jan. 19th from 9am-3pm: Free Countywide Household Hazardous and E-
waste roundup will be held at Clark Stadium, located on Valley Drive between 8th
and 11th Streets. Please check the city website for a list of items that will be
accepted.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
a) 19-0011 RECOGNIZING MIKE HEDRICK AND HOMAYOUN BEHBOODI
FOR THEIR SERVICE TO THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
• Deputy City Clerk reads title
• Invite Glen Kau to podium to introduce Mike and Homayoun
• Mayor presents Certificates of Commendation and city tile plaques to
retirees
• Photo Opportunity
b) 19-0024 PROCLAMATION RETRO-ACTIVELY RECOGNIZING
NOVEMBER 16, 2018 AS THE DAY OF TOLERANCE
IN HERMOSA BEACH
• Deputy City Clerk reads title
• Invite Rabbi Yossi Mintz to podium
• Mayor presents Proclamation of Day of Tolerance to Rabbi Yossi Mintz
• Photo Opportunity
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
a) 19-0012 UPDATES TO THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
AGENDA PREPRATION PROCESS
b) 19-0023 INFILTRATION PROJECT UPDATE c) UPDATE ON NORTH SCHOOL FINAL EIR
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Although the City Council values your comments,
the Brown Act generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter
not listed on the posted agenda as a business item.
1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: This is the time for members of
the public to address the City Council on any items within the Council's
jurisdiction not on this agenda, on items on this agenda as to which public
comment will not be taken (Miscellaneous Items and Reports – City Council and
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
Other Matters), or to request the removal of an item from the consent calendar.
Public comments on the agenda items called Miscellaneous Reports and Other
Matters will only be heard at this time. Comments on public hearing items are
heard only during the public hearing. Members of the audience may also speak:
1) during discussion of items removed from the Consent Calendar;
2) during Public Hearings; and,
3) during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters. Comments from the
public are limited to three minutes per speaker. The City Council acknowledges
receipt of the written communications listed below. No action will be taken on matters
raised in written communications. The Council may take action to schedule issues
raised in oral and written communications for a future agenda. Citizens with comments
regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those
comments to the City Manager.
a) 19-0030 SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Attachments: 1. SUPPLEMENTAL Written Comunication from Chris Miller regarding North School EIR
(added 1-7-19 at 5pm)
2. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters will be acted
upon by one vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council member
removes an item from the Consent Calendar. Items removed will be considered
under Agenda Item 4, with public comment permitted at that time.
a) REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
19-0004 (Deputy City Clerk Linda Abbott)
Attachments: 1. 072516 draft min.docx 2. 082716 Retreat draft minutes.docx 3. 120417 draft.docx 4. 120717 draft.docx 5. 042518 Budget Workshop draft.docx
b) REPORT CHECK REGISTERS
19-0013 (Finance Director Viki Copeland)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council ratify the following check registers.
Attachments: 1. 12-06-18 2. 12-13-18
c) REPORT REVENUE REPORT, EXPENDITURE REPORT,
19-0003 AND CIP REPORT BY PROJECT FOR NOVEMBER 2018
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
(Finance Director Viki Copeland)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the November 2018 Financial
Reports.
Attachments: 1. Nov 2018 Revenue Report 2. Nov 2018 Expenditure Report
3. CIP Report by Project- Nov 2018
d) REPORT CITY TREASURER’S REPORT AND CASH BALANCE REPORT
19-0002 (City Treasurer Karen Nowicki)
Recommendation:City Treasurer recommends that the City Council receive and file the November 2018
City
Treasurer's Report and Cash Balance Report.
Attachments: 1. November 2018 Treasurer's Report 2. November 2018 Cash Balance Report
e) REPORT RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT CLAIM
19-0001 (Human Resources Manager Vanessa Godinez)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council reject the following claim and refer it to the
City's
Liability Claims Administrator.
Claimant: Brian Anstey
Date of Loss: June 26, 2018
Date Filed: November 19, 2018
Allegation: Police officers from an outside agency were chasing a suspect. The
suspect
damaged the claimant's fence while trying to escape.
Attachments: Brian Anstey claim_date of loss 6-26-18
3. CONSENT ORDINANCES
a) REPORT ORDINANCE NO. 18-1389 - “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
19-0005 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 5.78 TO THE
HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (TOBACCO RETAILERS)
REQUIRING LICENSURE OF TOBACCO RETAILERS AND LIMITING
SALE OF ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICES AND FLAVORED
TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO REDUCE THE ILLEGAL SALE OF
TOBACCO TO YOUTH AND AMENDING SECTION 1.10.040 TO
MAKE VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 5.78 SUBJECT TO
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY PROCEDURES”
(City Clerk Elaine Doerfling)
Recommendation:The City Clerk recommends that the City Council waive full reading and adopt by title
Ordinance No. 18-1389.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
Attachments: 18-1389 Tobacco Retailer Licensure-Limit Sales.docx
4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M.
a) REPORT CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AND REGULATE
19-0015 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CORRESPONDING DESIGN STANDARDS,
AND UPDATE ON AT&T’S PROPOSAL FOR MULTIPLE
INSTALLATIONS OF SMALLER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES TO PROVIDE REPLACEMENT COVERAGE TO
EXISTING SITES LOCATED AT 20TH AND 29TH COURT
(Continued from meeting of September 25, 2018)
(Assistant City Attorney Lauren Langer,
Community Development Director Ken Robertson,
and Public Works Director Glen Kau)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance (Exhibit A) to amend Municipal
Code,
Title 12 to regulate wireless telecommunication facilities in the public right of way, and
determine the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution to approve the corresponding Design Standards for
wireless telecommunication facilities in the public right of way;
3. Direct staff to bring back a master license agreement with a standard lease rate for
use of any public property for these facilities; and
4. Direct Public Works staff to bring back an amendment to the master fee schedule to
establish application fees and penalty fees.
Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance (Exhibit A) 2. Draft Design Standards (Exhibit B) 3. Photos of Sample Wireless Facility Designs- Prohibited and Allowed
4. Link to November 28, 2017, City Council staff report and attachments
(Page 8 of Agenda, Municipal Matters Item c)
5. Link to January 26, 2016, City Council staff report and attachments
(Page 11 of Agenda, Municipal Matters Item d)
6. Link to October 20, 2015, Planning Commission staff report and
attachments (Section II Public Hearing Item 6)
7. Link to July 21, 2015, Planning Commission staff report and
attachments (Section II Public Hearing Item 6)
8. Link to January 27, 2015, City Council staff report
b) REPORT ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
19-0009 THE ALLOCATION OF APPROXIMATELY $71,298 OF
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDS FOR SIDEWALK CURB RAMPS, AUTHORIZING USE
OF CDBG FUNDS FOR CONTRACTORS, AND GRANTING
THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AUTHORITY TO
SUBMIT A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
(Community Development Director Ken Robertson)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the FY 2019-20 budget resolution which:
1. Approves the FY 2019-2020 CDBG allocation of approximately $71,298;
2. Approves the allocation of approximately $71,298 of Federal CDBG funds in FY
2019-20 for the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) sidewalk ramp project;
3. Authorizes the use of CDBG funds in FY 2019-20 for a construction contractor and a
Contract/Labor Compliance Officer to provide direct project related services, including,
but
not limited to, construction management and inspections; and
4. Grants the Public Works Director authority to submit a notice of completion once work
is complete.
Attachments: 1. Resolution Approving FY 2019-20 Budget 2. CIP-33 - 18-691 ADA Improvements - Various Locations
REPORT ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
19-0009 THE ALLOCATION OF APPROXIMATELY $71,298 OF
FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDS FOR SIDEWALK CURB RAMPS, AUTHORIZING USE
OF CDBG FUNDS FOR CONTRACTORS, AND GRANTING
THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AUTHORITY TO
SUBMIT A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
(Community Development Director Ken Robertson)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the FY 2019-20 budget resolution which:
1. Approves the FY 2019-2020 CDBG allocation of approximately $71,298;
2. Approves the allocation of approximately $71,298 of Federal CDBG funds in FY
2019-20 for the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) sidewalk ramp project;
3. Authorizes the use of CDBG funds in FY 2019-20 for a construction contractor and a
Contract/Labor Compliance Officer to provide direct project related services, including,
but
not limited to, construction management and inspections; and
4. Grants the Public Works Director authority to submit a notice of completion once work
is complete.
Attachments: 1. Resolution Approving FY 2019-20 Budget 2. CIP-33 - 18-691 ADA Improvements - Various Locations
6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
a) REPORT APPROVAL TO IMPLEMENT THE VENDINI ONLINE
19-0006 TICKETING SERVICE FOR THE COMMUNITY THEATER
AND 2ND STORY THEATER; AND RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
A PER TICKET SERVICE FEE AND A SETUP FEE FOR ITS
USE BY RENTERS OF THE COMMUNITY THEATER
AND 2ND STORY THEATER FACILITIES
(Community Resources Manager Kelly Orta)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve the implementation of the Vendini online ticketing service for the Community
Theater and 2nd Story Theater; and
2. Approve the resolution establishing a per ticket service fee; and a setup fee for
Vendini's use by renters of the Community Theater and 2nd Story Theater facilities.
Attachments: 1. Vendini Member Services Agreement 2. Resolution 19-xxx Establishing Per Ticket and Set-up Fees
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS - CITY
COUNCIL
a) REPORT APPOINTMENT OF CITY REPRESENTATIVE
19-0008 TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST VECTOR AND
VECTOR-BORNE CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD
(City Clerk Elaine Doerfling)
Recommendation:City Clerk recommends that the City Council appoint a Hermosa Beach representative
to
the Los Angeles County West Vector and Vector-Borne Control District Board for the
January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020 two-year term.
Attachments: Trustee Info Sheet
b) REPORT CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING A
19-0028 CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVE ON THE NEW
KHHR COMMUNITIES NETWORK COMMITTEE - A STANDING
COMMITTEE CREATED BY THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE
TO ADDRESS AIRPORT NOISE IMPACTS
(City Manager Suja Lowenthal)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Appoint a Council representative to serve on the new KHHR Communities Network
Committee; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to sign an official letter of appointment addressed to City
of Hawthorne Interim City Manager, Arnold Shadbehr.
Attachments: 1. City of Hawthorne Resolution No. 8038 and 12-11-18 Staff Report.pdf Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
3. Email from Guido Fernandez 12-14-18.pdf 4. Draft City of Hermosa Beach Appointment Letter.docx
8. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items. No discussion or
debate of these requests shall be undertaken; the sole action is whether to schedule the
item for consideration on a future agenda. No public comment will be taken.
Councilmembers should consider the city's work plan when considering new items.
a) REPORT TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
19-0007
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the tentative future agenda
items.
Attachments: Tentative Future Agenda.pdf
ADJOURNMENT Tonight’s meeting adjourns to Monday, January 14th at 6pm in the Council
Chambers for a joint City Council and EPAC Study Session.
We also adjourn tonight’s meeting in memory of Naoma Valdes [refer to
certificate of sympathy].
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
6:00 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION
(LOCATION: Meetings convene in the Council Chambers and move to the Second Floor Conference
Room after Public Comment)
CALL TO ORDER IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS I call to order the January 8th Closed Session Meeting of the City Council.
ROLL CALL Roll call please.
PUBLIC COMMENT Please come forward if you have comments on the closed session agenda.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION IN SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
[After any comments]
We will now close public comment and recess to the 2nd floor conference room.
1. 19-0026 MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session held on December 11, 2018.
2. 19-0027 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: Airspace at 51 Pier Avenue (Loreto Plaza)
City Negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating Party: Pierside Properties, LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease of Airspace
ADJOURNMENT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
7:00 P.M. - REGULAR AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER I call to order the January 8th Regular Meeting of the City Council.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Will _____________ please lead us in the pledge of allegiance?
ROLL CALL Roll call please.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT Mr. City Attorney, will you deliver the closed session report?
ANNOUNCEMENTS Do my colleagues have any announcements?
I’m pleased to announce that on Nov. 29, 2018, the South Bay Cities Council of
Governments presented the City of Hermosa Beach with the 2018 Energy
Efficiency Award for continued excellence in municipal energy savings
achievements.
Metro is currently conducting a countywide NextGen Bus Study and will be
holding 10 public workshops throughout the county from Jan. 8 through Feb. 6,
2019. Participants will be able to share their thoughts on how Metro can improve
the bus system, including bus routes, frequencies, and days and times of
operation. Attendees will receive a free $2 Metro TAP card, while supplies last,
and can enter a raffle to win other prizes. The South Bay workshops will be on
Jan. 17th from 5:30-8:30pm at El Camino College and Jan. 31st from 4-7pm at
Inglewood City Hall. For more information, please visit www.metro.net/Nextgen
Fri, Jan. 11th – Sun, Jan. 13th from 11am-6pm: Enjoy the downtown winter
sidewalk sale and take advantage of special promotions and sales, discounted
items and in-store activities for families throughout downtown Hermosa Beach.
Live music on Saturday and Sunday at Java Man and Stars Antique Market.
Sat, Jan. 19th from 8am-1pm: Free Document Shredding event for Hermosa Beach
residents. The paper shredding will be done onsite at the Community Center
Parking Lot. There is no limit on how much you can bring but please remove all
binder clips.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
Sat, Jan. 19th from 9am-3pm: Free Countywide Household Hazardous and E-
waste roundup will be held at Clark Stadium, located on Valley Drive between 8th
and 11th Streets. Please check the city website for a list of items that will be
accepted.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
a) 19-0011 RECOGNIZING MIKE HEDRICK AND HOMAYOUN BEHBOODI
FOR THEIR SERVICE TO THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
• Deputy City Clerk reads title
• Invite Glen Kau to podium to introduce Mike and Homayoun
• Mayor presents Certificates of Commendation and city tile plaques to
retirees
• Photo Opportunity
b) 19-0024 PROCLAMATION RETRO-ACTIVELY RECOGNIZING
NOVEMBER 16, 2018 AS THE DAY OF TOLERANCE
IN HERMOSA BEACH
• Deputy City Clerk reads title
• Invite Rabbi Yossi Mintz to podium
• Mayor presents Proclamation of Day of Tolerance to Rabbi Yossi Mintz
• Photo Opportunity
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
a) 19-0012 UPDATES TO THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
AGENDA PREPRATION PROCESS
b) 19-0023 INFILTRATION PROJECT UPDATE c) UPDATE ON NORTH SCHOOL FINAL EIR
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Although the City Council values your comments,
the Brown Act generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter
not listed on the posted agenda as a business item.
1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: This is the time for members of
the public to address the City Council on any items within the Council's
jurisdiction not on this agenda, on items on this agenda as to which public
comment will not be taken (Miscellaneous Items and Reports – City Council and
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
Other Matters), or to request the removal of an item from the consent calendar.
Public comments on the agenda items called Miscellaneous Reports and Other
Matters will only be heard at this time. Comments on public hearing items are
heard only during the public hearing. Members of the audience may also speak:
1) during discussion of items removed from the Consent Calendar;
2) during Public Hearings; and,
3) during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters. Comments from the
public are limited to three minutes per speaker. The City Council acknowledges
receipt of the written communications listed below. No action will be taken on matters
raised in written communications. The Council may take action to schedule issues
raised in oral and written communications for a future agenda. Citizens with comments
regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those
comments to the City Manager.
a) 19-0030 SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Attachments: 1. SUPPLEMENTAL Written Comunication from Chris Miller regarding North School EIR
(added 1-7-19 at 5pm)
2. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters will be acted
upon by one vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council member
removes an item from the Consent Calendar. Items removed will be considered
under Agenda Item 4, with public comment permitted at that time.
a) REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
19-0004 (Deputy City Clerk Linda Abbott)
Attachments: 1. 072516 draft min.docx
2. 082716 Retreat draft minutes.docx
3. 120417 draft.docx
4. 120717 draft.docx
5. 042518 Budget Workshop draft.docx
b) REPORT CHECK REGISTERS
19-0013 (Finance Director Viki Copeland)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council ratify the following check registers.
Attachments: 1. 12-06-18
2. 12-13-18
c) REPORT REVENUE REPORT, EXPENDITURE REPORT,
19-0003 AND CIP REPORT BY PROJECT FOR NOVEMBER 2018
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
(Finance Director Viki Copeland)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the November 2018 Financial
Reports.
Attachments: 1. Nov 2018 Revenue Report
2. Nov 2018 Expenditure Report
3. CIP Report by Project- Nov 2018
d) REPORT CITY TREASURER’S REPORT AND CASH BALANCE REPORT
19-0002 (City Treasurer Karen Nowicki)
Recommendation:City Treasurer recommends that the City Council receive and file the November 2018
City
Treasurer's Report and Cash Balance Report.
Attachments: 1. November 2018 Treasurer's Report
2. November 2018 Cash Balance Report
e) REPORT RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT CLAIM
19-0001 (Human Resources Manager Vanessa Godinez)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council reject the following claim and refer it to the
City's
Liability Claims Administrator.
Claimant: Brian Anstey
Date of Loss: June 26, 2018
Date Filed: November 19, 2018
Allegation: Police officers from an outside agency were chasing a suspect. The
suspect
damaged the claimant's fence while trying to escape.
Attachments: Brian Anstey claim_date of loss 6-26-18
3. CONSENT ORDINANCES
a) REPORT ORDINANCE NO. 18-1389 - “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
19-0005 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 5.78 TO THE
HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (TOBACCO RETAILERS)
REQUIRING LICENSURE OF TOBACCO RETAILERS AND LIMITING
SALE OF ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICES AND FLAVORED
TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO REDUCE THE ILLEGAL SALE OF
TOBACCO TO YOUTH AND AMENDING SECTION 1.10.040 TO
MAKE VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 5.78 SUBJECT TO
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY PROCEDURES”
(City Clerk Elaine Doerfling)
Recommendation:The City Clerk recommends that the City Council waive full reading and adopt by title
Ordinance No. 18-1389.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
Attachments: 18-1389 Tobacco Retailer Licensure-Limit Sales.docx
4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M.
a) REPORT CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AND REGULATE
19-0015 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CORRESPONDING DESIGN STANDARDS,
AND UPDATE ON AT&T’S PROPOSAL FOR MULTIPLE
INSTALLATIONS OF SMALLER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES TO PROVIDE REPLACEMENT COVERAGE TO
EXISTING SITES LOCATED AT 20TH AND 29TH COURT
(Continued from meeting of September 25, 2018)
(Assistant City Attorney Lauren Langer,
Community Development Director Ken Robertson,
and Public Works Director Glen Kau)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance (Exhibit A) to amend Municipal
Code,
Title 12 to regulate wireless telecommunication facilities in the public right of way, and
determine the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution to approve the corresponding Design Standards for
wireless telecommunication facilities in the public right of way;
3. Direct staff to bring back a master license agreement with a standard lease rate for
use of any public property for these facilities; and
4. Direct Public Works staff to bring back an amendment to the master fee schedule to
establish application fees and penalty fees.
Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance (Exhibit A)
2. Draft Design Standards (Exhibit B)
3. Photos of Sample Wireless Facility Designs- Prohibited and Allowed
4. Link to November 28, 2017, City Council staff report and attachments
(Page 8 of Agenda, Municipal Matters Item c)
5. Link to January 26, 2016, City Council staff report and attachments
(Page 11 of Agenda, Municipal Matters Item d)
6. Link to October 20, 2015, Planning Commission staff report and
attachments (Section II Public Hearing Item 6)
7. Link to July 21, 2015, Planning Commission staff report and
attachments (Section II Public Hearing Item 6)
8. Link to January 27, 2015, City Council staff report
b) REPORT ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
19-0009 THE ALLOCATION OF APPROXIMATELY $71,298 OF
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDS FOR SIDEWALK CURB RAMPS, AUTHORIZING USE
OF CDBG FUNDS FOR CONTRACTORS, AND GRANTING
THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AUTHORITY TO
SUBMIT A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
(Community Development Director Ken Robertson)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the FY 2019-20 budget resolution which:
1. Approves the FY 2019-2020 CDBG allocation of approximately $71,298;
2. Approves the allocation of approximately $71,298 of Federal CDBG funds in FY
2019-20 for the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) sidewalk ramp project;
3. Authorizes the use of CDBG funds in FY 2019-20 for a construction contractor and a
Contract/Labor Compliance Officer to provide direct project related services, including,
but
not limited to, construction management and inspections; and
4. Grants the Public Works Director authority to submit a notice of completion once work
is complete.
Attachments: 1. Resolution Approving FY 2019-20 Budget
2. CIP-33 - 18-691 ADA Improvements - Various Locations
REPORT ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
19-0009 THE ALLOCATION OF APPROXIMATELY $71,298 OF
FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDS FOR SIDEWALK CURB RAMPS, AUTHORIZING USE
OF CDBG FUNDS FOR CONTRACTORS, AND GRANTING
THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AUTHORITY TO
SUBMIT A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
(Community Development Director Ken Robertson)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the FY 2019-20 budget resolution which:
1. Approves the FY 2019-2020 CDBG allocation of approximately $71,298;
2. Approves the allocation of approximately $71,298 of Federal CDBG funds in FY
2019-20 for the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) sidewalk ramp project;
3. Authorizes the use of CDBG funds in FY 2019-20 for a construction contractor and a
Contract/Labor Compliance Officer to provide direct project related services, including,
but
not limited to, construction management and inspections; and
4. Grants the Public Works Director authority to submit a notice of completion once work
is complete.
Attachments: 1. Resolution Approving FY 2019-20 Budget
2. CIP-33 - 18-691 ADA Improvements - Various Locations
6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
a) REPORT APPROVAL TO IMPLEMENT THE VENDINI ONLINE
19-0006 TICKETING SERVICE FOR THE COMMUNITY THEATER
AND 2ND STORY THEATER; AND RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
A PER TICKET SERVICE FEE AND A SETUP FEE FOR ITS
USE BY RENTERS OF THE COMMUNITY THEATER
AND 2ND STORY THEATER FACILITIES
(Community Resources Manager Kelly Orta)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve the implementation of the Vendini online ticketing service for the Community
Theater and 2nd Story Theater; and
2. Approve the resolution establishing a per ticket service fee; and a setup fee for
Vendini's use by renters of the Community Theater and 2nd Story Theater facilities.
Attachments: 1. Vendini Member Services Agreement
2. Resolution 19-xxx Establishing Per Ticket and Set-up Fees
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS - CITY
COUNCIL
a) REPORT APPOINTMENT OF CITY REPRESENTATIVE
19-0008 TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST VECTOR AND
VECTOR-BORNE CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD
(City Clerk Elaine Doerfling)
Recommendation:City Clerk recommends that the City Council appoint a Hermosa Beach representative
to
the Los Angeles County West Vector and Vector-Borne Control District Board for the
January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020 two-year term.
Attachments: Trustee Info Sheet
b) REPORT CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING A
19-0028 CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVE ON THE NEW
KHHR COMMUNITIES NETWORK COMMITTEE - A STANDING
COMMITTEE CREATED BY THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE
TO ADDRESS AIRPORT NOISE IMPACTS
(City Manager Suja Lowenthal)
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Appoint a Council representative to serve on the new KHHR Communities Network
Committee; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to sign an official letter of appointment addressed to City
of Hawthorne Interim City Manager, Arnold Shadbehr.
Attachments: 1. City of Hawthorne Resolution No. 8038 and 12-11-18 Staff Report.pdf
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
3. Email from Guido Fernandez 12-14-18.pdf
4. Draft City of Hermosa Beach Appointment Letter.docx
8. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda January 8, 2019
Page 2
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019
Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items. No discussion or
debate of these requests shall be undertaken; the sole action is whether to schedule the
item for consideration on a future agenda. No public comment will be taken.
Councilmembers should consider the city's work plan when considering new items.
a) REPORT TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
19-0007
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the tentative future agenda
items.
Attachments: Tentative Future Agenda.pdf
ADJOURNMENT
Tonight’s meeting adjourns to Monday, January 14th at 6pm in the Council
Chambers for a joint City Council and EPAC Study Session.
We also adjourn tonight’s meeting in memory of Naoma Valdes [refer to
certificate of sympathy].
From: Chris Miller <chrismillerphotography4@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 9:26 AM
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@hermosabch.org>
Subject: Concerns about the Final EIR -proposed North School
January 7, 2019
Elaine Doerfling,
Hermosa Beach City Clerk
Here we go again, the Hermosa Beach City School District released the final EIR for the
proposed North School site just days after Christma s. With all public review supposed to
be achieved by January 7, 2019..........Smack in the middle of the holidays. With little or
no time to review, incomplete documents posted on the District site and the Library; the
District is racing to certify the FEIR and release the RFP for Contractors at their next
regular school board meeting in 3 days time on January 9, 2019.
What is clear to me is that District staff has no interest in hearing the concerns of
Hermosa Beach residents and/or city staff as to the impact this project will have on the
entire City and the children they say they are "helping with a new school".
This is not how it's done in Hermosa Beach! Transparency, facts and public input has
always been the foundation that creates workability in t his small one square mile city. At
least that is how it's been in the past!
Hermosa Beach School District Board Resolution #06:18/19 Exhibit A (scheduled
for adoption on January 9, 2019)
CEQA Findings of Facts: Areas of concern:
1.The fact that there is currently only 290 3rd-4th grade students enrolled in Hermosa
Beach School District and this school is being built for 510 students! What exactly is the
purpose of building a school of this size on property that is half the size (2.4 acres) all
other school properties(4.2) in the city of Hermosa Beach? How will this not over crowd
this school?
(Page 1 of 80, last paragraph)
2. The Draft EIR was available for public comment from Thanksgiving 2017 through
New Year’s Day 2018. This was the busiest time for most people with family and friends
and certainly seriously impacted their ability to review.
(Page 2 of 80, B. Environmental Review Process)
3.The final EIR (FEIR) was supposed to be made available December 28, 2018 until
January 7, 2019, for review. It should be noted that at the time of writing this letter; the
1/8/19 AGENDA, ITEM 1 - WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
SUPPLEMENTAL EMAIL AND ATTACHMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY CHRIS MILLER
ON 1/7/19 AT 9:26 A.M.
complete FEIR is still not posted on the District website ..................only the FEIR
(containing only responses to comments made on the DEIR) was posted on the District
website and at the Library on December 28, 2018. When the missing DEIR (Vols 1 &
2) and Recirculated DEIR that the FEIR continuously references was brought to
Superintendent Escalante's attention she begrudgingly posted Volume 1 of the DEIR on
the District website on January 4, 2019. Volume 2 and the Recirculated DEIR is still not
posted as of January 6 making it impossible to review the FEIR. It should also be noted
that the only document that was available at the Library on Friday January 4 for review
was the FEIR which only contains responses to comments received on DEIR in
2017. Consequently; it was impossible to review the FEIR. Where is the transparency
due the residents of Hermosa Beach?
(Page 2 of 80 , Environmental Review Process)
4. Scenic views that will be lost due to the increased height of the new proposed school
were not studied from areas that will be impacted for example, Hermosa View Drive, El
Oeste Drive and Gould Terrace who currently have views (including public views) that
will be effected by this project.
(Page 4 of 80, Scenic Vistas)
5. Residents on the North side of 26th street will be impacted by the new multi purpose
building forever; losing property value as they will now look onto a two story 34,000
square foot building which will block light and natural fresh air currents from/to their
homes forever.
According to FEIR..........."DEIR Section 5.1 analyzes visual impacts to scenic vistas and
corridors, determines if the project would degrade the character and quality of the site
and surrounding area, and analyzes if the project would create glare and light that could
affect views in the area." What the DEIR DOES NOT analyze is the impact to air flow
currents and availability of natural light that the "Replacement of the three 1-story
buildings on 25th Street with one 2-story, 32-foot tall building" will have on the existing
single family residences on the north and southside of this new 2 -story building?
(Page 6 of 80, "Scenic Corridors Impact 5.1-2" bottom of the page)
6. "Since the project site is developed and does not contain any sensitive species or
habitat, its proposed redevelopment would not contribute to potential cumulative effects
to the region’s biological resources".
What the DEIR failed to acknowledge is that the proposed North School will destroy and
pave over the last open space sand dune in the city of Hermosa Beach.
(Page 11 of 80, Biological Resources, Impact 5.3-2-5.3-4.)
7. The proposed 1,250 new car trips into this neighborhood on small residential streets
may create dangerous conditions for children attempting to commute to school .
(Page 29,10 Impact 5/2-2)
8. "The school’s designated pedestrian loading is proposed curbside fronting 25th
Street". No on-site drop off for students attending North School. All children will be
dropped off on Myrtle Avenue or on 25th Street .
(Page 32 of 80, Daily Operations)
9. "These types of events may require additional law enforcement, and similar to
existing conditions – when needed for larger events – the District will coordinate with
and pay for HBPD staff to provide security services".
Lack of additional parking for special events will result in parking overflow in the
neighborhood requiring additional law enforcement provide security.
(Page 32 of 80, Special events)
10.Traffic studies were based on faulty information (eg traffic counts taken on a Sunday
by unnamed/unqualified personnel).
( Page 33 of 80, Projected-Generated Traffic) (see attached letter)
11. Existing year (2017) two years out of date.
(Page 34 of 80)
12. Construction Trips, 55 per day (2,000 total: "a conservative estimate" that will use
Morningside Drive as site access. "Construction staging would be in the eastern portion
of the project site, with direct access from the driveway at 26th Street and Morningside
Drive. The main construction entry point would be via the driveway on 26th Street at
Morningside Drive. Based on the City’s designated truck routes, including Pacific Coast
Highway and Artesia Avenue (which is the continuation of Gould Avenue east of PCH),
most construction vehicles would access the project site from the intersection at
Morningside Drive and Gould/27th Avenue."
Yet in the FEIR (Page 2-117 & 118) "District Staff determined on-site loading/off-loading
of children was not an option because of:
• Tight turning-circle at the egress on 26th Street, due to the street’s narrow width.
• Increased queueing at the ingress driveway on 25th Street due to potential
conflicts with vehicles accessing parking stalls, accessing the loading area, as well
as caused by vehicles having difficulties exiting on 26th Street.
• Increased queueing on 25th Street, near the driveway, that might disrupt traffic
flow on 25th Street.
• Increased traffic-pedestrian conflicts for pedestrians coming from west of the
school and crossing the busy school driveway on 25th Street.
(page 35, Construction page 53, Noise)
13. Many streets leading to the North School site do not have sidewalks children will be
forced into the street to get to school.
(page 36, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities)
14. There is an oral report from longtime and current Hermosa resident Bill Schneider
who found Gabrieleno/Tongva tribe artifacts i.e. pottery and arrow heads in the area of
North School and Valley Park.
(page 38 of 80, Tribal Cultural Resources, Impact 5.13-1 and page 50 of 80, Cultural
Resources)
15. Mitigation measures regarding the increased traffic to the new school are not under
the purview of the District. Who is responsible for the mitigation’s planned by the district
for the city of Hermosa Beach?
(page 58, transportation and Traffic Impact 5.12-1b)
16. Peak analysis traffic counts at intersections for example, at Valley Drive/Gould
Avenue were done before the Skechers and Strand & Pier projects were approved. Also
it is reported that the traffic studies were conducted on Sunday. (see attached)
(page 59, Intersections)
17. Request to widen intersection, one of the mitigating options with a traffic light would
cost the city over $500,000.
(page 60, Traffic Signalization Mitigating Option)
18. The peak traffic impacts the intersection of Valley/Gould will remain significant and
avoidable. Especially since many of the traffic counts were done on a Sunday. How can
these number she used for this project. See attached pages .
(page 61, Traffic Control officers Mitigating Option)
19. "Proposed changes to the parking in the North School neighborhood are all on
city/public streets. With recommendations by the district to have the city of Hermosa
Beach consider restricting 26 parking spaces with an additional 17 spaces to be
designated passenger loading only. For a total of 43 residential parking places. "
Where will these residents park after these changes are made? Are the residents aware
of this as a part of this proposed school plan by the district to change public parking in
their neighborhood?
(Page 64 of 80, Modified Parking Restriction Mitigating Option)
20. "The widths of the streets near the project site are narrow and cannot readily
accommodate both directions of traffic flow, particularly when vehicles are parked on
both sides of the street. Vehicular circulation to and from the school site would be
constrained during peak arrival and departure times at the beginning and ending of
each school session as parents drop off and pick up students. The narrow streets would
be an inconvenience for motorists and surrounding residences and would result in
reduced vehicle speeds. Field observations made by the traffic engineer indicate that
there are sufficient pull-out opportunities for vehicles traveling in opposite directions to
pass when one of the drivers pulls over to an open curb (where no vehicles are parked)
or a driveway to allow oncoming vehicles to pass. Due to site constraints, including
narrow roadways and an awkwardly shaped property, the District has designed the
school’s main passenger loading zone on 25th Street. "
No on site drop off for young students.
(Page 67 of 80, Operation: Narrow street Widths)
21. Pages 68-69 are a large red flag. Parents will not be comfortable allowing their 7-8
year old children to ride bicycles to and from North school. The majority of these
mitigation measures depend on the City of Hermosa Beach agreeing and paying for all
of the districts requests. Changes in parking, converting streets to one-way, creating
signage and in the end students will be dropped off on these same streets.
22. There has been no response to the request by the city manager of Hermosa Beach
to create an onsite drop off for these young children. In fact it appears the EIR
Consultant has merely dismissed this request because "District staff do not feel it will
work".
(page 71, Passenger loading)
Pages 72-76 are all mitigation measures that the district plans to "work on some time in
the future with City staff".
The City of Hermosa Beach is liable for the safety of children arriving to and from school
property until a student crosses onto school property when their safety becomes the
district’s responsibility. Having ensured an onsite parking lot for 41 District staff cars to
accommodate teachers and staff, while dictating that the city restrict or eliminate
onstreet parking for 43 residents vehicles; it appears that the district has no intention of
shouldering any of the responsibility for the safety of its own student population or the
parking needs of their neighbors.
In its current design there is no on site drop off for its own students. CONCERN FOR
THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN SHOULD BE EVERYONE's NUMBER ONE
PRIORITY ESPECIALLY THE SHOOL DISTRICT. If the District's Architect for this
proposed North School project cannot find a way to ensure onsite drop-off (as has been
requested by both residents and the city of Hermosa Beach on numerous occasions)
what chance will there ever be? Before the District races to certify this FEIR..............pay
attention and heed the wise advice given by our current City Manager when she
pleaded that all District proposed traffic mitigation measures should be addressed in
meetings with residents BEFORE the EIR is certified.
All liability with respect to the safety of North School children as they attempt to reach
the school grounds will be on the City of Hermosa Beach if this project is allowed to go
forward without changes to the current plan. The district is planning on certifying North
School FEIR and circulating the RFP for Contractors on Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at
7pm.
Who can parents sue in the future when God forbid a child is injured or killed, AALR
(who originally contracted with Placeworks/Richard Garland) to prepare the North
School EIR or the School District's new Attorney "The Terry Tao Firm" who is named as
Certificate Holder on Placework's Liability Insurance Certificate? After 27 years Mr Tao
has decided to leave AALRR (the firm he was a Partner in) a month before an EIR that
he spearheaded with AALRR for the largest project (paid for with residents tax dollars)
in the history of Hermosa Beach is about to be certified by Hermosa Beach School
District?!?!. I really want to know who will be held responsible for this North School
EIR.............AALRR or Mr Tao who's new office address is a UPS store in La Habra?
Too many unanswered questions and areas of concern to warrant going forward with
this faulty EIR!
And to think, all this could have been avoided if the school district and the City of
Hermosa Beach had honored the MOU (Exhibit B of the School Board Resolution of
Intent to Sell PAS adopted by the Schood Board in 1977) which required the reopening
of Pier Avenue as a school, when enrollment increased to 1,266 as it did in 2010. Tom
Bakaly (ex-City Manager) and elected officials of Hermosa Beach who should represent
all the residents could not work together to find a solution to share the facilities a
promise made to the residents but not upheld by the current council or school board.
This decision will cost Hermosa Beach tax payers $130 million dollars over the life of
the current school bond.
One can only imagine how these millions of dollars could be spent to build/repair our
joint use facilities an idea that is encouraged by the State of California and the CDE.
Pier Avenue School or currently known as the Community Center on can envision a
new city library being built with these monies. Upgrades to the theater, gymnasium and
other facilities shared with the community and the students of Hermosa Beach. There
are also matching funds available from the state when joint use is a factor.
But, the biggest cost of all will be if one student does not arrive to North School or home
one day because of the failed "traffic mitigation measures" proposed for this school
prepared without acknowledging the problems before the EIR is certified. To build a
school that is which is far too big 200 students than enrolled in the city in a small
residential neighborhood without adequate streets for access. All built on a foundation
of little or no integrity by the current Hermosa Beach City school district .
Sincerely,
Chris Miller
Attached:
Resolution_061819_Exhibit A
Letter from Hermosa Beach City manager to Hermosa Beach School district with
highlights of concerns not addressed
Letter from Miyo Prassas
Page 1 of 80
Resolution #06:18/19 Exhibit A
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
REGARDING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
NORTH SCHOOL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2017021031
I. BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a number of written findings be
made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (EIR)
prior to approval of the project, pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and
Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. This document provides the findings required by
CEQA and adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Hermosa Beach City School District (District)
in Resolution No. 06:18/19.
A. Project Summary
Project Location
The project is at 417 25th Street in Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County, California. The property is
known as the North School site.
Project Description
The proposed project is the reconstruction of the North School site for its reuse as a public school.
The project entails demolition and removal of existing structures and vegetation onsite, extending the
development footprint eastward over a vegetated slope, and constructing new school facilities. The
proposed improvements would be funded by Measure S, which was approved by the District’s
constituents in June 2016.
The proposed improvements include construction of a two-story classroom and administration
building (main building), multipurpose building, loading and parking areas, play areas, and associated
school improvements. The school would have a maximum enrollment capacity of 510 students. An
asphalt playground would be developed between the two buildings, and a natural turf field would be
installed in the eastern portion of the site; the field would be supported above the grade of the
hillside by a retaining wall. A surface parking lot with 41 stalls would be developed in the western
portion of the site, and vehicular access to the site would be provided from 25th and 26th Streets.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 80
The proposed school would accommodate the District’s third- and fourth-grade students. Hermosa
View Elementary School program would shift from grades K-3 to K-2. Hermosa Valley School
would shift from grades 4-8 to 5-8.
B. Environmental Review Process
In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, the District conducted an extensive
environmental review of the proposed project.
▪ The District determined that an EIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a
Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on February 10, 2017. The public review period
extended from February 10, 2017 to March 13, 2017.
▪ The District prepared a DEIR, which was made available for a 45-day public review period
beginning November 13, 2017, and ending January 2, 2018.
▪ In accordance with Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, the District recirculated the DEIR
because significant new information was added to the analysis after the first DEIR public review
period. The recirculated DEIR was made available for a 45-day pubic review period beginning
August 3, 2018, to September 17, 2018.
▪ The District prepared a Final EIR (FEIR), including the Responses to Comments to the DEIR,
which contain comments on the original and recirculated DEIR, responses to those comments,
and revisions to the DEIR made available on December 27, 2018.
C. Record Of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project
consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
▪ The NOP and all other public notices issued by the District in conjunction with the proposed
project
▪ The DEIR for the proposed project
▪ The recirculated DEIR for the proposed project
▪ The FEIR for the proposed project
▪ The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the EIR
▪ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review
comment period on the DEIR and the recirculated DEIR
▪ All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the
public review comment period on the DEIR and the recirculated DEIR
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 80
▪ All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the
proposed project and comments received after the close of the comment period and responses
thereto
▪ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
▪ All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and
FEIR
▪ The Resolutions adopted by the District in connection with the proposed project, and all
exhibits and documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after
the close of the comment period and responses thereto
▪ Matters of common knowledge to the District, including but not limited to federal, state, and
local laws and regulations
▪ Any documents expressly cited in these Findings
▪ Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources
Code Section 21167.6(e)
D. Custodian and Location Of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the District’s actions
related to the project on which these findings are based are maintained at the Hermosa Beach City
School District Office, 1645 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California, 90254. The Hermosa Beach
City School District Business Manager is the custodian of the administrative record for the project.
Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times
have been and will be available upon request at the front desk at the Hermosa Beach City School
District Office. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section
21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(e).
II. FINDINGS AND FACTS REGARDING IMPACTS
A. Impacts Determined to Have No Impact
Initial Study
An Initial Study was prepared by the District to identify the potential significant effects of the
project. The Initial Study was completed and distributed with the Notice of Preparation for the
proposed project, dated February 10, 2017, and is included in the Draft EIR as Appendix A. The
Initial Study determined that the proposed project would not result in impacts to the following
resources:
▪ Agriculture and Forestry Resources
▪ Mineral Resources
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 4 of 80
▪ Population and Housing
▪ Recreation
All other topical areas of evaluation included in the Environmental Checklist were determined to
require further assessment in the Draft EIR.
B. Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant
This section identifies impacts of the proposed project which the Draft EIR determined to be less
than significant without implementation of project-specific mitigation measures.
1. Aesthetics
Impact 5.1-1: The proposed project would not substantially alter public views of scenic vistas or
scenic corridors.
Scenic Vistas
Due to its dense development and varying topography, there are limited expansive scenic views of
City-designated visual features. The only visual resource that can be observed at and near the project
site is the Pacific Ocean. Figure 5.1-3, Scenic Corridors and Viewpoints, page 5.1-13 of the Draft EIR,
shows the City-designated uninterrupted viewing areas of the beach and directional public viewpoints
of City-designated visual features toward the ocean and the Santa Monica Bay and mountains. In
addition to the City-designated viewpoints, other public viewpoints close to the project site are along
27th Street, 26th Street, and 25th Street. The views from these locations are of the ocean. Figure 5.1-
4, Scenic Features from Public Viewpoints, page 5.1-15 of the Draft EIR, shows the views of the ocean
from these public viewing areas. There are no other views of City visual features nearby the project
site.
▪ 27th Street. Views of the ocean are available on 27th Street west of Morningside Drive. There
are no views of the ocean on the segment of Gould Avenue just east of Morningside Drive and
adjacent to the park. Due to the intervening residential structures between the project site and
27th Street, project implementation would not block public views of the ocean from this public
viewpoint.
▪ 26th Street. The ocean can be seen along the entire stretch of 26th Street fronting the project
site. This area would be developed with the new multipurpose building in the northeast portion
and the school’s surface parking lot on the northwest. Although the proposed building would be
28 feet tall, it would not obstruct views of the ocean. The area immediately east of the building
would be the school’s new playground area, and the remaining District-owned property of
vegetated hillside and grass field, which is downhill from the project site and does not provide
any views of the ocean. Therefore, project implementation would not block public views of the
ocean on 26th Street.
▪ 25th Street. Along the school’s frontage, views of the ocean are available starting near the
southwest corner of the existing school building. As the proposed two-story school building on
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 5 of 80
25th Street would be constructed within the general footprint of the existing structures and
would be eastward of the area where views of the ocean become visible, project development
would not obstruct public views of the ocean on 25th Street.
Scenic Corridors
Scenic corridors provide visually appealing views of man-made and/or natural features. Figure 5.1-3
shows designated scenic corridors near the project site that have been identified in various City
documents. They include Ardmore Avenue and Valley Drive, approximately 800 feet and 650 feet
east of the site, respectively; Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), 0.5 mile farther east; and Hermosa
Avenue, 0.1 mile west. Due to the distance, topography, and intervening development between the
project site and PCH and Hermosa Avenue, no views of the project site are available from these two
roadways, and project implementation would not change views of these corridors or affect their
scenic qualities.
Ardmore Avenue and Valley Drive, however, are closer to the project site. The easternmost portion
of the District-owned property (i.e., vegetated hillside and grass field next to Valley Park)—not
including the project site—is within the corridor’s viewshed.
▪ Ardmore Avenue in the vicinity of Valley Park is at a slightly higher elevation than Valley
Drive. Westward views include the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt and building rooftops;
eastward views are of residences. Due to the topography and vegetation within the greenbelt,
most of the views of the project site, if any, are limited. Therefore, project implementation
would not be easily discernable, and any visual affects to the quality of this corridor would
be less than significant.
▪ Valley Drive provides eastward views of the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt and westward views
of Valley Park, existing community buildings on Valley Drive within the park, and
residences. Most of Valley Park is below the elevation of Valley Drive. Due to the lower
topography of the park, views of the park are mostly of thick canopies of ornamental trees
along its perimeter. Views of the project site are mostly obstructed by the trees’ canopies,
community buildings, and homes. Therefore, project implementation would not significantly
affect the scenic qualities of Valley Drive.
Project implementation would alter the visual characteristics of the eastern boundary of the site by
replacing the existing school building with open playground space, and a black wire fence would
replace the existing metal chain-link fence along the eastern perimeter. Removal of the existing
building would expand westward views from areas east of the project site. As discussed, and shown
in Figure 5.1-5, Views from Ardmore Avenue and Valley Drive, page 5.1-17 of the Draft EIR, the
proposed improvements would not be easily observed from these designated scenic corridors, and
the project’s impact on the corridors would be less than significant.
Impact 5.1-2: The proposed project would alter the visual appearance of the site but would not
substantially degrade its character or quality or that of the surrounding area.
Project implementation would alter the existing appearance of the project site both during and after
construction. Construction activities include the demolition and removal of all improvements,
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 6 of 80
vegetation, and debris on the property. Until the start of building construction, the site would be
vacant with exposed soil, without structures and vegetation. A chain-link fence with a tarp would be
installed around the project site boundaries to limit views into the construction worksite.
Construction staging would be set up in the eastern portion of the site, closest to the designated
vehicle access point at the intersection of Morningside Drive and 26th Street. The fence and tarp
would appear similar to those at neighboring residential construction sites and would remain on the
property until construction of the proposed new campus is completed. The fence and tarp would
reduce views of the worksite, which could be in disarray.
After construction, the appearance of the project site would be enhanced with new, modern school
facilities (see Figure 4-2, Visual Simulations, Main Building, page 4-5 of the Draft EIR) designed in a
modern coastal architecture style, similar to the more recently renovated residences near the project
site. The exterior walls of the new buildings would include a combination of stucco and horizontal
lap-siding materials, large windows, and both flat and sloped metal-seam roofs. Figure 5.1-6, North
School Rendering, page 5.1-21 of the Draft EIR, shows a 3D rendering of the proposed design.
As viewed from the adjacent streets, the most noticeable visual changes would be:
▪ Construction of a new multipurpose building in the northeast corner of the project site. The
existing black asphalt surface parking lot with perimeter chain-link fencing would be replaced
with a 28-foot-tall building. Figure 5.1-7, View of 26th Street at Morningside Drive, page 5.1-23 of the
Draft EIR, provides side-by-side views of the existing parking lot and a rendering of the
proposed multipurpose building.
The multipurpose building would not have a second floor, the interior would have a high-ceiling, and
the building’s roofline would be at a similar height as residential structures on 26th Street. The
existing driveway at Morningside Drive would remain for emergency vehicle access onto the site,
and a new 6-foot-high, ornamental black wire gate would be installed. The multipurpose building
would also be set back from 26th Street at a distance similar to the residences on the south side
of the street. Trees and shrubs would be planted in front of the new building, next to the
sidewalk.
As shown in Figure 5.1-7, the proposed improvements would not substantially degrade the visual
character or quality of the project site or that of the surrounding residences.
▪ Conversion of the asphalt-covered playground in the western end of the site to a surface parking
lot. The existing building in this area would be demolished and replaced with new asphalt for use
as a parking lot. The existing grade separation of this area from Myrtle Avenue and 26th Street
would remain, and the existing 6-foot-tall chain-link fence would be replaced with a 4-foot-high
black cable rail fence with dense vegetation. As shown in Figure 5.1-8, View of Myrtle Avenue and
26th Street, page 5.1-25 of the Draft EIR, the proposed conversion of the playground space into a
parking lot would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the western portion
of the site or that of the surrounding residences.
▪ Replacement of the three 1-story buildings on 25th Street with one 2-story, 32-foot tall building
within the buildings’ general footprints. The new building would follow the curvature of the
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 7 of 80
segment of 25th Street that it fronts. The center of the building would be angled, and the
dimensions of the eastern and western wing frames would be symmetrical. Although the building
would generally have block massing, the fold in the center, varied exterior building materials,
extended roofline, and shade awnings over the windows on the second floor—see Figure 4-2, of
the Draft EIR—would give the building façade texture and minimize its bulkiness.
The building would also be set back from 25th Street, at a distance similar to the existing buildings’
footprints, which is farther from the street than residences on the north side of 25th Street, east
and west of the school. The curb and sidewalk would be pulled in towards the lawn to create a
new vehicle loading lane. A slightly smaller grass lawn with trees would be installed.
As shown in Figure 5.1-9, View from 25th Street, page 5.1-29 of the Draft EIR, the improvements
would alter the visual appearance of the site. However, they would not substantially degrade the
visual character or quality of this area.
As discussed above and shown in Figures 5.1-7 through 5.1-9, project implementation would alter
the appearance of the site. However, the architectural design and height of the proposed buildings
would be similar to and compatible with the surrounding residences. The proposed buildings’ setback
from the adjoining roadways and varied architectural features help break up the buildings’ mass, so
that they are compatible in scale as the surrounding developments. The proposed features would
reduce the buildings’ appearance as bulky, overbearing, and/or out-of-place. They would be
architecturally interesting, compatible with the overall visual characteristics of the surrounding coastal
neighborhood.
Impact 5.1-4: The proposed structures would not create prolonged periods of shade and shadow at
a public gathering area.
The proposed main school and multipurpose buildings would be approximately 32 feet and 28 feet
tall, respectively. Both buildings would cause shade and shadow effects. The project site is
surrounded by residential uses to the north, west, and south. Valley Park is to the east.
Due to the movement of the sun in the northern hemisphere, the buildings would cast westward
shadows in the morning, west-northward at noon, and north-eastward in the afternoon. Figure 5.1-
10, Shadows, Winter Solstice, page 5.1-33 of the Draft EIR, and Figure 5.1-11, Shadows, Summer Solstice,
page 5.1-35 of the Draft EIR, are diagrams of the shadows that would be cast by the proposed
building during the winter solstice (around December 22), when the sun’s path is lowest in the sky,
and the summer solstice (around June 21). As illustrated in the figures, the shading effects would be
greatest during winter, and there would be limited shading effects during the summer months.
Under the worst-case scenario at the winter solstice, the shading caused by the project’s structures
would not intrude into Valley Park (see Figure 5.1-12, Shadow Impacts on Massing, page 5.1-37 of the
Draft EIR). However, due to the dense nature of the surrounding development, the proposed
structures would cast shadows on some of the residential properties to the north. The southern face
of the residential structures immediately north of the multipurpose building on the north side of 26th
Street would be slightly shaded in the morning. The southern end of the residential properties on the
south side of 26th Street would be shaded by the main school building until noon. The main school
building would cast a shadow on the southern walls of the two residential structures closest to the
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 8 of 80
main school building. Since these buildings are taller than the proposed school building, their
rooftops would not be shaded by the school building. The backyard of the property on the south
side of 26th Street closest to the multipurpose building would be shaded in the morning, but the
shadow would be gone by noon.
Cumulative Impact
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative aesthetics and visual resources impacts
includes developments in Hermosa Beach and South Bay communities. The proposed project’s
impacts are mostly localized—that is, the buildings are not substantially taller or wider in mass than
others surrounding the project site and in the City. Alone and/or combined with proposed
developments in the area, the proposed structures would not substantially alter public views of scenic
vistas or scenic corridors or create shadow effects on open space areas. The stationary lighting
proposed would be similar to the existing surrounding uses. Exterior lighting would have motion
sensors, and no high-intensity exterior field lighting would be installed. Therefore, nighttime lighting
at the project site would be limited, and the project would not significantly contribute to regional
nighttime illumination.
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts and less than cumulatively
considerable impacts associated with adverse effects on scenic vistas, degrading the
existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings, or exposing people on -
or off-site to substantial light or glare.
Air Quality
Impact 5.2-1: Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would
not generate short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s
regional construction thresholds.
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as onsite heavy-
duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles
transporting the construction crew. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10
and PM2.5) from grading and excavation and from demolition. Air pollutant emissions from
construction activities onsite would vary daily as construction activity levels change.
Construction activities for the proposed project would temporarily increase PM10, PM2.5, VOC, NOX,
SO2, and CO regional emissions in the SoCAB. Activities would include demolition, grading, utility
trenching, school facilities construction, architectural coating, and asphalt paving. Construction
emissions were estimated using CalEEMod 2016.3.1 based on the project’s preliminary construction
schedule, phasing, and equipment list provided by the District. The construction schedule and
equipment mix are based on preliminary engineering and subject to changes during final design and
as dictated by field conditions. Estimates of maximum daily construction emissions are provided in
Table 5.2-10, Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions, page 5.2-21 of the Draft EIR. As shown
in the table, air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities would be less than their
respective SCAQMD regional significance threshold values.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 9 of 80
Impact 5.2-2: Long-term criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would
not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regional operational significance
thresholds.
Buildout of the proposed project would result in criteria air pollutant emissions from area sources
(e.g., fuel use for landscaping and lawn maintenance, aerosols, and architectural coatings); energy use
(natural gas) associated with the proposed school facilities; and project-related vehicle trips. The
proposed project would generate 1,250 average daily trips during a weekday, which is a net incr ease
of 100 additional average daily trips from existing conditions. Criteria air pollutant emissions were
modeled using CalEEMod. Table 5.2-11, Net Increase in Maximum Daily Regional Operational Emissions,
page 5.2-22 of the Draft EIR, identifies criteria air pollutant emissions from operation of the
proposed project. Project-related long-term air pollutant emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s
regional significance thresholds; therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts.
Impact 5.2-3: The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it
would cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels. Unlike regional
emissions, localized emissions are typically evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass
so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects.
Construction LSTs
Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) are based on the California AAQS, which are the most
stringent AAQS that have been established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of public
health and welfare. They are designated to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further
respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by
other disease or illness, and people engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Construction LSTs are
based on the size of the project site, distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, and Source Receptor
Area. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residential land uses that protrude into
the site on 26th Street and at the corner of Myrtle Avenue and 25th Street.
Air pollutant emissions generated by construction activities are anticipated to cause increases in air
pollutant concentrations. Table 5.2-12, Localized Construction Emissions, page 5.2-24 of the Draft EIR,
compares the maximum daily construction emissions (pounds per day) onsite with the SCAQMD’s
LSTs and shows that construction activities would not exceed the LSTs.
Operation LSTs
Operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial emissions from onsite, stationary
sources. The proposed school facilities would be constructed to be Zero Net Energy (ZNE)
buildings. Operation of the proposed project would entail the occasional use of landscaping
equipment for project site maintenance, but air pollutant emissions generated from these activities
would be below the SCAQMD LST thresholds, as shown in Table 5.2-13, Localized Operation
Emissions, page 5.2-25 of the Draft EIR.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 10 of 80
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a
single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where
vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—in order to generate a significant CO
impact. Trip generation for the proposed project would be significantly less than these volumes—i.e.,
up to 1,250 average daily trips. Furthermore, the SoCAB is designated as attainment under both the
National and California AAQS for CO. The project would not have the potential to substantially
increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the project site.
Health Risk Assessment
Construction activities would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM, which is a TAC. The
exhaust of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would emit DPM during site preparation, grading,
and other construction activities.
The proposed project would be developed in approximately 14 months, which is less than the 30-
year exposure period for DPM or risk accumulated over a 70-year lifetime and would limit the
exposure of onsite and offsite receptors. SCAQMD uses the construction LST analysis as an
indicator of potential health risk. As shown in Table 5.2-12, construction activities would not exceed
LST significance thresholds. For these reasons, construction emissions are not anticipated to pose a
threat to onsite and offsite receptors. Additionally, operation of the proposed project would not
involve the operation of significant sources of TACs, and therefore a health risk assessment is not
warranted.
Cumulative Impact
In accordance with SCAQMD’s methodology, any project that produces a significant project-level
regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact.
Cumulative projects in the local area include new development and general growth in the area. The
greatest source of emissions in the SoCAB is mobile sources. Due to the extent of the area
potentially impacted by cumulative project emissions (i.e., the SoCAB), SCAQMD considers a
project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional
emissions thresholds shown in Table 5.2-5, page 5.2-17 of Draft EIR.
The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the California and National
AAQS, and nonattainment for PM10 under the California AAQS (CARB 2016b).7 Construction of
cumulative projects would further degrade the regional and local air quality. However,
implementation of SCAQMD regulations and mitigation for related projects would reduce
cumulative impacts. Construction of the project would not result in emissions in excess of the
SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds.
For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less
than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by SCAQMD to be a substantial source of
air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. Operation of the project would
not result in emissions in excess of the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds. No significant
cumulative impacts were identified with regard to CO hotspots.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 11 of 80
In consideration of the preceding factors, the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts
would be less than significant, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts and less than cumulatively
considerable impacts associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
carbon monoxide pollutant concentrations, toxic air contaminant concentrations during
Project construction and operation, and exposure of a substantial number of people to
objectionable odors during construction and operations.
Biological Resources
Impact 5.3-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not cause the loss of or impact to
riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and federally protected wetlands.
According to the biological resources assessment, the site is void of wetland vegetation, drainages,
bed and bank, soils, and other features indicative of the presence of jurisdictional wetlands. No
features were observed that would be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB.
Additionally, the site does not support any drainage features or ephemeral wetland vegetation as
defined by Section 404 of the CWA.
Impact 5.3-3: The proposed project would not affect any wildlife corridors.
The project site is in an urbanized residential community and is not within or adjacent to a
designated local or regional wildlife corridor or environmental preserve area. Although the project
site is near Valley Park and the Hermosa Greenbelt, both of these areas are highly disturbed from
frequent human activity.
Impact 5.3-4: The proposed project would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting
biological resources.
Project implementation would not require the removal of any trees within the public right-of-way,
which are protected by Chapter 12.36 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. All trees proposed for
removal are within District property and not within the public right-of-way. Additionally, the
proposed project would increase the amount of useable green space on the project site with the
creation of a natural-turf field, which would be available for community use via the Civic Center Act.
Impact 5.3-5: The proposed project would not conflict with adopted habitat conservation plans.
The project site is in the City of Hermosa Beach, which is not within a local or regional habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other related habitat or wildlife
conservation plan. Additionally, there are no Significant Ecological Areas designated by Los Angeles
County on or near the site.
Cumulative Impact
The geographic context for the cumulative impact analysis on biological resources includes Hermosa
Beach and the surrounding South Bay cities, such as Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach, that
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 12 of 80
share similar coastal biological resources. Since the project site is developed and does not contain any
sensitive species or habitat, its proposed redevelopment would not contribute to potential cumulative
effects to the region’s biological resources. The project’s potential impact to nesting migratory birds
is localized and will be fully mitigated with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
Therefore, project impacts to biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts and less than cumulatively
considerable impacts associated with loss or impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural
communities, and federally protected wetlands; wildlife corridors; local policies and
ordinances protecting biological resources.
Cultural Resources
Impact 5.4-1: Development of the project would not impact historic resources.
A resource is considered “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the
California Register of Historical Resources (PRC Section 5024.1, 14 CCR Section 4852). CEQA
identifies a historic resource as a property that is listed on—or eligible for listing on—the NRHP,
CRHR, or local registers. NRHP-listed properties are automatically included on the CRHR. The
criteria for both are similar and described below. The NRHP criterion letter (A, B, C, and D ) is
followed by the corresponding CRHR number (1, 2, 3, and 4).
A/1 Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history; or
B/2 Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C/3 Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that
represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D/4 Yields, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
Historic Resource Determination
Main Building—1924/1934
The Main Building of North School has retained the levels of integrity of location and setting
necessary to convey it as an elementary school building in Hermosa Beach. However, due to the
reconstruction of the building in 1934 after the Long Beach earthquake, the main North School
building lost the majority of the Neo-Classical architectural elements and features of design,
materials, workmanship, and feeling that would have conveyed the building’s original appearance and
its association with Hermosa Beach of the mid-1920s.
Criterion A/1
The North School Main building is not individually eligible for listing the National Register or
California Register under Criterion A/1 for its association with significant events or trends because it
was constructed after Ocean View School (1904) and Pier Avenue School (1911), to address the
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 13 of 80
growing student population in the City; and North School did not make a significant contribution to
the education of children during its existence above what would be expected of a neighborhood
elementary school.
Criterion B/2
The Main building is not eligible for listing under Criterion B/2, based on the property’s direct
association with the lives of persons important to the history of Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles
County, California, or the nation. None of the educators at North School were of historical
importance or developed innovative methods of education while employed at North School. No
evidence was found to support that persons important to the history of Hermosa Beach were
influenced by North School during the productive or innovative periods of their lives.
Criterion C/3
The Main building is not individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register
under Criterion C/3 as an example of Art Deco Moderne style school architecture. The Main
building was originally constructed in a Neo-Classical style of architecture, and the exterior facades
were replaced with a layer of gunite and steel webbing wall system. The original Neo-Classical
architectural design was lost in the earthquake repairs, and the retrofitted walls incorporate a slight
reference to Art Deco or Moderne style. Additionally, the Main building was not designed in a
collaborative manner by an architect and school district. The Main building was repaired as quickl
and cost-effectively as possible, as does not appear as though it was reconstructed in an attempt to
create a state-of-the-art educational facility of the mid-1930s. The Main building does not possess the
architectural attributes to have been an influence on the work of subsequent school designers in
California or the United States. Additionally, the building does not appear to be an important
example of Art Deco/Moderne architecture on a local, state, or national level.
Criterion D/4
The Main building of North School does not appear to have the capacity to yield information
important to the history of education in Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County, or California;
therefore, the building would not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register
or California Register under Criterion D/4.
Kindergarten and Classroom Buildings—1939
The two buildings constructed in 1939 were financed from funds from a federal program signed into
law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 and were part of his “New Deal” platform. Both the
Public Works Administration (PWA) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) Program were
responsible for investing over $540 million for the erection of new school buildings and
extension/additions and repairs to existing schools around the United States.
Criterion A/1
The buildings do not appear eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register
individually or collectively under Criterion A/1. Although the PWA program was an important
aspect of Roosevelt’s New Deal administration, an association of historic events is not enough to
qualify the buildings as significantly historic. According to the HRAR, the two 1939 buildings have
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 14 of 80
not been found to have been significant in the history of grammar school education in the United
States, California, or Hermosa Beach.
Criterion B/2
The two 1939 buildings do not appear to be eligible for listing based on direct association with the
lives of persons important to the history of Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County, California, or the
nation. The research conducted for the HRAR did not determine that any educators of importance
taught in the 1939 kindergarten and classroom buildings, and no direct links between persons
important to the history of Hermosa Beach during their productive life were found.
Criterion C/3
The 1939 buildings do not appear eligible individually or collectively for listing in the National or
California Register under Criterion C/3 as examples of early (pre–World War II) International-style
architecture, which, according to the HRAR, appears to be out of character with its immediate beach
bungalow surroundings. The International style may have been chosen for the new North School
buildings because of its minimalist exterior, which would help reduce the cost of the buildings’
construction. Although the 1939 Kindergarten building presents some conservative design features,
the 1939 classroom building is a utilitarian structure almost devoid of style. The buildings do not
appear to possess the necessary architectural attributes to have influenced subsequent architects’
work in California or the United States, and the buildings do not appear to be important examples of
this style of architecture in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, or the nation.
Criterion D/4
Neither of the 1939 buildings appear to have the capacity to yield information important to the
history of Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County, or beach-front communities, and neither appear
eligible individually or collectively for listing in the National Register or California Register under
Criterion D/4.
Classroom and Kindergarten Buildings—1958
Criterion A/1
The two buildings constructed in 1958 do not appear eligible individually or collectively for their
association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of history in
Hermosa Beach or Los Angeles County or to the cultural heritage of the United States. Neither
building is associated with any events important to the history of the education of children outside of
their primary goal of providing an enclosed space for the instruction and activities of grammar school
children.
Criterion B/2
Neither of the 1958 buildings has any direct association with the lives of persons important to the
history of Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County, California, or the United States. No evidence was
found indicating that the buildings meet the guidelines to be listed individually or collectively in the
National or California Register under Criterion B/2.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 15 of 80
Criterion C/3
The two 1958 buildings do not appear eligible for listing in the National or California Registers as
examples of classroom buildings constructed in 1958 and designed in the Contemporary style of
architecture. The buildings are not significant examples of school-building architecture in California
or the United States, nor have they been found to be important examples of work of the architectural
firm KWW. The 1958 buildings do not appear individually or collectively eligible for listing in the
National Register or California Register under Criterion C/3.
Criterion D/4
The two 1958 buildings have not yielded, nor do they appear to have the potential to yield, important
information about the history of the local area, California, or the United States. The buildings do not
appear to be individually or collectively eligible for listing in the National Register or the California
Register under Criterion D/4.
Historic District
The project site contains five structures that were constructed between 1924 and 1958. The five
buildings do not represent a cohesive set of buildings united by an intentional campus plan or
architectural theme, which is a requirement to form a historic building district. While they share the
same function of educational facilities, the architectural styles of the buildings represent three
different periods of modern architecture. The original North School building was rehabilitated with
an Art Deco/Moderne-influenced façade covering the original 1924 Neo-Classical brick façade. The
two 1939 buildings were constructed in the International style, and the two 1958 buildings in the
Contemporary style. The five buildings do not present any architectural elements that visually link or
associate them into a single campus unit.
Cumulative Impact
Based on the HRAR, the project site and built structures are not historically significant, nor are they a
part of a historic district. Project implementation would not result in an individual project impact
and/or contribute to a potentially significant cumulative effect to historical resources.
Additionally, based on reviews of record searches and observations of the developed urban nature of
the project site and surrounding area during site visits, it does not appear that subsurface cultural
resources would be discovered. However, archaeological and paleontological resources are typically
isolated. Project implementation would require mitigation measures to minimize impacts related to
any accidental discoveries during ground-disturbing activities. As with the proposed project, related
development would be required to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, which requires
the lead agency to determine if discovered resources are unique or historically significant, and if so, to
treat them in accordance with the provisions of PRC Section 21083.2. Therefore, the proposed
project’s contribution to cumulatively impact subsurface cultural resources would not be
considerable and impacts would be less than significant.
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts and less than cumulatively
considerable impacts associated with historic resources.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 16 of 80
Geology and Soils
Impact 5.5-1: Occupants and structures on the project site would experience seismic ground-
shaking, but would not be subject to significant risk from such an event.
The CBC provides the appropriate building design criteria needed to protect the structural integrity
of structures and infrastructure against damage and collapse. A geotechnical report was prepared, by
a California Registered Civil Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist, and recommendations of
the report have been incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed North School
project.
Seismic design criteria and requirements in the CBC require structures and infrastructure to
withstand seismic ground shaking and reduce hazards to persons and property. The CBC also
requires that the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by registered professionals
(i.e., registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist), be incorporated into the design and
construction of the project. Compliance with the recommendations and structural design would
ensure that the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects from ground-shaking hazards.
Impact 5.5-3: Project development would not cause substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Construction would result in the demolition and removal of existing development and landscaping,
and expose soil susceptible to erosion, especially during heavy rains. However, once constructed, all
exposed grounds would be restored and covered with vegetation, and potential soil erosion and loss
of topsoil would be limited.
Project development would require grading and the removal of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of
topsoil to accommodate building foundations and structural footings. Since the proposed project
would affect an area greater than one acre, the project would be required to obtain a Construction
General Permit under the NPDES Program that would require the preparation of and adherence to a
project-specific SWPPP. The SWPPP would include a strategy for construction activities to comply
with stormwater regulations to minimize sediment and other pollutants in stormwater runoff, as well
as BMPs to control erosion and sediment loss, runoff, and contain sediment transport within the
project site that would limit soil erosion and the loss of topsoil from the site. Section 5.8, Hydrology
and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, includes additional information on the project’s SWPPP.
Cumulative Impact
Impacts relating to soils and geologic influences are site specific and usually cannot be considered in
cumulative terms, such as in the case of the proposed North School Reconstruction project.
Mitigation of geologic, seismic, and soil impacts of development projects are specific to the site. The
proposed project and other new development projects in the City of Hermosa Beach are required to
comply with applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including CBC standards and the
NPDES program. Each project’s geologic and soil impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level on an individual basis and would not be cumulatively additive. Therefore, the
proposed project would not significantly contribute to cumulatively considerable geological and soil
impacts.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 17 of 80
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts and less than cumulatively
considerable impacts associated with seismic ground-shaking, and topsoil loss and soil
erosion.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 5.6-1: Development of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase of
GHG emissions that would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s significance
criteria.
Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the
consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large
one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate
change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative
environmental impact.
The proposed project would generate GHG emissions from vehicle trips generated by the project,
energy use (indirectly from purchased electricity use and directly through fuel consumed for building
heating), area sources (e.g., equipment used on-site, consumer products, coatings), water/wastewater
generation, and waste disposal. Annual GHG emissions were calculated for construction and
operation of the project. Total construction emissions were amortized over 30 years and included in
the emissions inventory to account for the short-term GHG emissions from the construction phase
of the project. Table 5.6-6, Project-Related GHG Emissions, page 5.6-22 of the Draft EIR, shows that
the proposed project at buildout would generate a net of 439 MTCO2e emissions per year. The total
net increase of GHG emissions on-site from the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s bright-
line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e.
Impact 5.6-2: The proposed project would not conflict with the California Air Resources Board’s
Scoping Plan or the Southern California Association of Governments’ 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan
and SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.
CARB Scoping Plan
In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the 2008 Scoping Plan to outline the state’s strategy
established by AB 32, which is to return to the State’s GHG emissions inventory to 1990 levels by
year 2020. The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies and is not directly applicable to
cities/counties and individual projects. Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool that
is used to develop performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction
targets for climate action planning efforts.
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update has adoption hearings planned for June 2017, and
provides the strategies for the state to meet the 2030 GHG reduction target as established under SB
32.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 18 of 80
The project GHG emissions shown in Table 5.6-5, page 5.6-18 of the Draft EIR, include reductions
associated with statewide strategies that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32. The proposed
project would comply with these statewide GHG emissions reduction measures. In addition, the
proposed school facilities would be constructed to be Zero Net Energy (ZNE) buildings. However,
the Scoping Plan itself is not directly applicable to the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed
project would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan, and impacts would be less
than significant.
SCAG’s 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS was adopted April 7, 2016, and identifies:
▪ Multimodal transportation investments: bus rapid transit, light rail transit, heavy rail transit,
commuter rail, and high-speed rail
▪ Active transportation strategies: e.g., bike ways and sidewalks
▪ Transportation demand management strategies
▪ Transportation systems management
▪ Highway and arterial improvements: interchange improvements, high-occupancy vehicle lanes,
high-occupancy toll lanes
▪ Goods movement strategies
▪ Aviation and airport ground access improvements
▪ Operations and maintenance to the existing multimodal transportation system
The overarching strategies in the 2016 RTP/SCS are to 1) allow the southern California region to
grow in more compact communities in existing urban areas; 2) provide neighborhoods with efficient
and plentiful public transit and abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other
forms of active transportation; and 3) preserve more of the region’s remaining natural lands. The
2016 RTP/SCS contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population,
housing, and employment growth, as well as a forecast development that is generally consistent with
regional-level general plan data. The projected regional development pattern—when integrated with
the proposed regional transportation network identified in the RTP/SCS—would reduce per capita
vehicular travel-related GHG emissions and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the
SCAG region. The RTP/SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be
consistent with the RTP/SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and
developers. The proposed project would not interfere with implementation of the CARB Scoping
Plan or SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the 2016 – 2040 RTP/SCS.
Cumulative Impact
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 19 of 80
Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular project area or air basin but are
dispersed worldwide. Therefore, impacts under Impact 5.6-1 are not project-specific impacts, but the
proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact of global warming. Implementation of the
proposed project would result in a nominal increase in GHG emissions. Thus, the proposed project’s
GHG emissions and contribution to global climate change impacts are not considered cumulatively
considerable, and therefore are less than significant.
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts and less than cumulatively
considerable impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions and conflictions with
applicable GHG reductions plans, policies, and regulations.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 5.7.1: The project site contains no recognized environmental conditions, and pesticides and
lead concentrations found on the site do not pose a hazardous risk. Demolition of site building
materials, however, could accidentally release lead and asbestos-containing materials into the
environment.
Recognized Environmental Conditions
The site consisted of a number of parcels that have been consolidated over the years. Based on the
Phase I ESA, the northwest corner of the project site at Myrtle Avenue and 26th Street had building
structures (e.g., church and residences) that have been demolished; prior to their development, the
northwest corner of the site was in its natural condition. The remainder of the project site was also in
its native condition prior to the current school-related improvements. Other than the current school
use and former structures, the project site has not been used for other purposes. There is no
indication that the site had been used for agricultural purposes or was a former hazardous waste
disposal site or solid waste disposal site. Additionally, based on the Phase I ESA, the surrounding
areas have always been residential and park. Accordingly, there is no indication that the site contains
recognized environmental conditions.
Soil Hazards: Pesticides and Lead
Although no RECs were identified in the Phase I ESA, based on knowledge of likely practices at
school sites throughout the state and due to the ages of the project site’s buildings – in an abundance
of caution – the District conducted soil sampling around the existing buildings to determine if the
historic use of pesticides – i.e., OCPs – over the years has contaminated soils, and if so, whether the
level is within acceptable standards. The District also sampled for lead in the soil as it is likely that
building materials older than 1978 contained lead.
Soil samples were collected at 17 locations on the project site.
Pesticides
Twenty OCP compounds were analyzed, and the following four compounds were detected at 0.5 feet
bgs:
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 20 of 80
▪ 4,4’- DDD: dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
▪ 4,4’- DDE: dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
▪ 4,4’- DDT: dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
▪ Chlordane
Although detected, concentrations for 4,4’- DDD and 4,4’- DDT were below approved screening
levels. Notwithstanding, a Human Health Screening Evaluation was completed following approved
DTSC guidance and using the maximum concentrations of the four compounds. A health risk
assessment concluded that the estimated hazard index for the pesticides is below the benchmark level
for noncancer effects and within the DTSC and EPA risk management ranges.
Lead
Lead was detected in all 17 sampled locations. Two samples collected at 0.5 feet bgs had
concentrations greater than the DTSC human health screening value of 80 milligram per kilogram
(mg/kg) for lead. Using the DTSC-approved 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL), the lead
concentration for the site is 53.1 mg/kg. As the 95 percent UCL value for lead is below the screening
value, the report concluded that lead is below the established level of concern.
Lead-Based Paint
Due to the ages of the buildings and the result of soil samples conducted, it is assumed that all coated
surfaces (paint, varnish, or glazed) contain lead. Therefore, all lead-containing material
abatement/removal work will be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local
requirements, including EPA, US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and SCAQMD
regulations. Lead must be contained during demolition activities (California Health & Safety Code
Sections 17920.10 and 105255). Title 29 CFR Part 1926 establishes standards for occupational health
and environmental controls for lead exposure. The standard also includes requirements addressing
exposure assessment, methods of compliance, respiratory protection, protective clothing and
equipment, hygiene facilities and practices, medical surveillance, medical removal protection,
employee information and training, signs, recordkeeping, and observation or monitoring.
Asbestos
Evaluation for ACM included building interiors and “as encountered” on the exterior of the facilities;
it did not include all potential ACM on the exterior of the buildings. According to the study, ACM
were identified within the surfacing material (plaster in kitchen storage heater room) and the 12-inch
vinyl floor tile and associated mastics in the restrooms of two classrooms. Project-related demolition
activities would have the potential to expose construction workers and/or the public to ACMs not
already identified. Prior to the demolition of the school facilities, the District will a complete
comprehensive report to determine all ACM within the interior and the exterior of the campus to
ensure potential exposure to ACM is limited. ACM identified would be removed, contained, and
disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.
Impact 5.7-2: The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites.
California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires that the Department of Toxic Substances
Control compile and update at least annually a list of all of the following:
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 21 of 80
(1) All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section
25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property
pursuant to former Article 11 (commencing with Section 25220) of Chapter 6.5
of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3) All information received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control
pursuant to Section 25242 of the Health and Safety Code on hazardous waste
disposals on public land.
(4) All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code.
(California Government Code Section 65962.5[a])
The Phase I ESA included a search of regulatory agency databases for documented environmental
concerns on the project site and in close proximity to the site. As shown on in Table 5.7-1, page 5.7-
8 of the Draft EIR, the project site is not listed within the search radii for the following databases:
▪ Federal NPL Sites
▪ Federal Delisted NPL Sites
▪ CERCLIS Sites
▪ CERCLIS-NFRAP Sites
▪ Federal ERNS
▪ RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD Facilities
▪ RCRA CORRACTS Facilities
▪ RCRA Generators
▪ Federal Institutional/Engineering Control Registry
▪ State and Tribal Equivalent NPL Sites
▪ State and Tribal Registered Storage Tanks
▪ State and Tribal Institutional Controls/Engineering Control
▪ State and Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites
▪ State and Tribal Brownfield Sites
▪ HAZNET
Although the project site was not identified on any of the above databases, other sites nearby were:
▪ State and Tribal Equivalent CERCLIS Sites identified a site approximately 0.6 mile southeast of
the project site at Hermosa Valley School that received approval from DTSC in June 2005.
▪ State and Tribal Landfills and Solid Waste Disposal Sites identified a potentially hazardous
landfill site within 0.5 mile of the project site. However, it was determined by the Chief Engineer
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 22 of 80
at CalRecycle that the listed site was never a landfill and is not an environmental issue for the
project site.
▪ State and Tribal Leaking Storage Tanks identified four sites within 0.5 mile of the project site. All
of the sites were given a “Case Closed” designation. Additionally, due to the distance from the
project site, expected groundwater direction, substances involved, and/or regulatory status, these
facilities would not present an environmental issue at the project site.
▪ Orphan Site List identified one site as being potentially in the area and was not mapped due to
incomplete address information. Based on a review of the facility name, Mobile Refinery
Manhattan Beach, the facility does not appear to be in close proximity to the project site; it is
also possible that the database was referring to the Torrance Exxon Mobil Refinery,
approximately four miles to the southeast of the site.
Impact 5.7-3: Other than natural gas pipelines, the project site does not contain any other pipelines
that carry hazardous substances or waste to the site.
The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas to the project site and surrounding uses,
and operates pipelines under the surrounding streets. Two-inch diameter gas lines in 26th Street,
Myrtle Avenue, and Morningside Drive, and a four-inch diameter line in 25th Street supply natural
gas to the project site and surrounding residences. Implementation of the proposed project would
require the removal of all existing gas lines in the project site and reconnection of the lines to the
newly installed improvements. The affected supply lines would be turned off for a short duration
during connection of the new lines, which is typical of new development and would not create a
hazardous situation for the users of the project site and surrounding community. There are no other
hazardous liquid or gas pipelines on or surrounding the project site.
Impact 5.7-4: The project site is not within 500 feet of a freeway or busy traffic corridor.
The boundary of the project site is not within 500 feet of the edge of a freeway or busy traffic
corridor. In urban areas, freeways and busy traffic corridors are defined as roadways that on an
average day have traffic in excess of 100,000 vehicles or 100,000 average daily trips (ADT) (PRC
Section 21151.8[b][9]).
The project site is surrounded by residential uses. Streets within 500 feet of the project site are
designated as either local roads or collector streets. The busiest segment closest to the project site —
Gould Avenue between Ardmore Avenue and PCH, approximately 770 feet east of the project site—
has a design capacity of 22,000 vehicles and an operating traffic volume of 13,256 ADT. PCH and I-
405 are approximately 0.4 mile and 6.5 miles east of the site, respectively. PCH has a design capacity
of 44,000 vehicles and an operating traffic volume of 51,437 ADT.
Cumulative Impact
The area considered for cumulative impacts from hazards and hazardous materials is the adjacent
properties in Hermosa Beach. Past, existing, and planned developments in the City could pose risks
to public health and safety as they relate to the use, storage, handling, generation, transport, and
disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. The proposed project and other development in the
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 23 of 80
project vicinity could increase these risks if they are not remediated and/or managed properly in
accordance with applicable regulations. Compliance with applicable regulations related to public
health and safety and hazardous materials would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than
significant level, individually and cumulatively.
Other projects in the City of Hermosa Beach would require assessments for hazardous materials,
such as assessments of structures onsite (over certain ages) for LBP, ACM, and other contamination
from past uses and/or releases. Cleanup of hazardous materials in soil, soil vapor, and/or
groundwater to regulatory cleanup levels for the relevant types of land uses would be required in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and regional regulations, as listed in Section 5.7.5, page 5.7-
16 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the use, storage, transpor t, and disposal of hazardous materials by
construction and operation of other projects would result in site-specific impacts and would be
reduced to a less than significant level. Combined with the proposed project, impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable.
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts and less than cumulatively
considerable impacts associated with hazardous materials onsite, pipelines carrying
hazardous substances, and being located within 500 feet of freeway or busy traffic
corridors.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 5.8-1: The project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site, substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, or exceed the capacity of any storm drain system.
Proposed Drainage Facilities
The project would demolish the existing facilities and renovate the project site with new drainage
facilities. The surface of the site would be regraded and engineered to direct stormwater to three
drainage facilities onsite: a three-foot-wide swale along the interior of the retaining wall on the
eastern perimeter of the site; two planter boxes fronting the main building; and storm drain inlets
installed around the site—two on the western portion of the parking lot, two in front of and behind
the main building, and four near the corners of the asphalt play area. Figure 5.8-1, Conceptual Grading
and Drainage, page 5.8-13 of the Draft EIR, shows the proposed areas for the drainage improvements.
The proposed drainage facilities would be designed to capture and retain the 85th percentile 24-hour
SWQDv and only volumes in excess would be discharged into the MS4.
Stormwater captured by the swale and inlets would be carried via new storm drain lines installed
beneath the site to a retention system in a tank underneath the proposed parking area with a SWQDv
of 3,564 cubic feet. The proposed box planters, with SWQDvs of 234 and 208 cubic feet, would treat
stormwater prior to discharging onto 25th Street via underground drains. The project storm drain
system would continue to discharge stormwater at the same offsite locations as existing conditions
and would not change the existing offsite drainage system. The surrounding area is entirely
developed, and the project would not alter any natural drainage channels or watercourse.
Construction
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 24 of 80
The potential erosion and siltation impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project.
During construction, the existing structures would be demolished and the site would be cleared for
grading, which would expose and loosen soil, making it susceptible to wind and water erosion. If not
controlled, the transport of these materials to local waterways would temporarily increase suspended
sediment concentrations and release pollutants attached to sediment particles into local waterways.
Prior to construction activities, a SWPPP would be prepared and submitted to the SWRCB for
approval, consistent with the Municipal NPDES permit and the City’s Stormwater Management and
Discharge and Control Ordinance. The SWPPP would include the BMPs to be implemented during
construction to ensure that erosion or siltation impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
SWPPP include debris basins, silt fences, and stabilized construction entrance/exit driveways. Runoff
from these areas will flow into the storm drainage system designed for the project. Therefore, erosion
potential during operation of the proposed project is less than significant.
Operation
Regrading and engineering the site would alter stormwater drainage flows from existing conditions,
and the proposed improvements would accommodate stormwater with new drainage and
treatment facilities. The project would result in the construction of an approximately 17,100-
square-foot parking lot with 46 spaces on the western side of the site. Therefore, according to
Chapter 8.44 of the municipal code, the project would be considered a significant redevelopment
project, and the District would be required to implement stormwater treatment measures in
compliance with the Municipal NPDES permit, including infiltration measures.
Stormwater Design Requirements
The Municipal NPDES permit would require the proposed storm drainage system to convey the
peak flow rate from the design storm (from which the SWQDv is calculated), which is defined as the
greater of:
▪ The 0.75-inch, 24-hour rain event, or
▪ The 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event as determined from the Los Angeles County 85th
percentile precipitation isohyetal map.
According to Section 8.44.020(G) of the municipal code, the largest 85th percentile 24-hour storm
event in Hermosa Beach would be 0.8 inch. Preliminary calculations indicate that the
postdevelopment peak volume would result in a SWQDv of 3,564 cubic feet for the proposed
infiltration tank and 234 and 208 cubic feet for the two proposed box planters, for a total SWQDv of
4,006 cubic feet for the improvements. The Los Angeles County HydroCalc calculator was used to
determine if the LID strategies implemented onsite—including the installation of the underground
infiltration detention tank and two pervious planter boxes—would effectively handle peak flow rates.
According to the design storm calculations (see Appendix J of the Draft EIR), the proposed
improvements would be adequately sized to capture and retain the runoff volume for the largest 85th
percentile 24-hour storm event and would prevent flooding at the site; only volumes in excess of
SWQDv would be discharged to the MS4.
Stormwater Runoff
Preliminary calculations were performed to determine the existing amount of treatment area and flow
rate capture in cubic feet per second (cfs) compared to the proposed project. The results are
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 25 of 80
summarized in Table 5.8-1, Existing vs. Proposed Runoff Volumes for 50-Year and 10-Year Storm Events,
page 5.8-12 of the Draft EIR. Project development would remove existing buildings and pavement,
increasing the amount of pervious area onsite from 8,887 square feet to 32,919 square feet—about
3.7 times the area of the existing pervious surface. Through ground-cover absorption and
percolation, the increase in pervious surfaces would reduce stormwater runoff. The stormwater
runoff calculations show that the improvements would reduce the existing 50-year and 10-year peak
runoff flow rates from 3.81 cfs to 2.34 cfs for a 10-year storm event, and from 5.50 cfs to 4.09 cfs for
a 50-year storm event. Therefore, the increase in pervious surfaces and reduction in impervious
surfaces would reduce the volume and rate of stormwater runoff, and the drainage improvements
would be able to adequately capture stormwater on the project site. Figure 5.8-2, Pre- and
Postdevelopment Drainage Conditions, page 5.8-15 of the Draft EIR, shows a comparison of existing and
post-project site-drainage conditions.
Cumulative Impact
Construction and operation of the proposed project, in conjunction with related projects in the Santa
Monica Bay Watershed, would result in increased flows that would eventually discharge into the
Pacific Ocean, and the Santa Monica Bay, specifically. Related projects are those in the Santa Monica
Bay Watershed that would direct stormwater flows through streams, channels, and other waterways
into the Pacific Ocean. These projects would comply with their respective SWPPP and the
regulations for water quality standards established by the Beach Cities EWMP. The project would
result in a net reduction in the site’s volume of stormwater runoff, and the project would therefore
not result in a significant impact on a cumulative basis.
Although the area around the project site is entirely built out, new projects in the area, both
individually and cumulatively, could potentially increase the volume of stormwater runoff and
contribute to pollutant loading in the storm drain system with eventual discharge to the Pacific
Ocean. However, as with the proposed project, future projects in Hermosa Beach would be required
to comply with drainage and grading regulations and ordinances in Chapter 8.44 of the Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code, which control runoff and regulate water quality at each development site.
New development and redevelopment projects would be required to demonstrate that stormwater
volumes could be managed by conveyance facilities and would not induce flooding. New projects
also would be required to comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, regulations, and
ordinances regarding water quality and NPDES permitting requirements. In consideration of the
preceding factors, including the project’s beneficial impact to water quality, cumulative water quality
impacts would be rendered less than considerable, and therefore, less than significant.
The proposed project would reduce stormwater runoff from existing conditions through a series of
above- and below-ground features designed to accommodate a series of storm events, as required by
Chapter 8.44 of the City’s municipal code. Water quality of the stormwater runoff is addressed
through application of low impact development provisions of the Municipal Code and the Los
Angeles County LID Design Manual. Since the project would reduce stormwater runoff from the
existing condition and improve the quality of any runoff, this impact is considered less than
cumulatively considerable.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 26 of 80
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts and less than cumulatively
considerable impacts associated with drainage patterns, surface runoff, and storm
drainage system capacity.
Land Use and Planning
Impact 5.9-1: Project implementation would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa
PLAN Hermosa was adopted on August 22, 2017, and is the effective General Plan for the City.
Although PLAN Hermosa has been approved by City Council, it has not been certified by the CCC;
therefore, the existing Local Coastal LCP is the effective regulatory document for development
projects within the Coastal Zone. Portions of the site are designated as OS, according to the PLAN
Hermosa Land Use Map; the remainder of the site is designated as Public Facility (PF).
The proposed OS land use designation allows for passive and active park, recreational, open space,
and educational/institutional facilities land uses. The OS designation allows a floor -area-ratio (FAR)
between 0.0 and 0.5. The PF land use designation, which allows for civic-related offices, community
centers, operational facilities, and educational/institutional facilities land uses, allows for a FAR of
between 0.1 and 1.0.
Since the proposed improvements would maintain the property as a public educational/institutional
facility and would be within the allowable FAR,1 the project would be consistent with PLAN
Hermosa once it is certified by the California Coastal Commission. While the proposed PLAN
Hermosa includes recommendations for update of the zoning code, no draft code has been prepared.
City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code
There are no zoning regulations established for Unclass-designated land other than to identify School
District on the zoning map. As shown in the development standards of the OS zone, the
requirements of the zone are inconsistent with the list of permitted uses. Because there is no
provision for school development in either the Unclass or OS zone, and as allowed by California
Government Code Section 53094, the District Governing Board of Education has exempted all
Measure S school facility improvement projects, including those proposed at the project site, from
the City of Hermosa Beach zoning and land use ordinances.2
City of Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Plan
The Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Plan (LCP) designates the project site as Schools and Parks, but
does not clearly delineate which portion of the site has which designation (see Figure 5.9-1, page 5.9-
5 of the Draft EIR). The LCP also does not specify development standards for these land use
designations. Therefore, the project’s consistency review is based on requirements of Chapter 3,
1 38,000 square feet of school facilities/2.35-acre project site (102,366 square feet) = 0.37 FAR.
2 Hermosa Beach City School District, Resolution 09:16/17, April 19, 2017.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 27 of 80
Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies, of the California Coastal Act (PRC § 30200 et
seq.). Table 5.9-1, Project Consistency with Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies, page 5.9-8 of
the Draft EIR, lists the policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act that are applicable to the proposed
project and explains how the proposed project conforms to them.
The District is applying for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) in conjunction with the
preparation of this EIR. The CDP would be reviewed and considered by the CCC; its approval
would verify compliance with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (PRC Code § 30000 et
seq.). Therefore, with approval of the CDP, the proposed project would not conflict with the City of
Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Plan or the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
Impact 5.9-2: The proposed project would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan, natural
community conservation plan, or other related plan.
The project would result in the reconstruction of the North School on an already developed site. The
project site is in the City of Hermosa Beach, which is not in a local or regional HCP, NCCP, or other
related habitat or wildlife conservation plan.
Cumulative Impact
Development of the proposed project, in conjunction with the related developments listed in
Chapter 3 of this DEIR, would not result in citywide land use and planning impacts. The proposed
project would be consistent with applicable state and local plans, and after construction, the project
site would continue to be used as a school. Related projects would be reviewed by the City of
Hermosa Beach and CCC; if a coastal development permit is required and until PLAN Hermosa is
certified by the CCC, development would be required to be consistent with adopted state and city
development standards, regulations, plans, and policies. Therefore, the proposed project combined
with related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to land use and planning.
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts and less than cumulatively
considerable impacts associated with confliction of applicable plans, habitat
conservation plans, and community conservation plans.
Noise
Impact 5.10-2: Project implementation would not result in long-term operation-related noise that
would exceed local standards.
To determine if a project would cause a substantial noise increase from project-related traffic,
consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase and the affected receptors. In general
for community noise, a noise level increase of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, while an
increase of 5 dBA is considered clearly noticeable. An increase of 3 dBA is often used as a threshold
for a substantial increase.
The increase in daily vehicle trips due to the project would generate noise associated with addition al
vehicles traveling to and from the project site on local roadways. However, community noise
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 28 of 80
environments would not appreciably change as a result of project implementation. The project is
estimated to generate a net increase of 217 trips during the AM peak hour and 24 trips during the PM
peak hour; all traffic flows on nearby roadways are intermittent and do not exhibit continuous traffic
flows. Implementation of the project would increase the numbers of trips on adjacent roads, but is
not expected to notably change the daily traffic flow conditions; that is, traffic flows will continue to
be intermittent. Therefore, any traffic noise increases on 25th Street would not be noticeable, and the
individual pass-bys for each vehicle would be comparable to existing conditions. Project-generated
traffic would be a negligible increase in comparison to traffic flows on larger nearby roadways, such
as Gould Avenue (13,300 ADT) and Hermosa Avenue (8,400 ADT), and would result in noise level
increases of less than 1 dB. Therefore, project-generated increases in traffic noise levels would be less
than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Stationary-Source Noise
Stationary noise sources would include vehicles idling during student drop-off and pick-up times,
school buzzers or bells, landscaping equipment, outdoor activities, and heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) units. The project would add new sources of stationary HVAC noise at the
new buildings, but these would be comparable or quieter than other, similar sources at the existing
site and would not result in notable changes to community noise environments on or near the site.
For idling vehicles, school buzzers/bells, and landscaping activities, there would be no changes.
Outdoor activities would be expanded, but would remain the same types of noise sources as the
existing site, such as student and staff voices. Additionally, noise generated by outdoor activities
would be similar to noise generated by the adjacent Valley Park. Therefore, no significant permanent
stationary source noise increases would occur.
Cumulative Impact
Mobile-Source Noise
The cumulative traffic noise levels would not increase by a noticeable amount (+3 dB) along the
roadways analyzed. Further, there are no other, known future projects in the vicinity of the proposed
school project that would add more vehicular flows on the pertinent roadways. Therefore,
cumulative increases in traffic noise levels would not occur and impacts would be less than
cumulatively considerable.
Stationary-Source Noise
Unlike transportation noise sources, whose effects can extend well beyond the limits of the project
site, stationary-source noise generated by the project is limited to noise impacts to noise-sensitive
receptors near the project site. Noise from operation of the project would not result in significant
noise impacts to the residential uses in the vicinity. Further, there are no other known, future projects
in the vicinity of the proposed school project that would add more stationary sources so as to notably
contribute to the nearby receptors’ community noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in individually and cumulatively considerable noise impacts.
Construction Noise
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 29 of 80
Like stationary-source noise, construction noise and vibration impacts are confined to a localized
area of impact. Noise from construction activities would be temporary and would be less than
significant after mitigation. Cumulative impacts would only occur if other projects were being
constructed in the vicinity of the project at the same time as the project. There are no other, known
future projects in the vicinity of the proposed school project that might add simultaneous
construction activity noise (to the project’s construction noise). Therefore, project construction noise
impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts and less than cumulatively
considerable impacts associated with long-term operation-related noise.
Public Services
Impact 5.11-1: The proposed project would introduce new structures and occupants on the project
site, thereby increasing the demand for fire protection services; however, the site’s expanded
operations would not necessitate the construction of a new fire department facility.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
During construction, the presence of heavy construction equipment and demolition of structures
could create a potential short-term demand for fire protection services. Demolition of structures and
construction of the improvements would comply with the requirements of the 2016 California Fire
Code, including the CFC Chapter 33, Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition. Chapter 33
prescribes minimum safeguards to prevent fires and provide reasonable safety to life and property
during construction and demolition.
Additionally, the construction staging area is proposed on the playfield area on the eas t side of the
site. Construction and delivery vehicles would mostly enter the staging area from the driveway near
the intersection of 26th Street and Morningside Drive, but may occasionally make deliveries to
different areas around the site. Any street or lane closure required for construction would be
temporary and would be coordinated with the City of Hermosa Beach. Moreover, construction-
related traffic volumes would not result in significant traffic impacts, as discussed in Section 5.12 of
the recirculated EIR, Traffic and Transportation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project
would not obstruct or impede response times for the fire department or result in traffic pattern
changes to the area circulation system.
Long-Term Operational Impacts
The project would change the emergency access onsite and would reconfigure the onsite structures,
increasing the building area from approximately 28,900 square feet to 38,000 square feet. Project
development would result in an increase in the student capacity of the onsite structures from 301
students between Children’s Journey and the South Bay Adult School programs to a maximum of
510 students for the proposed reopened North School, for a total increase in capacity of 209 seats.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 30 of 80
Building Design and Emergency Access
The design of the proposed improvements is within the purview of the Division of the State
Architect (DSA), who will review and evaluate building plans for their compliance with state fire and
building codes to minimize fire hazards. The new structures would be serviced by new electrical
systems that would be safer and more efficient than the existing utility connections; they would also
have improved fire protection features. The existing fire hydrants at the northwestern and
northeastern sidewalk would remain, and the southeastern hydrant would be moved to accommodate
the 25th Street curb improvements.
The site would be regraded to a continuous flat grade; site occupants and emergency responders
would have unimpeded access between the buildings, parking area, and field area. Emergency
vehicles would be able to access the site from the driveway on 25th Street and the driveway at the
intersection of 26th Street and Morningside Drive (see Figure 5.11-1, Fire Access Plan, page 5.11-9 of
the Draft EIR). The driveway on 26th Street would allow for a 20-foot-wide access lane with a 100-
foot turnaround, north of the Main building. The improvements would improve emergency access at
the site.
DSA will also require the local fire authority to review certain project elements in order to clarify
local procedures for documenting acceptance of water flow for firefighting and building exposure
protection (fire flow, fire hydrant locations, and distribution). Project development can occur only if
DSA approves the project, which will be predicated on HBFD’s review of the site’s ingress/egress,
fire flow, fire sprinkler systems, fire hydrants, driveway widths and turning radii, and emergency
access plans, including to the second story of the main building. Compliance with established
standards and DSA recommendations would minimize fire and life safety risks and facilitate
emergency response and evacuation.
Demand of Fire Protection Services
Similar to the site’s existing operations, operation of the proposed North School facilities would not
involve the use, manufacturing, or storage of hazardous materials other than limited quantities of
cleaning supplies, paints, solvents, etc., used for janitorial and maintenance purposes. Although the
project would increase the operational capacity of the site, the students that would attend North
School are currently enrolled at two nearby District schools; therefore, the project would not directly
increase population in the HBFD service area. Additionally, the project site would maintain the site’s
existing educational use, and the new facilities would generate a similar volume and type of fire
service calls that currently occur at the site. Demands for fire protection services for the proposed
project would not substantially increase from what is currently experienced at the site.
Emergency Response
The HBFD currently provides adequate fire protection service by arriving at the incident location in
an average response time of 5 minutes for emergency medical services and 7.3 minutes for fire,
although the actual travel times are impacted by factors such as traffic, topography, road width,
public events, and unspecified incident locations. Additionally, the automatic aid agreement with
MBFD and RBFD and the mutual aid agreement with Los Angeles County, Torrance, and El
Segundo would address any deficiency of the HBFD for a given call to the project site. Considering
that the project site is in an urbanized area with easy access to fire hydrants and streets, and is a short
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 31 of 80
distance (0.7 mile) from the nearest fire station with manageable traffic conditions, fire service would
not be negatively affected. Moreover, the project site is already being served by HBFD. Although the
number of students and building square footage would increase at the site, the proposed facility
would be fully sprinklered with adequate fire flow and access in accordance with the latest CFC
requirements, as checked by DSA and HBFD. The project would not substantially impact response
times and would not necessitate the construction or expansion of fire facilities.
Impact 5.11-2: The proposed redeveloped site would expand site operations; however, the
corresponding incremental increase in the demand for law enforcement would not warrant the
development of a new or the expansion of the existing police facility.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Law enforcement will be required during project construction to address potential crimes and public
complaints. Common crimes may include trespassing, theft, burglary, and vandalism; and complaints
may include noise, dust, traffic, and construction hours. Law enforcement may be required to
respond to serious injuries to workers, spills, fires, traffic control and criminal activity.
Construction of the proposed project would not be atypical. Although the project site is larger than
most of the surrounding parcels, development of the proposed improvements would not be
substantially different from other construction projects currently occurring nearby, and the need for
law enforcement services during construction of the project would not be substantially different
and/or greater than the other construction sites.
The District and its construction contractor will comply with applicable laws and regulations and will
implement BMPs that would reduce the demand for law enforcement services. The construction site
will have motion sensor security lights and cameras, which would decrease the likelihood of theft,
burglary, trespass, and vandalism. The District will comply with air quality and water quality
regulations, by implementing measures such as watering areas of exposed soil to reduce fugitive dust
and installing soil erosion controls to reduce storm water run-off. Such practices would minimize
offsite impacts. A construction worksite traffic control plan will be prepared, and a designated
construction access point will be used to limit construction-traffic effects. Construction flaggers will
be hired to control traffic, and all construction activities will comply with OSHA requirements,
which will ensure worker safety and minimize work injuries.
Project approval would also require the District and its construction contractor to comply with
Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2, included in Section 5.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR. These mitigation
measures establish procedures to address potential complaints during construction and will result in a
reduction noise and vibration levels by requiring the contractor to conduct work during certain
hours, operate and maintain construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s manuals,
and to the extent feasible limit construction activities that are directly adjacent to residences.
Long-Term Operational Impacts
Potential law enforcement needs during operation of the proposed elementary school may include
calls concerning child abuse, student truancy, mental health issues, assaults, thefts, vandalism, custody
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 32 of 80
issues, and traffic related matters. Although the site has been operating with the South Bay Adult
School and Children’s Journey Learning Center programs, operation of the proposed elementary
school would incrementally increase the demand for law enforcement at and near the project site, as
proposed operation would enroll more students than the combined enrollment of the existing uses.
Notwithstanding, the proposed elementary school would maintain similar hours as the existing uses
and the property would continue to operate as an educational facility. Therefore, the type of law
enforcement services required for the proposed elementary school would not be substantially
different from that of the current need.
Daily Operations
Increased traffic and pedestrian activities are inevitable at the start and end of the school day.
However, similar to the District’s two other schools, the District will implement drop-off and pick-
up procedures at the proposed North School campus to minimize potentially significant disruptions
to the community. School site personnel and volunteers at the proposed North School campus will
coordinate drop-off and pick-up activities.
The design of the proposed campus also takes into consideration the needs of student drop-off and
loading activities. The proposed site plan identifies three entry points into the campus: in the
southwest corner, near the administration building; in the northeast corner at the intersection of
Morningside Drive and 26th Street; and in the southeast corner at the Morningside Drive cul-de-sac.
The school’s designated pedestrian loading is proposed curbside frontin g 25th Street. The proposed
design shows the curb pulled into the school’s property so that stopped vehicles will be removed
from the roadway thru-lane. Student/pedestrian loading activities may also occur on Gould Avenue
and Valley Drive; vehicles could park next to Valley Park, and students may walk to the campus via
the southern sidewalk on Gould Avenue, eastern sidewalk on Morningside Drive, and along an
existing walkway on the southern perimeter of Valley Park from Valley Drive.
Special Events
The proposed reopened North School would hold nighttime events such as back-to-school night,
open house, talent shows and other performances, and awards ceremonies. The school would also be
available for community use through the Civic Center Act. These types of events may require
additional law enforcement, and similar to existing conditions – when needed for larger events – the
District will coordinate with and pay for HBPD staff to provide security services.
Cumulative Impact
The geographic area for cumulative analysis for fire and police protection services is the service area
for the HBFD and HBPD. The project is in a residential beach community, and the proposed project
would not directly contribute to population growth because North School students would come
from existing District schools. The site is already developed with school uses and would continue to
operate as a school. Similar to the proposed project, related projects in Hermosa Beach would be
constructed to meet CBC and CFC requirements, and each project would mitigate its impacts to fire
and police protection services. The proposed project would not significantly contribute to cumulative
impacts that would result in the need for new or expanded fire and police facilities.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 33 of 80
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts and less than cumulatively
considerable impacts associated with fire and police services.
Transportation and Traffic
Impacts 5.12-1a: The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for standard performance of the City of Hermosa Beach
circulation system during the morning one-hour peak period.
School Operations
Project-Generated Traffic
The trip generation rates and the anticipated volumes of traffic that would be generated by the
project are shown in Table 5.12-3, page 5.12-15 of the recirculated EIR.
Although the trip generation rates and traffic volumes shown in the table are based on the number of
students at the proposed school, the data represent the total number of vehicle trips generated by the
site, including staff/faculty vehicles, drop-off/pick-up activities, visitors, and deliveries.
Table 5.12-3 also shows the volumes of traffic generated by the land uses that would be displaced by
the proposed elementary school, which include a 210-student preschool and a 91-student “mommy
and me” program operated by the adult school. The traffic counts taken for the peak one-hour
analysis accounted for trips generated by these uses. Consequently, these traffic volumes were
subtracted from those that would be generated by the proposed North School project to quantify the
net increase in traffic as a result of the project. Traffic counts were also taken at the project site to
determine if the trip generation rates from the manual were representative of the actual traffic
volumes at the school.
Taking the existing uses into consideration, the project would generate a net increase of 217 trips
during the morning peak hour (123 inbound and 94 outbound), 24 trips during the afternoon peak
hour (6 inbound and 18 outbound), and 100 vehicle trips per day. It should be noted that the
volumes of traffic that would be generated by the proposed project do not necessarily represent new
traffic on the overall street network; instead the trips associated with the project represent traffic that
would be redirected to the project site from Hermosa View School (for 3rd graders) and Hermos a
Valley School (for 4th graders). However, for the traffic impact analysis, it has been assumed that the
site-generated traffic represents new traffic.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trips generated by the proposed school were distributed onto the street network based on the
anticipated geographical distribution of the students’ residences and the observed traffic patterns on
the study area street network. Figure 4 in Appendix M-1, of the recirculated EIR, shows the assumed
geographic distribution of project-generated traffic.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 34 of 80
Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic impacts of the proposed school were evaluated for 14 roadway intersections and 11 street
segments under two baseline conditions: 2017 (Existing) and 2019 (Future). The 2019 year represents
the target year of the school’s initial operation.
Roadway Intersections
Existing Year (2017)
The existing intersection operations without and with project trips are summarized in Table 5.12-4,
page 5.12-18 of the recirculated EIR. The table shows the existing traffic conditions, the traffic
conditions with the addition of the proposed elementary school traffic, and the increase in delay
values associated with the project. The final column indicates whether the intersection would be
significantly impacted by the proposed school project according to the significance criteria in Section
5.12.2, Thresholds of Significance, page 5.12-13 of the recirculated EIR.
Table 5.12-4 indicates that 13 of the 14 intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels
of service (LOS A through C) when the school is operating. The intersection of Ardmore
Avenue|Gould Avenue would continue to operate at LOS D for existing conditions and for the
scenario with the proposed school. The total volume of traffic that would travel through the
intersection would increase by 3 percent because of the project. However, this increase would be well
below the significance threshold of 10 percent, and none of the study intersections would exceed the
City’s established significance threshold during the AM peak one hour.
Opening Year (2019)
Impact analysis for the opening year of 2019 requires forecasting the ambient traffic conditions for
2019 without project trips. Forecasting requires the addition of regional area growth to the 2017
conditions, including a regional area growth factor, per Metro, of 0.26 percent per year (which
equates to a four-year growth factor of 1.04 percent) and anticipated traffic generated by future
developments in the study area (See Table 3-2, Related Cumulative Projects, page 3-17 of the Draft EIR.
Additional discussion on the 2019 baseline level is provided in the traffic study (Appendix M-1, of
the recirculated EIR).
The comparative delay values and levels of service for the year 2019 are shown in Table 5.12-5, page
5.12-19 of the recirculated EIR. As shown, none of the study area intersections would be significantly
impacted by the proposed school project during the morning peak hour. It should be noted that the
LOS analysis summarized in Tables 5.12-4 and 5.12-5 is based on the peak hour traffic volumes,
which is the typical approach for a traffic impact analysis. Because a school generally experiences
intense traffic flow for approximately 15 or 20 minutes within the peak one-hour study interval, there
would likely be short intervals at the beginning and ending of each school session when the levels of
service would be worse than the values shown in the tables. This is typical of school operations and
is not considered a significant impact if the peak one-hour period of traffic flow would be
accommodated at an acceptable LOS and/or below the threshold of significance.
Street Segments
The results of the one-hour morning peak street segment impact analyses for existing 2017
conditions and future 2019 conditions are summarized in Table 5.12-6 and Table 5.12-7, pages 5.12-
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 35 of 80
20 and 5.12-21 of the recirculated EIR, respectively. The tables show the capacity value, the traffic
volume (vehicles per hour), the V/C ratio, and the LOS for each study area street segment. As
concluded in both tables, the proposed project’s trips generated during the AM peak hour would not
exceed the significance criteria on the study street segments under the existing 2017 and future 2019
conditions.
Construction
The main construction entry point would be via the driveway on 26th Street at Morningside Drive.
Based on the City’s designated truck routes, including Pacific Coast Highway and Artesia Avenue
(which is the continuation of Gould Avenue east of PCH), most construction vehicles would access
the project site from the intersection at Morningside Drive and Gould/27th Avenue.
Table 5.12-8, Construction Trips, page 5.12-22 of the recirculated EIR, shows the anticipated daily
vehicle trips based on the proposed construction schedule and activities. The number of trips is
conservative and accounts for workers, vendors, and hauling, if required, throughout the
construction workday between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 5:00
PM on Saturdays.
As shown in Table 5.12-8, the highest number of trips would occur during the building construction
phase, with a maximum of 55 daily trips. This number is less than the number of average daily trips
(or even AM peak hour trips) that would be generated by the proposed project (see Table 5.12-3).
Since operational traffic impacts would not exceed established thresholds, and since construction
trips would be fewer than operational trips, it is unlikely that construction traffic would exceed
thresholds. Therefore, construction traffic impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 5.12-2: Project-related trips in combination with ambient traffic and trips from related
developments would not exceed CMP performance standards during the AM one-hour peak period.
The closest CMP arterial route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1), and the
closest CMP intersection is Pacific Coast Highway at Artesia Boulevard (State Route 91), which is the
continuation of Gould Avenue east of PCH.
The traffic study assumed that approximately 20 percent of the project-generated traffic would travel
through this intersection, which is approximately 43 vehicles during the morning peak hour. As this
is below the CMP threshold of 50 trips per hour, a detailed CMP intersection analysis is not required,
and the project would not have a significant impact at a CMP intersection. The project would not
have an adverse impact during the afternoon peak hour because the proposed elementary school
would generate little or no traffic during the afternoon commuter peak period on a typical day of
operation.
The traffic study also assumed that approximately 5 percent of the proposed school traffic would use
any particular freeway segment as an access route, which equates to approximately 6 inbound and 5
outbound trips during the morning peak hour. As this volume is well below the CMP threshold of
150 trips for freeways, a detailed CMP freeway analysis is not required, and the proposed project
would not have a significant impact on the freeway network.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 36 of 80
Impact 5.12-4: The project is designed to provide adequate emergency access and would not impede
emergency access in the surrounding area.
On-Site Emergency Access
The project will comply with Title 19, California Fire Code, Chapter 5, to provide adequate
emergency access. The driveways into the school’s parking lot and near the multipurpose building
will be designed to accommodate emergency access onto the proposed campus by fire trucks, police
units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. On January 11, 2018, the County of Los Angeles Fire
Department, Fire Prevention Division, approved the site plan for life safety; all access features are
subject to and must satisfy design requirements of the Division of the State Architect (DSA). Figure
5.11-1, page 5.11-8 of the Draft EIR, in Section 5.11, Public Services, shows the proposed fire access
plan.
Off-Site Emergency Access
Additionally, in a letter response to the EIR scoping process (see page L-6 in Volume 2 of the
DEIR), the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Marshal, James Crawford, indicated that the proposed “new
construction will have many new requirements for fire and life safety” and that the facility would be
“fully sprinklered with adequate fire flow and access.” The Fire Marshal also stated that the proposed
project would not have a significant impact on the department’s ability to maintain adequate level of
fire protection to the surrounding area. Moreover, implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-3
and TRAF-4, which would restrict parking on the north side of 25th Street, between Myrtle Avenue
and the site’s eastern boundary; the east side of Myrtle Avenue, between 25th and 26th streets; and
the south side of 26th Street, between Myrtle Avenue and Morningside Drive, would improve traffic
circulation by creating a continuous, unobstructed route from the passenger loading areas to the
intersection of Gould Avenue|Morningside Drive. Assuming Mitigation Measures 3 and 4 are
implemented and that drivers will comply with existing law, including the requirement to yield the
right-of-way to police vehicles, fire engines, ambulances, or other emergency vehicles using a siren
and red lights, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access on streets
surrounding the project site.
Impact 5.12-5: The proposed project would conform with adopted policies, plans, and programs for
alternative transportation modes, and the project would not decrease their performance or safety.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The proposed project would not eliminate existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities. However, the
proposed school would generate nonmotorized travel with students walking or riding their bicycles
to school. The District encourages students to walk to school each day to alleviate traffic in the
community and promote healthy living. The proposed site plan identifies four pedestrian access
points for easy access onto the proposed campus; the school would also provide bike racks to
encourage students to bike to school.
PLAN Hermosa acknowledges that sidewalks in the city are not continuous and that there are
sidewalk obstructions, missing curb ramps, and steep driveways; this affects the entire city, not just
the close vicinity of North School. The City has a Safe Routes to School Network Map, which
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 37 of 80
identifies biking and walking routes to all schools within the City, including the project site. As
shown in Figure 5.12-7, Safe Routes to School Network, page 5.12-61 of the recirculated EIR, safe routes
have been identified for three of the four access points. Streets near the project site that do not have
sidewalks are not identified routes—24th Street, 24th Place, 25th Street between Park Avenue and
Valley Drive, and parts of Morningside Drive north of 25th Street. As they currently do at Valley and
View schools, the District will provide students and parents of North School with the City’s Safe
Routes to School Map and encourage them to use the City-identified safe routes. The use of and
compliance with City-designated safe routes to the proposed North School site would direct students
away from streets with inadequate sidewalk facilities. Not only would this limit traffic safety hazards,
as discussed in Impact 5.12-3, the proposed project would also be consistent with the City’s adopted
program on pedestrian and bicycle routes.
Mass Transit
Several bus companies operate routes in the vicinity of the school site. Metro operates Metro Lines
130 and 232 along Pacific Coast Highway, approximately one-half mile east of the school site; Beach
Cities Transit operates Route 109 on Hermosa Avenue, which is three blocks west of the school site;
and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation runs Commuter Express Route 438 along
Hermosa Avenue. Project improvements would occur on the project site and would not directly
impact existing mass transit facilities. Additionally, the construction traffic management plan would
address any potential temporary road closures and limit the impacts to bus routes.
Impact 5.12-7: The project would not result in a substantial increase in VMT.
As discussed under SB 743 in Section 5.12.1.1, Regulatory Background, page 5.12-3 of the recirculated
EIR, VMT has been proposed as replacement metrics for motor vehicle LOS. It is anticipated that
VMT will become a basis for findings of significant impact under CEQA in the future. However,
methods for calculating VMT and thresholds of significance have not been adopted by the City of
Hermosa Beach or the County of Los Angeles. As the use of VMT metrics to evaluate transportation
impacts is not required until January 2020 and thresholds of significance based on VMT are still
under development, the evaluation of VMT conducted in this EIR is strictly an informative exercise
and will not be compared to any impact threshold.
In addition, the City of Hermosa Beach does not currently have VMT capabilities incorporated into
its travel demand forecasting model. For the PLAN Hermosa EIR, the City used the 2012 SCAG
RTP model to estimate VMT. The SCAG model is not appropriate for VMT analysis at the project
level, such as this proposed project because it provides traffic forecasts at a regional level, and
provided limited detail at a local, street-block level.
Moreover, home-to-school trips already occur in the city because parents drive their children to the
existing schools in the area. Trip distances and mode choice (car, walk, bike) would be affected based
on the distance from home to school. For example, students who live within walking distance of
their existing school may be driven to the project site. On the other hand, students who live near the
project site and currently drive to their school may walk to the project site. The proposed project
would result in shorter vehicle trips for some students and longer trips for others. Because the
project site is near the northwest boundary of the District, implementation of the proposed project
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 38 of 80
may result in net longer trip lengths (in miles) compared to the home-to-school trip lengths that
currently exist. As a result, an increase in VMT would likely occur. However, Hermosa Beach is a
relatively small City of 1.3 square miles, and the distance between the existing two District schools
and the project site is less than one mile. Therefore, the expected difference in trip lengths with a
change in travel patterns due to the proposed project and resulting VMT would be minimal. Because
any potential increase of trip lengths would be small and most trips generated by the proposed
project already exist, and in light of the results of the GHG analysis’s conclusion that the increase in
GHG emissions would be well below the bright line threshold, it is reasonable to conclude that the
project would not result in a substantial increase in VMT.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative traffic impacts associated with the proposed school and related development projects
in the City are addressed under the 2019 baseline scenario of Impact 5.12-1a and Impact 5.12-1b.
The 2019 baseline analysis captures traffic from ambient regional growth and developments in the
South Bay region. As discussed in Impact 5.12-1a, cumulative traffic impacts under the one-hour AM
peak condition would be less than significant. However, cumulative traffic impacts under the half-
hour AM and PM peak conditions would be significant and adverse (see Impact 5.12-1b).
Neither traffic hazards nor parking effects would be cumulatively considerable. Related projects are
not in close proximity to the project site (see Figure 3-6, page 3-19 of Draft EIR), and there are no
anticipated developments identified in PLAN Hermosa that when combined with the proposed
project would significantly impact roadway hazards or cause parking impacts.
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts associated with applicable
plans; ambient traffic and trips; emergency access; adopted polices, plans, and programs
for alternative transportation; and the increase in VMT.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 5.13-1: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource or an object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe.
No sacred lands have been identified on the project site by the NAHC or a California Native
American Indian tribe, such as the Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians or
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, and no objects with cultural value to a Native American Indian
tribe have been identified on the project site.
The project’s Historical Resources Assessment Report determined that the existing facilities and
project site do not display any significant architectural styles or meet any criteria that qualify the
project’s eligibility as national or state historical resources. Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, and
Appendix E, of the Draft EIR, further discusses this determination. The project site is not currently
listed on historic resource lists/databases, including the National Register of Historic Places,
California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, California Register of
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 39 of 80
Historic Resources, and City of Hermosa Beach Historic Resources Preservation Ordinance, which is
the adopted local register of historic resources.
Additionally, due to the project site’s distance from designated historical resources in the City of
Hermosa Beach and surrounding areas, the closest of which is at least one mile south of the project
site, project implementation would not indirectly impact the significance of these resources.
Cumulative Impact
As with the proposed project, each related cumulative project would be required to comply with AB
52 and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(i), which addresses accidental discoveries of
archaeological sites and resources, including tribal cultural resources. Therefore, any discoveries of
TCRs caused by the project or related projects would be mitigated to a less than significant level, and
therefore project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts associated with tribal cultural
resources.
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 5.14-1: Project-generated wastewater could be adequately treated by the wastewater service
provider for the project.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
The project site is currently served by the local sewer system. No sewage demands would be created
during construction compared to the existing conditions because the students and staff of the South
Bay Adult School and Children’s Journey Learning Center would be relocated. The project would
include the connection of the existing onsite sewage pipelines to the new buildings. Sewer
improvements associated with the project would be coordinated with the City of Hermosa Beach
Public Works Department to avoid disruption of service.
Long-Term Operational Impacts
The City of Hermosa Beach does not have sewage generation factors for different land use types.
The City of Los Angeles has established the 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide, which establishes
sewage generation factors for different land uses, as these CEQA Thresholds provide a conservative
approach to CEQA analysis. Additionally, due to the proximity of the City of Los Angeles to
Hermosa Beach, these are applicable thresholds for sewage generation analysis for the proposed
project. Table 5.14-2, Sewage Generation Comparison, page 5.14-8 of the Draft EIR, compares the
estimated existing sewage generation with the sewage generation of the proposed project.
As shown in Table 5.14-2, the proposed project would result in an increase of approximately 1,308
gallons of sewage generated per day over existing conditions. When compared to the remaining
capacity of JWPCP of 137 mgd, the project represents an increase of 0.0001 percent3 of JWPCP’s
remaining treatment capacity.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 40 of 80
Additionally, future upgrades to sewer infrastructure used by the proposed project would be
constructed in accordance with recommendations and policies of PLAN Hermosa and the Sanitary
Sewer Master Plan. The project does not include improvements to offsite sewer infrastructure;
therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
Impact 5.14-2: Project-generated sewage would not exceed sewage treatment requirements of the
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Short Term Construction Impacts
Construction of the project would not generate sewage. During construction, portable restrooms will
be used for construction workers and will be maintained in accordance with state regulations.
Long Term Operation Impacts
The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB (Region 4) and is subject to the
waste discharge requirements of the NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 and the Los Angeles County
MS4 Permit (Order No. R4-2012-0175), as amended by Order WQ 2015-0075. Sewage treatment
facilities can treat sanitary domestic sewage that meets these discharge limits. The project would not
change the operation of the site as an educational use; therefore, the nature and type of sewage would
have similar pollutant content because existing conditions and sewage content would not change. As
discussed under Impact 5.14-1, the project would result in an increase in sewage but would be
adequately served by the sewage treatment facilities without causing an adverse impact. Additionally,
similar to all new construction projects in the LACSD boundary, the proposed project would be
required to comply with the LACSD’s sewage discharge standards. Impacts from other development
projects in Hermosa Beach (see Table 3-2, Related Cumulative Projects, were considered by the LACSD
during their approval process and will be required to comply with discharge requirements. There are
no plans to expand the school beyond its capacity of 510 students, and there would be no future
sewer demand beyond what is shown in Table 5.14-1, page 5.14-6 of the Draft EIR. Therefore,
individual project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable with other development projects
in Hermosa Beach.
Impact 5.14-3: Existing water supply, treatment facilities and delivery systems are adequate to meet
project requirements.
Construction
The proposed project would use water during the construction phase mainly for suppressing dust
during ground-disturbing activities. The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rules 402
and 403, as discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, require controlling fugitive dust
and avoiding emission nuisances.
Typically, trucks used to spray water over exposed soil are filled from temporary connections to fire
hydrants near the site. Water trucks that would be used on a site the size of the proposed project
usually hold between 2,000 and 4,000 gallons of water. Depending on the duration of construction,
weather conditions, and amount of exposed soil, between 1 and 5 truckloads of water would be used
daily during rough and fine grading of the site. For purposes of analysis, an average of 3 trucks per 5-
day work week and 3,000 gallons per truck is assumed, which results in 45,000 gallons of water per
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 41 of 80
week, or 9,000 gallons per day. Appendix C of the Draft EIR estimates that the rough and fine
grading are estimated to take approximately 36 days, or 7.2 work weeks. This brings water use to
324,000 gallons (0.99 acre-foot) for construction. When compared to the available capacity of 410
mgd of water available from the Robert B. Diemer Treatment Plant, the amount of water used
during the temporary construction phase of the project represents 0.00002 percent of the remaining
treatment capacity at the plant. The projected demand is less than the available capacity, and the
existing water lines are adequate to serve the water trucks during construction; therefore,
construction impacts on water supply and delivery systems are considered less than significant.
Operation
Water Treatment
The City of Hermosa Beach does not have established water demand factors for different land use
types. Similar to the analysis of projected sewage demand (see Impact 5.14-1, above), a conservative
estimate for water demand is 1.25 times sewage generation. Table 5.14-3, Water Demand Comparison,
page 5.14-11 of the Draft EIR, compares the estimated current water demand of the site and its
facilities as to the projected water demand of the proposed project.
Table 5.14-3 shows that the proposed project would result in an increase in demand of approximately
1,635 gallons of water per day. Treatment services for water distributed to the project site would be
provided by the Robert B. Diemer Treatment Plant, which has a treatment capacity of 520 million
gallons per day, and treats approximately 110 mgd; therefore, the Robert Diemer treatment facility
has a remaining treatment capacity of approximately 410 mgd. The proposed project’s increase in
water demand would be less than 0.0004 percent of the remaining water treatment capacity.
Water Supply
The Cal Water Hermosa-Redondo UWMP found that purchased water would be sufficient to serve
all water demands in the service boundaries through the planning year 2040 under regular, single-dry,
and multiple-dry year weather conditions, and during hydrologic conditions not served by
groundwater or recycled water. Additionally, the increased water demand of 1,635 gpd would be
approximately 1.4 percent of the projected water demand increase in government service connections
by the year 2040.
Cumulative Impact
The area considered for cumulative impacts to sewage services is the treatment and conveyance for
the JWPCP, which serves 3.5 million people throughout the western and southern portions of Los
Angeles County. Because the project would result in a 0.0001 percent increase in sewage generation,
the impacts would be less than significant.
The MWD includes five water treatment plants with the capacity to treat 2.64 billion gpd combined.
As stated in Impact 4.12-3, water for the project site would be adequately treated by the Robert
Diemer Treatment Plant; the five treatment plants are cumulatively operating below capacity and
would be able to provide water treatment for planned developments within the service area.
According to the Hermosa-Redondo UWMP, Cal Water ensures adequate water supply to meet
annual changes in demand through water purchase agreements; there is adequate water supplies to
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 42 of 80
support planned developments within the Cal Water Hermosa-Redondo District’s service area. The
proposed project would construct a new school with water-efficient features and would result in a
negligible increase in annual water demand in the service area. The anticipated water demand from
the proposed project and planned developments in the service area boundaries falls within the Cal
Water Hermosa-Redondo UWMP’s projected water supplies for average weather years as well as
multiple dry years. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact to water supplies
and treatment facilities, individually or cumulatively.
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts associated with the treatment
of project-generated wastewater by the wastewater service provider; exceeding sewage
treatment requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board; and
existing water supply, treatment facilities and delivery systems.
Energy
Impact 5.15-1: Construction activities would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary
consumption of energy or have excessive energy requirements.
During construction, the project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy
consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials,
such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and
glass.
Transportation Energy
Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel
efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would come
from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and
construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The use of energy
resources by these vehicles would be temporary and would fluctuate according to the phase of
construction. The majority of construction equipment during demolition and grading would be gas
powered or diesel powered, and the later construction phases would require electricity-powered tools.
Based on the estimated VMT and duration of construction, Table 5.15-1, page 5.15-6 of the Draft
EIR, provides the estimated fuel usage for construction vehicles. As discussed in Section 5.2 Air
Quality, all diesel-fuel commercial motor vehicles must not idle for more than five consecutive
minutes at any location.
As shown in Tables 5.15-2 and 5.15-3, pages 5.15-87 and 5.1-8 of the Draft EIR, the project’s fuel
consumption from construction would be 54,493 gallons, which would temporarily increase fuel use
in the county by 0.0035 percent. Therefore, project construction would not represent a substantial
increase in demand for local or regional energy supplies. Construction fuel use would cease upon
completion of project construction. No unusual project characteristics would necessitate the use of
construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in
the region or state. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the
proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than similar
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 43 of 80
development projects. Impacts related to the use of transportation energy during construction would
not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure. Impacts would be
less than significant.
Construction Materials
Construction building materials may include recycled materials and products originating from nearby
sources in order to reduce the costs of transportation. The District may use recycled materials for
construction of the proposed improvements, as appropriate and as available. With increasing
transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid
wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction.
The type of construction is conventional and similar to other schools in the District. As noted in
Chapter 4.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, it is the intent of the District to construct a zero net
energy (ZNE) site. Substantial reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved
by selecting building materials of recycled materials, which require substantially less energy to
produce than nonrecycled materials. The incremental increase in the use of energy bound in
construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed
materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to
overall local and regional demand for construction materials. It is reasonable to assume that
production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ reasonable energy
conservation practices in the interest in minimizing the cost of doing business. Construction of the
school is conventional and is not expected to use unnecessary amounts of material or to use materials
in a wasteful manner, since both would increase the cost of construction. Impacts to energy from
construction materials would be less than significant.
Impact 5.15-2: Operation of the school does not create a land use and pattern that cause wasteful,
inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy or create buildings that would have excessive
energy requirements.
Operation of the project would create additional demands for electricity and natural gas compared to
existing conditions and would result in increased transportation energy use. Operational use of
energy would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of
electrical systems, security, and control center functions; use of on-site equipment and appliances;
and indoor, outdoor, perimeter, and parking lot lighting.
Electricity and Gas
The CalEEMod model used to calculate air quality impacts also generates natural gas and electricity
usage. As shown in Table 5.15-4, page 5.15-9 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in
less natural gas and electricity use than the existing school use. The reduction in energy use is
attributed to the new building standards associated with the proposed project.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 44 of 80
Sustainable Design Features
The proposed improvements would be designed as a ZNE site; that is, onsite energy generation
would equal the energy used by the site facilities. ZNE would be accomplished by installation of the
following improvements:
▪ Highly energy-efficient solar photovoltaic arrays on the roofs of the proposed main building and
multipurpose building. The solar panels would be developed with “high transmission, low iron
glass,” would use antireflective coatings, and their surfaces are roughened to diffuse reflection
and minimize glare.
▪ The proposed buildings would be constructed with a highly efficient building envelope, including
for construction of wall and roof assemblies.
▪ The buildings would be oriented to maximize day lighting to minimize the need for artificial
lights.
▪ Efficient heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) systems would be installed to control the
climate of all interior building spaces and manage heating and cooling loads throughout the
building.
▪ LED lighting would be installed for all interior and exterior areas of the building.
▪ Low-water-use plumbing fixtures would be installed in restrooms and sink areas.
▪ Drought-tolerant landscaping would be planted at all landscaping areas to minimize irrigation
onsite.
With the reduction in energy use associated with new construction to the standards of the California
Green Building Standards Code and the ZNE project components, there would be no impact to the
use of energy.
Transportation Energy
The average trip lengths associated with students were determined by measuring the longest possible
home-to-school trip for the two existing schools, Hermosa Valley and View Schools, approximately
0.5 and 0.6 mile south and east, respectively, and for the proposed North School site. The analysis
assumes that the shortest vehicle trip would be 1,000 feet because people closer than 1,000 feet to a
school are more likely to walk or ride a bike. Taking the average of the longest and shortest trips, the
longest trip for North School is 1.97 miles, the longest trip for Valley School is 1.40 miles, and the
longest trip for View School is 1.67 miles. The average trip lengths are 1.1 for North, 0.8 for Valley,
and 0.9 miles for View. Since the existing schools are more centrally located within Hermosa Beach,
the average trip lengths for these schools are shorter than the proposed North School location.
These estimates were used to calculate both the existing and the proposed VMT. Table 5.15-5, page
5.15-11 of the Draft EIR, shows the VMT calculations for the proposed school, assuming a typical
school day and a full, 180-day school year.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 45 of 80
Since the student-related trips would be occurring at the existing Valley and View schools if the
proposed school were not developed, the VMTs that would be removed from those schools was
determined so that the net change resulting from the proposed project could be calculated. For this
analysis, the existing staff would remain with their respective schools, and all new staff would be
assigned to North School.
Fuel Usage
CARB publishes the EMFAC2014 Web Database, which was used to calculate fuel consumption for
the 133,200 new vehicle miles traveled, as shown in Table 5.15-5. The database search was limited to
Los Angeles County and assumed the 2017 calendar year and light-duty private vehicles with a range
of model years and fuel types. Based on the CARB database, the average miles per gallon for vehicles
in Los Angeles is 21.1. Using this estimate, the new vehicle trips associated with the school could
result in use of approximately 6,313 gallons of fuel for the school year. This is a conservative figure
because, as fuel efficiency in passenger cars increases, electric vehicle use expands and fuel usage will
decrease. The calculated fuel use represents 0.0004 percent of the total fuel usage for light vehicles in
the region over the same 180-day school year (1.55 billion gallons). This amount of increase in fuel
usage represents a conservative estimate with the real use likely being less than calculated. The 0.0004
percent increase associated with additional vehicle miles travelled associated with this project are
considered negligible when compared to the region as a whole.
Cumulative Impact
The proposed project will have a stable energy use over time, and as shown in Table 5.15-4, will be a
reduction in energy use from the current condition. In addition, the proposed project is intended to
be a zero net energy which means it will not add to the cumulative demand for power in the region.
Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on cumulative energy use.
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts associated with construction
activities, and project operation.
C. Impacts Mitigated to Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
The following summaries describe impacts of the proposed project that, without mitigation, would
result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in
the EIR, these impacts would be considered less than significant.
1. Aesthetics
Impact 5.1-3: Stationary and mobile light sources within the project site could spill into nearby
properties
Construction
The proposed project’s construction hours would be consistent with the City’s noise hours, which
would therefore limit nighttime construction activities and the need for nighttime lighting. However,
for security and safety purposes, the construction site would be installed with video cameras and
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 46 of 80
lighting that would be triggered by motion. The devices would be strategically placed throughout the
property. When the security lights are triggered, the level of illumination would be similar to that of
security and porch lighting at nearby properties and would not blink or flash. In order to minimize
potential spill light and contribute to regional nighttime glow, the security lights would be directed
downward on areas that require security. Construction equipment and vehicles would also create
glare during the day; the type and amount of glare would be similar to those of existing vehicles that
park on and pass by on adjacent roadways. Therefore, light and glare impacts during construction
would not be substantial.
Operation
Stationary Sources
Light
Similar to existing conditions, the new buildings would have interior building lighting. Unlike the
existing conditions, however, the modernized site would include exterior lighting installed near
walkways and around the parking lot. The proposed exterior lighting would be triggered by motion
and its illumination would be similar to or less than existing porch and security lights nearby
surrounding properties. No high-intensity lighting for nighttime use of the school’s playfield or
playground would be installed. Although lighting levels caused by stationary light sources are not
expected to be substantially greater than existing surrounding conditions, due to the close proximity
of the proposed development to residential uses, mitigation has been included to ensure that
stationary light sources do not spill over onto surrounding properties.
Glare
The proposed exterior building materials would include a combination of stucco and horizontal lap
siding, which are nonreflective. The buildings would also have windows, but they would not create
any more glint and glare than windows existing at the site and surrounding residences. The northern
side of the proposed buildings’ rooftop would be flat and painted white; the rooftops on the
southern side would be slanted toward the south and composed of a nonreflective metal-seam
material. Rooftop solar photovoltaic panels would be installed atop the south-facing roofs.
The solar panels, which use anti-reflective coatings and their surfaces are roughened to diffuse
reflection and minimize glare, would be developed with “high transmission, low iron glass,” to
absorb and capture light. Consequently, this produces smaller amounts of glare and reflectance than
normal glass. Therefore, glare caused by the solar panels and other building materials would not be
considered substantial.
Mobile Sources
Mobile light and glare sources would include vehicles traveling to/from and within the site. Light and
glare generated by vehicles on the public rights-of-way would be similar to those already existing on
the adjoining roadways and would not be substantial. Light and glare from vehicles accessing the
school’s parking lot proposed in the western portion of the project site would generate new sources
of light and glare, since this area is currently developed with a building and playground. Vehicle glare
would not be substantial; it would be similar to that of vehicles parked and passing by on the adjacent
roadways. Light from vehicle headlights, however, could be a potential concern because the
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 47 of 80
proposed parking lot—similar to existing conditions—would be elevated five to six feet above the
grade of Myrtle Avenue and 26th Street. Light from the headlights of vehicles traveling within and
parked on the lot could be directed toward and spill into the residences across the parking lot.
The District has considered this potential significant lighting impact and contemplated construction
of a solid barrier/wall along the perimeter of the parking lot. However, for security reasons, the
parking lot will require visibility from the street, and a solid barrier from the floor-grade of the
parking lot is not feasible. Mitigation in the form of vegetation planted along the cable rail fence
would allow some visibility into the parking lot from the street level, while shielding light from
vehicle headlights from entering into the windows of adjacent light-sensitive uses.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures were included in the DEIR and the FEIR, and are applicable to
the proposed project. The measures as provided include any revisions incorporated in the FEIR.
AES-1 Prior to the use of any of the exterior stationary lights during construction and
operation of the proposed project, the District and/or its construction contractor
shall first test each light source at least 30 minutes after dusk to ensure that the
illumination does not create glare or spill into the property lines of adjacent
residential uses. All exterior stationary lights used during construction and operation
of the project shall be the minimum intensity necessary, fully shielded (full cutoff),
and downcast (emitting no light above the horizontal plan of the fixture). The lamp
bulb shall not be directly visible from the surrounding residences.
AES-2 Prior to the first use of the finished parking lot on the west end of the project site,
the District and/or its construction contractor shall plant vegetation along the
perimeter of the parking lot to reduce potential glare and spill light caused by
headlights of vehicles accessing the lot, from entering into the windows of adjacent
residential uses. Vegetation shall be selected based the plant’s ability to shield vehicle
headlights while providing visibility of the proposed parking lot’s floor level from
the public right-of-way. The vegetation could consist of one or more types of
shrubs or vines and shall be non-invasive and drought tolerant. Selection shall be
based on the vegetation types’ projected growth rate and maintenance, water, sun,
and soil requirements. The District may also consider the visual quality of the plant,
and its consistency with the proposed improvements. Examples of suitable
vegetation types for the perimeter of the parking lot are provided in Table 5.1-1,
Vegetation Examples, page 5.1-40 of the Draft EIR, and Figure 5.1-13, Types of
Shrubbery, page 5.1-13 of the Draft EIR. Individual plants shall be in 5-gallon
containers (minimum) to ensure optimum height and maximize growth potential.
The final determination shall be made by a landscape architect based on the factors
provided above. The plants will be trimmed and maintained in accordance with the
school’s landscaping schedule.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 48 of 80
Finding:
The District beach hereby finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 are
feasible, and are therefore adopted (Public Resources Code § 21081[a][1], Guidelines § 15091[a][1]).
Therefore, the District hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the final EIR.
2. Biological Resources
Impact 5.3-1: Development of the proposed project would not substantially affect plant or
animal species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. However,
project implementation could impact protected nesting birds.
The project site is in an urbanized community. The site is developed with a former school campus.
Nonnative landscaping improvements are planted throughout the site, including ornamental shrubs
and trees on the lawn along 25th Street and vegetated slope on the eastern perimeter of the site; the
slope is stabilized by nonnative iceplant. Due to its developed nature, there are no candidate,
sensitive, or special status–listed plant and animal species or special vegetation communities on or
adjacent to the project site, and project development would not directly take any of these species or
communities.
The proposed project, however, includes removal of ornamental vegetation, including mature trees
within the development footprint that may have potential to support nesting bird species that would
fall under the protection of the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code (described in
Section 5.3.1.1, page 5.3-2 of the Draft EIR). Although no active or inactive nests were detected
during the site visits, it is possible they could occur during project construction.
Known special-status wildlife species in the area—California least tern and western snowy plover—
have the potential to occur in the beach habitats. However, due to the distance and intervening urban
development between the project site and the beach, project implementation would have limited
potential to indirectly affect these two coastal bird species.
Due to the urban nature of the project site and surrounding area, project implementation would not
directly or indirectly affect candidate, sensitive, or special status plant and animal species or
vegetation communities. However, if project implementation occurs during the avian nesting season
(February 1 through August 31), it is possible the removal of vegetation would affect nesting
migratory birds.
BIO-1 A preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
(i.e., one with experience conducting nesting bird surveys) to ensure potential
impacts to nesting bird species do not occur during the breeding season. The survey
shall comply with the conditions in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California
Fish and Game Code with methods accepted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to protect active bird/raptor
nests. To the extent feasible, vegetation/tree clearing shall take place outside the
general avian breeding season (February 1 to August 31). If vegetation clearing
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 49 of 80
and/or tree removal cannot occur outside the general avian breeding season, then a
preconstruction survey for avian nesting shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
on the project site and within 500 feet of the site within seven calendar days prior to
the start of construction. If the biologist does not find any active nests within or
immediately adjacent to the impact area, the vegetation clearing/construction work
shall be allowed to proceed.
If the biologist finds an active nest within or immediately adjacent to the
construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted or breeding
activities substantially disrupted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer
zone around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of
the construction activity. Any nest found during survey efforts shall be mapped on
the construction plans. The active nest shall be protected until nesting activity has
ended. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions to construction activities
shall be required until nests are no longer active, as determined by a qualified
biologist: work may proceed if it is (1) at least 500 feet from raptor nests; (2) at least
300 feet from federal- or state-listed bird species’ nests; and (3) at least 100 feet
from nonlisted bird species’ nests. Encroachment into the buffer area around a
known nest shall only be allowed if the biologist determines that the proposed
activity would not disturb the nest occupants. A qualified biologist shall
conspicuously mark the buffer so that vegetation clearing and/or tree
removal/trimming does not encroach into the buffer until the nest is no longer
active (i.e., the nestlings fledge, the nest fails, or the nest is abandoned, as
determined by a qualified biologist).
Finding:
The District hereby finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is feasible, and is
therefore adopted (Public Resources Code § 21081[a][1], Guidelines § 15091[a][1]). Therefore, the
District hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
final EIR.
3. Cultural Resources
Impact 5.4-2: Development of the project could impact archaeological resources that may be
buried in disturbed soils.
The project site is entirely developed and is not a designated archaeological site, nor has it been
determined to be a historical resource (see Impact 5.4-1). However, prior to its current developed
condition, structures built as early as 1912 were used as a church and residence on the northwest
portion of the site. These buildings were removed from the site in the 1950s. Ground disturbance
near these structures, as well as near the existing structures may result in the accidental discovery of
unique artifacts that are of public interest, have a particular quality (e.g., oldest or the best available
example of its type), and/or are associated with a recognized important prehistoric or historic event
or person.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 50 of 80
Although archaeological resources were not identified during site surveys, it is possible that
subsurface archaeological resources exist and that may be encountered during construction activities
that disturb soil. If any are encountered, the District would comply with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5, which requires the lead agency to determine if the discovered resource is unique or
historically significant, and if so to treat it in accordance with the provisions of PRC Section 21083.2.
CUL-1 Prior to the start of construction, Hermosa Beach School District shall retain a
qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities. The archaeologist
shall attend a meeting with the grading contractor, engineering geologist, grading
engineer, and school authorities to establish a protocol for monitoring during all
earth-disturbing activities. The meeting shall briefly summarize the prehistoric and
historic use of the land, describe the types of cultural resources that may be
encountered in the project area, and outline steps to follow in the event a discovery
is made. The training shall be developed and presented by a registered professional
archaeologist (RPA) and may run concurrently with other environmental training
(biological, paleontology, safety training, etc.). The training may be videotaped or
presented in an informational brochure for future use by field personnel not present
at the start of the project phase. The RPA shall have the authority to stop grading or
construction work within 25 feet of any discovery of potential historical or
archaeological resources in order to test, analyze, and make a finding of significance
under Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
develop a plan for recovery, analysis, report, and curation of the recoveries, as
appropriate; and report to an accredited and permanent scientific institution, such as
the South Central Coastal Information Center and Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County.
Impact 5.4-3: The proposed project could destroy paleontological resources that may be buried in
the geologic deposits that underlie the project site.
Project development would involve disturbance of approximately 2.35 acres of land and would
involve grading and trenching into subsurface soil, which consists of fill underlain by alluvial
deposits. Fill may be found 4 to 5 feet beneath the proposed buildings, and 6.5 to 8 feet beneath the
proposed parking area on the western portion of the site. According to the geotechnical report
prepared for the project (see Appendix G of the Draft EIR), it is recommended that excavation for
installation of the main building’s footings exceed by 6 feet below the proposed footings or 6 feet
below the existing grade, whichever is greater. The report also recommends excavating an additional
6 feet horizontally beyond the building perimeter for the multipurpose building and by 9 feet for the
classroom building. Therefore, excavation for the footings for the improvements would extend
beyond the subsurface fill and could encounter native soils.
According to the paleontological records search, although the project site is underlain by young
Quaternary deposits that do not present the possibility of containing paleontological resources, due
to overexcavation required for construction of the improvements, it is possible that older Quaternary
deposits would be encountered.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 51 of 80
Although no paleontological resources have been identified within or in close proximity of the
project site, project construction may encounter older Quaternary deposits with potential to yield
significant paleontological resources, and ground-disturbing activities could damage potential
resources.
CUL-2 Prior to the start of construction, the Hermosa Beach School District shall retain a
qualified paleontologist to determine if grading and excavation activities will
encounter older Quaternary terrace deposits. If it is determined that older
Quaternary terrace deposits will not be encountered, no additional work is required.
If it is determined that construction could encounter older Quaternary deposits, the
qualified paleontologist shall provide training to the construction staff, including but
not limited to the grading contractor, engineering geologist, grading engineer, and
school authorities to outline steps to follow in the event that a discovery is made.
The paleontologist shall establish a protocol for monitoring during all earth-
disturbing activities. The training shall be developed and presented by the
paleontologist and may be videotaped or presented in an informal brochure for
future use by field personnel not present at the start of the project phase.
During construction, the paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction
activities to allow a reasonable amount of time to identify potential resources. If
paleontological resources are discovered, the construction crew shall immediately
cease work in the vicinity of the find. The paleontologist shall prepare a recovery
plan in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (1996),
which may include but is not limited to the following: a field survey, construction
monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination,
and a report of findings. Necessary and feasible recommendations in the recovery
plan can also be provided by the lead agency and shall be implemented before
construction activities resume at the site where the resources were discovered. Any
discovered resources shall be curated with the facilities at the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County.
Finding:
The District hereby finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 are
feasible, and is therefore adopted (Public Resources Code § 21081[a][1], Guidelines § 15091[a][1]).
Therefore, the District hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the final EIR.
4. Geology and Soils
Impact 5.5-2: Development of the project site could subject persons and structures to hazards
arising from unstable soils or geologic units.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 52 of 80
Landslides
According to the geotechnical report, due to the topography of the project site and surrounding area,
there are no slopes that are susceptible to potential landslides located near the project site.
Additionally, expansion of the project site eastward would be engineered to support the proposed
grass field and related perimeter improvements. No impacts related to landslides would occur.
Subsidence and Collapse
According to the geotechnical report, the project site is outside the northwest end of the Torrance
Oil Field. The nearest active oil well is approximately 3,300 feet east, the nearest drywell is 2,900 feet
northeast, and the nearest plugged well is approximately 5,200 feet southeast. The project site is not
used for oil extraction and has not historically been used for such; therefore, there would be no
subsidence risk from overdraft of petroleum beneath the site. However, according to the
geotechnical report, subsurface soil conditions indicate the slight potential for collapse, and the
geotechnical report provides recommendations for excavating and foundation and building
construction techniques that would reduce impacts from unstable soil to less than significant.
Lateral Spreading and Liquefaction
The project site is not within a potential liquefaction zone. Additionally, due to the depth of
groundwater—lower than 50 feet bgs—the potential for liquefaction is negligible. However, some
dry settlement may occur in the upper loose to medium dense sand due to potential seismic shaking.
According to the geotechnical report, most of the settlement is anticipated to occur during
construction of the project. The estimated potential for seismically induced settlement of isolated
and/or strip footings under sustained loads should be 1.0 inch or less for the proposed maximum
structural load. The maximum differential settlement, over a horizontal distance of 20 feet, is
anticipated to be in the order of 0.5 inch for similarly loaded footings with implementation of
engineering measures as recommended by the geotechnical report.
Expansive Soils
The subsurface soils beneath the project site mostly consist of poorly graded sand. These types of
material generally have a low susceptibility to expansion when facing seasonal cycles of saturation
and desiccation. Additionally, consolidation tests conducted for the geotechnical report did not
experience swelling upon the addition of water. Subsurface soils have the slight potential for collapse
and dry settlement, but do not present conditions for other potentially significant impacts from
unstable soils or geologic conditions.
GEO-1 The proposed project shall be constructed in accordance with the geotechnical
engineering recommendations in the Koury Engineering and Testing Inc. report,
“Geotechnical Investigation and Geological Engineering Investigation Report,
Hermosa North School 417 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, California 90254,” as well
as any subsequent geotechnical studies prepared for the proposed project. A
geotechnical representative shall review foundation plans prepared for the proposed
improvements in accordance with the geotechnical report prior to construction of
the improvements. A geotechnical representative shall also be present during
construction operations to evaluate implementation of the report recommendations
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 53 of 80
with regard to bearing capacity, settlement, flatwork, slabs-on-grade, temporary
excavations, and utility trenches.
Finding:
The District hereby finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is feasible, and is
therefore adopted (Public Resources Code § 21081[a][1], Guidelines § 15091[a][1]). Therefore, the
District hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
final EIR.
5. Noise
Impact 5.10-1: Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of
the proposed project.
Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary noise. In typical construction
projects, demolition and grading activities usually generate the highest noise levels since they involve
the largest equipment. Grading will require the movement of topsoil from within the site to support
the proposed field improvements on the site slope.
In general, construction equipment would be limited to relatively small- to medium-sized equipment
such as loaders/backhoes, scrapers, excavators, rubber-tired dozers, graders, welders, rollers, pavers,
and air compressors. Project construction would require demolition of existing buildings; site
preparation and utility trenching; and construction of a new two-story classroom/administration
building, multipurpose building, play areas, and parking lots.
The District recognizes that the control of construction noise is difficult and provides an exemption
for this type of noise when the work is performed between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through
Friday, and between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and
federal holidays.
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile-source noise
from transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris and soil haul and (2) stationary-source
noise from use of construction equipment. Existing uses surrounding the project site would be
exposed to construction noise.
Construction Vehicles
The transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise
levels along site access roadways. The primary access routes for delivery and construction vehicles to
the project site would be from the driveway entrance on 26th Street and the construction staging area
would be on the proposed field area, on the eastern portion of the site. Additionally, there would be
occasional deliveries to different areas around the site that would require the use of Myrtle Avenue
and 25th Street. Project-related construction worker vehicles, haul trucks, and vendor trucks could
pass by existing residential and commercial uses along these streets. The demolition and grading
phases would generate the most trips due to soil haul. Note that a doubling of traffic flows (i.e.,
10,000 vehicles per day to 20,000 per day) would be needed to create a 3 dB increase in traffic-
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 54 of 80
generated noise levels in the pertinent CNEL noise level metric. As such, an increase of 3 dB is often
used as a threshold for a substantial increase.
Since the construction-related trips would not double the flow rates on these streets, these project
trips would not notably change the daily traffic flow conditions. In addition, these truck trips would
be intermittent, spread throughout the workday, and primarily during nonpeak traffic periods. While
individual construction vehicle pass-bys may create momentary noise levels of up to approximately
85 dBA (Lmax) at 50 feet from the vehicle, these occurrences—although potentially audible for a few
seconds—would generally be infrequent. Due to the infrequency of events, their relatively short-lived
durations, and their less than 3 dB increase over existing traffic noise conditions (relative to the
industry-standard use of CNEL), construction vehicle movement noise would be less than
significant. No mitigation is needed with respect to construction mobile source noise.
Construction Equipment
The noise produced at each construction stage is determined by combining the Leq contributions
from each piece of equipment used at a given time. In the construction of residential and mixed-use
projects, grading and construction typically generate the highest noise levels because they require the
largest equipment. Heavy equipment, such as a dozer or a loader, can have maximum, short-duration
noise levels in excess of 80 to 85 dBA at 50 feet. Noise attenuation due to distance, the number and
type of equipment, and the load and power requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction
phase would result in different noise levels from construction activities at a given sensitive receptor.
Since noise from construction equipment is intermittent and diminishes at a rate of 6 dB per
doubling distance (conservatively ignoring other attenuation effects from air absorption, ground
effects, and/or shielding/scattering effects), the average noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors
could vary considerably, because mobile construction equipment would move around the site with
different loads and power requirements.
Construction Noise Levels
The pertinent properties surrounding the project site consist of residential uses. Project construction
would involve demolition of existing buildings; site preparation and grading of existing land; and
construction of a new classroom/administration building and a multi-purpose building. Noise levels
from project-related construction activities were calculated from the simultaneous use of all
applicable construction equipment at spatially averaged distances (i.e., from the center of the
construction area) to the closest receptors.
The nearest sensitive uses include houses that protrude into the project site on the north
(approximately 85 feet from the center of the site), adjacent houses at the corner of 25th Street and
Myrtle Avenue (225 feet), houses to the east (130 feet), houses to the south across 25th Street (200
feet), houses across 26th Street (200 feet), and houses across Myrtle Avenue (360 feet). Using
information provided by the District, coupled with methodologies and inputs employed in the air
quality assessment, the expected construction equipment mix was estimated and categorized by
construction activity. The whole of the proposed project would be completed in two phases,
demolition and construction, which would begin in 2018 and end in 2019, prior to the start of the
2019-2020 school year. The noisiest portions, however (i.e., demolition and grading phases), are
expected to take a total of 3 months. The associated, aggregate sound levels—grouped by
construction activity—are summarized in Table 5.10-10, page 5.10-20 of the Draft EIR.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 55 of 80
Construction activities would increase noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Due to the
proximity, the highest expected construction-related noise levels—up to approximately 78 dBA Leq—
would be at the nearest residential receptors adjacent to the site to the north. All construction would
occur during the City of Hermosa Beach’s allowable hours of construction, the construction duration
would be temporary (i.e., 3 months for the loudest phase), and noise levels above typical ambient
conditions would be sporadic and intermittent. However, construction-generated noise levels would
be notably higher than ambient noise levels at the nearest receptors.
Impact 5.10-3: Construction activities would create short-term increases in groundborne vibration
and groundborne noise.
Groundborne vibration and groundborne noise may be of concern during ongoing operations or
during the construction phase, as discussed separately below.
Vibration during Operations
Operation of the project would not generate substantial levels of vibration because there are no
notable sources of vibrational energy associated with the project. Thus, operations of the proposed
project would not result in significant groundborne vibration impacts.
Vibration during Construction
Construction activities generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction
procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration-sensitive uses. Construction
equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with
distance. Table 5.10-11, Typical Vibration Levels Produced by Common Construction Equipment Items, page
5.10-22 of the Draft EIR, shows the PPVs of some common construction equipment and haul trucks
(loaded trucks).
Demolition of the existing structures onsite, extending the site footprint eastward, and construction
of new school facilities would be required, as well as importing 1,000 cubic yards of imported soil
during grading to level the adjacent hillside with the site. Typically, demolition, grading, and
construction activities include equipment such as jackhammers, dozers, and delivery/dump trucks.
Generally, these types of equipment do not generate substantial levels of vibration at 25 feet. Minor
grading and excavation would be necessary to install utilities and structural components for some of
the proposed structures.
Vibration-Induced Structural/Architectural Damage
The threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to normal houses with plastered walls
and ceilings is 0.2 in/sec. Building damage is not a factor for normal construction, with the
occasional exception of blasting and pile driving. No blasting, pile driving, or hard rock
ripping/crushing activities are anticipated during project construction. Small construction equipment
generates vibration levels less than 0.1 PPV in/sec at 25 feet away.
The nearest off-site residential structures are homes to the north, east, and west that are adjacent to
the project boundary. These residences are less than 20 feet from the boundary of construction
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 56 of 80
activities.3 Operation of vibratory rollers exceeds the 0.200 in/sec PPV threshold for damage at
distances of less than 30 feet, and operation of large bulldozers exceeds the threshold at distances of
less than 15 feet. Therefore, the residences within 20 feet of the boundary of construction activities
could potentially experience vibration levels that would exceed the threshold for architectural damage
if large or vibration-intensive equipment is used near the site boundary. Other off-site structures
would be a minimum of 45 feet from the site boundary, and would not experience levels in excess of
the damage threshold.
Architectural-damage vibration impacts would be potentially significant.
Vibration Annoyance
The FTA’s criteria (see Table 5.10-4, page 5.10-9 of the Draft EIR) are frequently used as
significance thresholds for vibration-related annoyance that is due to resonances of the structural
components of a building. The FTA limit for vibration annoyance at sensitive uses is 78 VdB.
Vibration is typically noticed nearby when objects in a building generate noise, such as rattling
windows or picture frames. It is typically not perceptible outdoors, and therefore impacts are based
on the distance to the nearest building. The effects of vibration vary depending on soil type, ground
strata, and receptor building construction. They range from no perceptible effects at the lowest
vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight
damage at the highest levels.
The nearest off-site sensitive uses are the homes protruding into the north side of the site,
approximately 85 feet from the center of the proposed project site (spatially averaged analysis). At
this distance, vibratory rollers or similar equipment items would be expected to generate 78 VdB, and
a large bulldozer would be expected to generate 71 VdB. Other nearby residences would be a
minimum of 130 feet from the center of the site and would experience vibration levels below 73 VdB
due to use of a vibratory roller, and below 66 VdB due to use of a large bulldozer. Even with large,
vibration-intensive equipment, construction-generated vibration at the nearest residence would not
consistently exceed the annoyance threshold. Because construction equipment moves around the
site, and because vibration dissipates quickly with distance, the construction-related vibration levels
would be less than 78 VdB for the majority of the time. Therefor e, construction vibration impacts
related to annoyance would be less than significant at all nearby vibration-sensitive land uses.
However, there will be times when some equipment is in relatively close proximity to the project site
boundary and construction-related vibration may be felt and perceived as irritating at some homes
near the site boundary.
In summary, operations activities would not create substantial groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise at off-site or on-site receptors. However, construction-related vibration presents
potentially significant impacts, primarily with respect to damage effects.
N-1 As required by the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 8.24.050,
construction activities shall not occur outside of the allowable hours.
Additionally, the Construction Contractor shall implement the following measures:
3 Vibration-induced architectural damage analysis typically uses worst-case distances (instead of spatially averaged distances).
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 57 of 80
▪ At least 30 days prior to commencement of demolition or any other
construction activities, notification shall be given to all residents within 500
feet of the project site regarding the planned construction activities. The
notification shall include a brief description of the project, the activities that
would occur, and the planned duration of activity. The notification shall
also include the telephone number of the District’s authorized
representative to respond in the event of a vibration or noise complaint.
▪ Prior to the beginning of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the
entrance to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that contains a contact
name and telephone number of the District’s authorized representative to
respond in the event of a vibration or noise complaint. If the authorized
representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take
appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the District.
▪ To the extent feasible, route all construction-related trips (including worker
commuting, material deliveries, and debris/soil hauling) so as to minimize
traffic through the neighborhood.
▪ All heavy construction equipment used on the proposed project shall be
maintained in good operating condition, with all internal combustion,
engine-driven equipment fitted with intake and exhaust muffles, air intake
silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped
by the manufacturer.
▪ Where feasible, use electrically powered equipment instead of pneumatic or
internal combustion powered equipment.
▪ Where feasible, all stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as
far away as possible from neighboring property lines.
▪ Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
▪ The use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and
bells will be for safety warning purposes only.
All the above conditions shall be included on the permit applicant drawings with
verification by the District staff. Additionally, all the above conditions shall be verified in
the field by the District staff at the project site.
N-2 For demolition, construction, grading, foundation, and erection activities that would
use vibration-producing equipment, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented in close coordination with District staff so that alternative
construction techniques are undertaken.
Prior to the start of construction activities, the construction contractor shall
document, to the extent feasible (and by access granted by individual property
owners), the preconstruction baseline conditions by inspecting and reporting on the
then-current foundation and structural condition of the off-site buildings and/or
structures with ground-based foundations within 50 feet of any construction site
boundaries.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 58 of 80
During construction of the project, vibratory rollers shall not be operated within 30
feet of off-site buildings or other structures, and large bulldozers and loaded trucks
shall not be operated within 15 feet of off-site buildings or other structures.
During construction, if any vibration levels cause cosmetic or structural damage
(including, but not limited to cracks in walls or ceilings [particularly around doors
and windows]) to the off-site buildings within 50 feet of the project site, District
staff shall immediately issue “stop-work” orders to the construction contractor to
prevent further damage. Work shall not restart until the buildings are stabilized
and/or preventive measures are implemented to relieve further damage to the
building(s).
Finding:
The District hereby finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 are feasible, and
is therefore adopted (Public Resources Code § 21081[a][1], Guidelines § 15091[a][1]). Therefore, the
District hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
final EIR.
6. Transportation and Traffic
Impact 5.12-1b: The peak-half-hour arrival and departure periods of the proposed school would
cause significant traffic impacts at nearby intersections and street segments, and mitigation measures
proposed are not within the purview and/or responsibility of the District.
Project-Generated Traffic
The anticipated traffic that would be generated by the proposed elementary school under an
alternative peak half-hour traffic impact analysis is shown in Table 5.12-9, page 5.12-23 of the
recirculated EIR. As shown, the projected vehicle trips are substantially higher than those used under
the peak one-hour analysis (see Table 5.12-3, page 5.12-16 of the recirculated EIR). This is mainly
due to higher trip generation values from the Trip Generation Manual (10th edition) for the elementary
school land use category, which are substantially higher than those in the ITE 9th edition used for
the one-hour peak analysis (see Table 5.12-3). Additionally, unlike the approach taken for Impact
5.12-1a, trip credit from the site’s most recent uses (preschool and adult school programs) were not
applied for the peak half-hour analysis because traffic counts for the peak half-hour analysis were
taken when the project site was vacant. Finally, the trip generation rates and projected traffic volumes
generated in Table 5.12-9 represent those during the peak one-hour, even though the analysis
assumes all the trips would occur during the peak half-hour periods.
The trips in Table 5.12-9 represent the total number of vehicle trips generated at the site, including
staff/faculty vehicles, drop-off/pick-up activities, visitors, and deliveries. The analysis for the peak-
half-hour analysis assumes the proposed school would generate 699 vehicles trips during the morning
peak hour (377 inbound and 322 outbound), 357 trips during the afternoon peak hour (161 inbound
and 196 outbound), and 1,250 vehicle trips per day. The volumes of traffic shown in Table 5.12-9
assumes all of the trips generated and distributed onto the street network are new (see Figure 4 of
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 59 of 80
Appendix M-2), even though most of the trips already exist—i.e., Hermosa View School (3rd grade
students) and Hermosa Valley School (4th grade students)—and would be redirected to the project
site.
Traffic Impact Analysis
The peak 1-hour methodology is the typical approach used for analyzing traffic impacts of a
proposed project and is the methodology used for traffic analyses for land development projects in
the City of Hermosa Beach. This same peak hour methodology was adopted and used in the traffic
analyses for the recently approved and adopted PLAN Hermosa.
Because schools generally experience an intense period of traffic flow for approximately 20 to 30
minutes within the peak one-hour study interval and based on public comments from the City of
Hermosa Beach and community, a subsequent focused traffic analysis was conducted to evaluate the
proposed school’s impacts during the peak half-hour time frame. The 30-minute peak traffic consists
of the highest traffic volumes in two consecutive 15-minute periods in the morning arrival and
afternoon departure periods.
Traffic impacts of the proposed school were evaluated for the AM and PM peak half-hour under two
baseline conditions: existing 2018 (when traffic counts were taken) and future 2019 (when the
proposed school is targeted to open). The analysis quantifies the before-and-after traffic volumes for
AM and PM under both baseline conditions, then determines the average delay values, levels of
service, and traffic volumes at the study area intersections and street segments for “without project”
and “with project” scenario.
Intersections
In the half-hour peak analysis, the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts
during the AM arrival and PM dismissal periods under both existing 2018 and future 2019 conditions
at the intersections of Valley Drive|Gould Avenue and Ardmore Avenue|Gould Avenue. The
proposed project’s contribution to the impacts at both intersections is 13.3 percent, which is based
on the volume of project-generated traffic passing through the intersections divided by the total
traffic volume at the intersections for the year 2019 scenario.4
Potential mitigation measures and project alternatives are discussed below and may include physical
improvements at the impacted intersections (Nos. 1 and 2), placement of traffic control officers at
the intersections (No. 3), and/or modifications of proposed school operations (Nos. 4 and 5).
1. Intersection Widening Mitigating Option
Widening of the impacted intersections would increase their capacity and improve traffic flow.
The below improvements, as illustrated in Figure 5.12-2, Potential Intersection Widening Improvements,
page 5.12-35 of recirculated EIR, could be made at the intersections:
4 The project’s share of the traffic volume would be 16.2 percent for the AM peak hour and 10.4 percent for the PM peak
hour, the average of which is 13.3 percent. The total volume of traffic passing through the two intersections during the AM
peak half-hour is 1,951 vehicles, of which 315 vehicles would be traffic generated by the school (which equates to 16.2
percent). The total volume of traffic passing through the two intersections during the PM peak hour -hour is 1,561 vehicles,
of which 162 vehicles would be traffic generated by the school (which equals 10.4 percent).
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 60 of 80
a. Valley Drive|Gould Avenue intersection:
i. Add a through lane in the eastbound direction on Gould Avenue, and
ii. Add a left turn lane in the southbound direction on Valley Drive.
b. Ardmore Avenue|Gould Avenue intersection:
i. Add a through/right-turn lane in the eastbound direction on Gould Avenue.
If implemented, the capacity of both intersections would improve to LOS C or better for all of
the “with project” scenarios during the AM and PM peak half-hour conditions. The Ardmore
Avenue|Gould Avenue intersection would be improved from an existing LOS F to LOS D for
the AM peak half-hour, and to LOS C for the PM peak half-hour.
Although the improvements would enhance traffic flow at the Valley Drive|Gould Avenue and
Ardmore Avenue|Gould Avenue intersections, they would also cause secondary effects. Table
5.12-18, page 5.12-34 of recirculated EIR, summarizes the environmental impacts that would
occur if the intersection widening improvements were adopted.
As shown in the table, the potential mitigation to widen the Valley Drive|Gould Avenue and
Ardmore Avenue|Gould Avenue intersections would cause significant secondary effects under the
resource areas of biological resources and land use. Additionally, the improvements are in neither the
City of Hermosa Beach Capital Improvements Plan nor PLAN Hermosa. For these reasons and
because the cost of the improvements is not proportionate to the short-term traffic impact that
would occur only during the peak half-hour morning arrival and afternoon departure periods—and
mitigation is not warranted under the standard one-hour peak period (see Impact 5.12-1a)—the City
and District determined that the benefit of this potential mitigation measure would not outweigh the
secondary environmental effects or its high cost to install. Therefore, this potential mitigation
measure is not preferred.
2. Traffic Signalization Mitigating Option
A compound traffic signal system at the Valley|Gould and Ardmore|Gould intersections would
improve the capacity of the impacted intersections and increase the level of service to LOS B at the
Valley|Gould intersection for the AM and PM peak half-hour periods, LOS D at the
Ardmore|Gould intersection for the AM peak half-hour, and LOS B at the Ardmore|Gould
intersection for the PM peak half-hour. The LOS would be acceptable, and traffic impacts at both
intersections would be reduced to less than significant. The signals would be installed on public right-
of-way, and neither open space nor on-street parking would be eliminated. Existing parkway trees
would also not be affected by the traffic signals, and signal installation would not cause secondary
environmental impacts.
This potential improvement, however, is not identified in the City of Hermosa Beach Capital
Improvements Plan or PLAN Hermosa. Additionally, the cost to install the traffic signalization
system would be approximately $550,000, and there would also be ongoing costs to maintain the
traffic signals. For these reasons and because the project’s traffic impacts would occur only during
the peak half-hour morning arrival and afternoon departure periods—and mitigation is not warranted
under the standard one-hour peak period (see Impact 5.12-1a)—neither the City nor District believe
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 61 of 80
this proposed capital improvement option is necessary. Therefore, this potential mitigation measure
is not preferred.
3. Traffic Control Officers Mitigating Option
Deployment of traffic control officers (TCOs) to direct traffic through the intersections during the
proposed school’s half-hour peak morning arrival and afternoon departure periods would fully
mitigate traffic impacts at both Valley|Gould and Ardmore|Gould intersections to levels below
significance. TCOs would enhance the flow of traffic and improve the levels of service in a manner
similar to that of a traffic signal system during the times when the TCOs would be in place. No
secondary, indirect environmental effects would occur from this potential mitigation measure.
According to the City of Hermosa Beach, deployment of a TCO(s) is warranted only if the impacted
intersection operates at LOS F. As shown in Tables 5.12-10 through 5.12-13, pages 5.12-25 through
5.12-28 of recirculated EIR, the intersection of Ardmore|Gould would operate at LOS F only during
the morning arrival period. Although the Valley|Gould intersection would operate at LOS E or
better during the morning period, due to the proximity of the two intersections, it is recommended
that a TCO is also deployed at this intersection during the morning arrival period for the proposed
mitigation measure to be effective. Under this option, the project’s fair share contribution for the
cost of the TCOs would be the same as for the capital improvements discussed above: i.e., 13.3
percent. The District’s contribution of 13.3 percent would be between $945/year to $1,676/year.
This potential measure would mitigate the project’s morning half-hour peak traffic impacts at the
Valley|Gould and Ardmore|Gould intersections. The peak half-hour traffic impacts during the
project’s afternoon dismissal period would remain significant and unavoidable. This potential
mitigation measure is feasible compared to others considered and has been included as Mitigation
Measure TRAF-2b.
4. Staggered Bell Schedule Project Alternative Option
Staggering the proposed school’s bell schedule for third and fourth grades would reduce the intensity
and traffic impacts at the Valley|Gould and Ardmore|Gould intersections. This potential mitigation
measure would have no secondary environmental impacts.
If a 30-minute stagger is implemented, traffic impacts would be reduced to below significance (traffic
delay would be less than the 10 percent threshold for intersections already operating at LOS D, E, or
F) at the intersections of
● Ardmore Avenue|Gould Avenue during the AM peak half-hour
● Valley Avenue|Gould Avenue during the PM peak half-hour
Traffic impacts would remain significant and adverse at the intersections of
● Valley Avenue|Gould Avenue during the AM half-hour peak
● Ardmore Avenue|Gould Avenue during the PM half-hour peak
The District is unsure whether implementing a 30-minute stagger is legally feasible. Existing
contracts with the District’s teacher’s union may limit implementation of this potential mitigation
measure. Additionally, a staggered bell schedule would not align with the District educational
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 62 of 80
program. The District, however, is able to stagger the bell schedule by 15 minutes. While not as
effective, staggering the bell schedule by 15 minutes would also improve the level of service at the
impacted intersections, though impacts would remain significant and adverse. This potential
mitigation measure has been included as Mitigation Measure TRAF-2a.
5. School Bus Shuttling Option
The District considered operation of a bus to shuttle students from/to each of its schools. Under
this mitigating option, the District would contract with a bus service company to shuttle student
passengers from/to the District’s schools, which would act as bus stops. Bus riders may include
students who reside near the schools and/or those with siblings who attend the schools and are
dropped off at the sibling’s school to ride the bus. It would be speculative to determine ridership;
however, assuming 20 students from North School used the bus shuttling program, impacts at the
two intersections would remain significant and adverse. According to the City of Hermosa Beach,
which currently contracts with a company to shuttle students for its STAR after-school program, the
cost to hire a bus is approximately $35,000 annually. Because the bus shuttling option would not
reduce significant traffic impacts at the two impacted intersections, its cost is not proportional to its
benefit (i.e., elimination of the significant traffic impacts), and mitigation is not warranted under the
standard one-hour peak period (see Impact 5.12-1a), the District determined this option is not
preferred.
Street Segments
The proposed project would create potentially significant impacts at six segments on 24th Street,
Morningside Drive, Park Avenue, 25th Street, 26th Street, and Myrtle Avenue during the AM and
PM peak half-hours, under both existing 2018 and future 2019 conditions.
Potential mitigation may include street widening, parking restriction on one side of the impacted
street during the AM and PM half-hour peak periods, and/or staggering the proposed school’s bell
schedule. Figure 5.12-3, Project Impacted Street Segments, page 5.12-45 of recirculated EIR, illustrates the
potentially significant street segments. As shown, approximately 6,000 linear feet of public street
would be impacted.
1. Street Widening Mitigating Option
The street widening option would require the District to acquire private property, adjoining the
affected street segments to expand the widths of the impacted segments, increase their operational
capacities, and enhance traffic flow. The affected area is developed with public right-of-way; private
property, including driveways, landscaped yards, and possibly building structures; above- and below-
ground utility improvements; and City-maintained trees and facilities, such as light-poles and signs.
The District would be required to widen the impacted street segments by five to eight feet.
Expanding five to eight feet of the impacted 6,000-foot length would affect an area between 30,000
and 48,000 square feet. Assuming there is no cost to use public right-of-way and public easements in
this area, and for the purposes of this analysis, conservatively assuming 5 percent of the area is
privately owned and the remainder is public right-of-way or public easement, the cost to acquire
private property would be between $804,492 and $1.3 million, which is based on an estimated land
cost of $536 per square foot (see Table 5.12-19, page 5.12-41 of recirculated EIR). This cost does not
include fees related to street-widening improvements and relocation of infrastructure.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 63 of 80
This mitigating option would reduce the potentially significant short-term, half-hour peak traffic
impacts at studied street segments to a less than significant level. However, it would likely have
significant secondary effects on parkway trees and utilities services, and this option would be a huge
undertaking for the District, as it would likely require condemnation. Moreover, the cost to
implement this potential mitigation option would not be proportional to its short-term improvement
to traffic congestion during the proposed school’s peak half-hour morning arrival and afternoon
departure periods. For these reasons and because traffic impacts at the study street segments do not
occur during the standard one-hour peak period (see Impact 5.12-1a), the District and City
determined that the benefits of this potential mitigating option do not outweigh its potential
consequences. This potential measure is also not practical and is therefore not preferred.
2. Parking Restriction Mitigating Option
The City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections 10.32.150, Parking Adjacent to Schools,
and 10.32.160, Parking on Narrow Streets, authorize the City Traffic Engineer to restrict on-
street parking. Section 10.32.150 authorizes the implementation of a “no parking” zone on the
side of any street adjacent to a school property, and Section 10.32.160 authorizes the
implementation of a “no parking” zone on one side of a narrow street.
Under this potential mitigation measure, signage would be installed on one side of the affected
street segments that restricts on-street parking during the morning arrival and afternoon
departure half-hour peak periods. Assuming a 15-minute staggered bell schedule of 8:15 AM to
2:45 PM and 8:30 AM to 3:00 PM, the signage could restrict parking between 8:00 AM and 9:00
AM and between 2:30 PM and 3:30 PM. The parking restriction would increase the capacity of
impacted street segments and in effect double the capacity of the streets by providing an
additional travel lane.
This option would mitigate the significant impacts on the segments of 24th Street, Morningside
Drive, and Park Avenue; however, traffic impacts would remain significant on the street
segments of 25th Street, 26th Street, and Myrtle Avenue—closest to the project site. Figure 5.12-
3, shows the street segments that would remain significant during the peak half hour even after
implementation of this potential mitigating option. Tables 17 to 20 of Appendix M-2, of the
recirculated EIR, quantify the improved LOS at the impacted sections.
Implementation of this potential mitigation measure would result in significant and adverse
secondary parking effects. As shown in Table 5.12-20, page 5.12-43 of recirculated EIR, this
option would affect approximately 148 on-street parking spaces. The City has indicated that
restriction of 148 on-street parking spaces is not acceptable or realistic. Therefore, this mitigation
option is not preferred.
3. Modified Parking Restriction Mitigating Option
The City will consider restricting on-street parking during the peak morning arrival and
afternoon departure periods along street segments adjacent to the project site on the north side
of 25th Street (between Myrtle Avenue and the site’s eastern boundary), east side of Myrtle
Avenue (between 25th and 26th Streets), and south side of 26th Street (between Myrtle Avenue
and Morningside Drive).
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 64 of 80
Pursuant to HBMC Section 10.32.150, the City can consider restricting on-street parking on
street segments adjacent to the proposed school site. A total of 26 on-street spaces, as modified
by the proposed project, would be affected, including 9 spaces on 25th Street, 8 spaces on Myrtle
Avenue, and 9 spaces on 26th Street. The 17 spaces on 25th Street and Myrtle Avenue would be
designated passenger loading (i.e., Mitigation Measure TRAF-4).
In accordance with HBMC Section 10.32.160, the City can also consider restricting six on-street
spaces on narrow streets that are adjacent to residential uses: two spaces on the north side of
25th Street at 301 25th Street, two spaces on the east side of Myrtle Avenue also adjacent to the
residence at 301 25th Street, and two on-street spaces on the south side of 26th Street near 316
and 336 26th Street; Figure 5.12-4, Affected On-Street Parking, page 5.12-47 of recirculated EIR,
shows the affected on-street spaces. Restricting parking at these six on-street spaces—in
conjunction with parking restrictions of on-street spaces adjacent to the project site—would not
eliminate significant traffic impacts at study street segments during the school’s half-hour peak
morning arrival and afternoon dismissal periods. Impacts would remain significant and adverse;
however, this mitigating option would nevertheless improve traffic circulation at the most
impacted street segments. In combination with an adult monitoring valet program at the
passenger loading areas (see Mitigation Measure TRAF-5c), traffic impacts and vehicle queueing
on street segments approaching the loading zones would also improve, but remain significant
and unavoidable.
Because the City indicated that the modified parking restriction option is more agreeable than
Option No. 2, above, and will consider it, this potential mitigation measure has been included as
Mitigation Measure TRAF-3.
4. Staggered Bell Schedule Project Alternative Option
This project alternative would require staggering the proposed school’s bell schedule so that the start
and end times for third and fourth grades would be offset. To fully mitigate the potentially
significant impact at the study street segments, the schedule would need to be staggered by 30
minutes, which would reduce the peak surge of traffic by approximately 50 percent and result in
effects comparable to that of parking restrictions (see No. 2, above). Although not as effective,
staggering the bell schedule by 15 minutes would also improve the level of service at the street
segments, but traffic impacts would remain significant and adverse. This potential mitigation
measure—whether staggering by 15 or 30 minutes—would have no secondary environmental
impacts. The District would be able to implement a 15-minute staggered schedule for the
proposed North School; however, a 30-minute stagger may not be feasible due to existing
teacher contracts and due to the District’s educational program. This potential mitigation
measure has been included as Mitigation Measure TRAF-2a.
5. Valley Park Community Building Lot Project Alternative Option
This project alternative would involve use of the parking lot behind the Kiwanis/Rotary Club
building at Valley Park as an official District-operated passenger loading area. Under this
alternative, the parking lot would be resurfaced and restriped, and new signs would be installed
for ingress via the northern driveway and egress via the southern driveway. Additional passenger
loading signs would be installed to restrict parking on school days during the morning drop-off
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 65 of 80
and afternoon dismissal periods. Since it would be a designated passenger loading area, the
District would be required to improve access between the loading area and North School in
compliance with California Building Code Standards and meet requirements of the American
with Disabilities Act. The cost to make these improvements would be about $200,000.
Because it would be a District-designated loading area, adult supervision may also be required;
however, for the purpose of this discussion, it is assumed an adult volunteer would be available.
Use of the lot behind the Kiwanis/Rotary Club building as a secondary passenger loading area
would limit vehicles from accessing the impacted study street segments and reduce traffic
impacts on these streets. It would be speculative, however, to determine the number of families
who would use this offsite passenger loading area and to quantify the reduced traffic effects on
the impacted street segments. Assuming a staggered bell schedule is implemented and a quarter
of the students who are driven to school at each bell schedule are dropped off at this loading
area or on the segments of Gould Avenue and Valley Drive adjacent to the park, there would be
a reduction of approximately 160 AM peak half-hour trips and 80 PM peak half-hour trips on
the residential streets. Even with the reduction in trips, traffic impacts on the studied street
segments would remain significant and adverse.
To limit traffic conflicts and hazards, use of the Kiwanis/Rotary Club parking lot would also
require that neither club schedule meetings and activities during the morning and afternoon bell
periods. Because the District does not own the Kiwanis/Rotary Club property the District would
have no control over use of the property; therefore, while the District could establish a goal of
entering into an agreement, the District would not be able to enforce these improvements as
mitigation. It would further require the City to approve the proposed use of the parking and
improvements, because the area affected is owned by the City. For these reasons, including the
high cost for the proposed improvements, which is not proportional to the short-term half-hour
peak traffic impacts during the morning arrival and afternoon departure periods, this alternative
is not preferred and is considered economically and legally infeasible.
6. School Bus Shuttling Option
As discussed above, the District considered hiring a bus to shuttle students from each of its
school sites. Although it would be speculative to project ridership, assuming 20 students from
the proposed North School project used the shuttling program, traffic impacts at the potentially
significant street segments would still not be fully mitigated, and impacts would remain
significant and adverse. As the bus shuttling option would not reduce significant traffic impacts
at the studied street segments, the cost is not proportional to its benefit (i.e., shuttling would not
eliminate the significant traffic impacts), and mitigation is not warranted under the standard one-
hour peak period (see Impact 5.12-1a), the District determined this option is not preferred.
Impact 5.12-3: The project would not increase hazards caused by project design features or
incompatible uses, nor would the project conflict with or decrease the performance or safety of
alternative transportation modes. However, mitigation measures proposed are within the purview
and/or responsibility of the City of Hermosa Beach.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 66 of 80
Site Plan and Design
All proposed improvements, except for the school driveway into the parking lot and passenger
loading area on 25th Street, would be constructed on District-owned property. The design of the
proposed project does not include sharp curves or dangerous intersections that would create a public
safety hazard. The main vehicular access would be the driveway on 25th Street east of Myrtle Avenue
and the service driveway, which also provides fire access to the center of the campus, is proposed at
the northeast corner of the site on 26th Street at Morningside Drive. As the use of the service
driveway would be limited to deliveries when students are not accessing the driveway and as it would
form the third leg of the intersection, the use and design of the service driveway would not pose
significant safety hazards.
Visibility along 25th Street from the school’s main driveway would meet sight distance standards
specified in Table 201.1 of Caltrans’ “Highway Design Manual” and also would not pose safety
hazards. Assuming the design speed of 25th Street is the same as the posted speed limit of 25 mph,
the minimum sight distance standard from the driveway on 25th Street would be 150 feet.
Observations at the existing driveway on 25th Street indicate that the sight distance to the east is 340
feet and the sight distance to the west is 280 feet. Therefore, the driveway would exceed the
minimum sight distance requirement per the Highway Design Manual, as well as comply with Section
14010(k) of Title 5, California Code of Regulations, which requires peripheral visibility at school
driveways.
The project proposes two passenger loading zones: the main loading area at the front of the school
on 25th Street and a second along Myrtle Avenue adjacent to the project site. The northern half of
25th Street adjacent to the main school building would be widened by eight feet; the sidewalk would
be moved northward accordingly. The pulled-in curb would allow vehicles to stop and load/unload
students in a separate lane from the thru-lane on 25th Street. The design of the main loading zone
does not contain features that would cause safety hazards, and the design of the proposed school
campus would be compatible with the surrounding residential and park land uses.
Roadway Hazards
Construction
Construction staging would be in the eastern portion of the project site, with direct access f rom the
driveway at 26th Street and Morningside Drive. Due to the site’s irregular shape and tight space,
however, there may be deliveries and construction trucks on all sides of the site for certain work,
including demolition of the existing buildings and construction of the new school building on 25th
Street. Operation of construction vehicles will comply with applicable City requirements, including
following the City-designated truck routes. It is also possible that certain activities may require
temporary roadway or sidewalk closures and/or traffic detours that could increase roadway hazards.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-6 has been proposed to limit potential roadway hazards caused by
construction activities, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 67 of 80
Operation
Narrow Street Widths
The widths of the streets near the project site are narrow and cannot readily accommodate both
directions of traffic flow, particularly when vehicles are parked on both sides of the street. Vehicular
circulation to and from the school site would be constrained during peak arrival and departure times
at the beginning and ending of each school session as parents drop off and pick up students. The
narrow streets would be an inconvenience for motorists and surrounding residences and would result
in reduced vehicle speeds. Field observations made by the traffic engineer indicate that there are
sufficient pull-out opportunities for vehicles traveling in opposite directions to pass when one of the
drivers pulls over to an open curb (where no vehicles are parked) or a driveway to allow oncoming
vehicles to pass. Therefore, with reduced vehicle speeds, traffic hazards due to the narrow roadways
would be less than significant.
Passenger Loading
Due to site constraints, including narrow roadways and an awkwardly shaped property, the District
has designed the school’s main passenger loading zone on 25th Street with a pull-in curb. This
segment of 25th Street would be widened by eight feet, which would allow vehicles to get out of the
westward thru-lane on 25th Street, stop, and load/unload students while other vehicles can pass
through on 25th Street. Students who use this loading zone would access the school from the main
walkway, east of the school’s driveway. Students would not be required to cross streets or driveways.
The student loading zone on 25th Street would be 180 linear feet; assuming a vehicle takes up about
20 feet of space, it would accommodate roughly 9 vehicles.
Drop-off and pick-up areas at schools should include at least one space for every 50 students, with a
minimum of 5 spaces. The proposed school has a maximum design enrollment capacity of 510 seats
and would require 11 passenger loading spaces. The proposed passenger loading zone on 25th Street
would accommodate 9 vehicles. The loading area on 25th Street alone would not meet the minimum
spaces required, and vehicles waiting to load/unload students on 25th Street would create a queue
and potential traffic hazards along 25th Street.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-4 requires use of the north side of 25th Street and east side of Myrtle
Avenue adjacent to the project site as designated passenger loading areas; both areas are within City
right-of-way. Students using Myrtle Avenue would access the school from a pedestrian entry on 26th
Street at the east side of the parking lot and would not be required to cross streets or driveways. With
the use of Myrtle Avenue and 25th Street for passenger loading, the project —as mitigated—would
provide 17 passenger loading spaces, which would exceed the minimum spaces required and reduce
potential traffic hazards caused by vehicles stacked on 25th Street and Myrtle Avenue. Potentially
significant traffic hazard impacts caused by inadequate passenger loading space would be reduced to
less than significant.
Although the proposed project as mitigated would provide adequate passenger loading, it is possible
that parents drop off and pick up their students at areas not officially designated by the District for
student loading. It is possible that parents of North School students will drop off/pick up students at
meet-up places such as Valley Park that have safe routes to school. It would be speculative to
determine the percentage of students that would be dropped off and picked up at offsite the
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 68 of 80
locations. However, assuming parents use Valley Park as a meet-up place, the streets adjoining the
park—including Valley Drive, 27th Street/Gould Avenue, and Morningside Drive—would have
adequate pedestrian and sidewalk facilities that would provide safe access to the project site to the
school’s entrance on 26th Street at Morningside Drive. The pedestrian access point from the
Morningside Drive cul-de-sac (southeast portion of the campus) could also be used. There is an
existing asphalt ramp that connects the Valley Park to this entrance; however, the ramp and
walkways in Valley Park are unlikely to be ADA compliant. There are 44 marked on-street parking
spaces on the south side of Gould Avenue, 29 marked spaces on the west side of Valley Drive, and
25 spaces in the Rotary/Kiwanis Club parking lot. Use of Valley Park and other locations would
further reduce vehicle traffic and associated roadway hazards on streets south of the project site.
Traffic hazard impacts related to passenger loading would be less than significant.
Vehicular, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Safety
Although the project is in the northwestern portion of the City of Hermosa Beach, it is possible that
students throughout the City would walk and bike to school. Based on a survey conducted by the
City of Hermosa Beach in August 2016 in support of its Safe Routes to School recommendations in
PLAN Hermosa (see Appendix M-4 of the recirculated EIR), it is anticipated that some students will
walk and bike to school. It can be surmised that parents would be comfortable with their children
walking to and from the proposed North School site and/or drive their children to a meet -up place,
such as Valley Park, where they could safely walk to and from school.
The proposed school is in a residential community and not on a major arterial street with heavy
traffic; this is consistent with Title 5, CCR Section 14010(l), which states school sites shall not be on
major arterial streets with heavy traffic patterns. However, there are inadequate sidewalk facilities
nearby the proposed North School site. Additionally, while the site has historically operated with
educational uses, including at the time the environmental process began for the proposed project,
streets in the vicinity of the project site do not have traffic control devices that adequately notify
drivers of the existing facility or safely facilitate student pedestrians on the local circulation system.
With the projected increase in pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular movements near the project site
would be a corresponding increase in potential conflicts and hazards on nearby streets and roads.
The project’s potential vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety hazards on streets near the proposed
school site have been identified in part by the traffic engineer and community input.
Recommendations, which have been identified as mitigation, are consistent with Caltrans criteria
from Part 7, Traffic Control for School Areas. Figure 5.12-5, Proposed Traffic Hazards Improvements,
page 5.12-55 of recirculated EIR, shows where the improvements would be made. Their
implementation would reduce potentially significant traffic safety hazards related to vehicles, bicycles,
and pedestrians on streets surrounding the project site to acceptable standards, and impacts would be
less than significant, as mitigated.
▪ The widths of the local streets that provide access to the school site cannot readily accommodate
both directions of traffic flow, particularly when vehicles are parked on both sid es of the street.
Consequently, vehicular circulation to and from the school site would be constrained during
peak arrival and departure times at the beginning and ending of each school session. As the
narrow streets in the school area would be adversely impacted because of the substantial increase
in traffic volumes associated with the school, the following measures are recommended to
facilitate the flow of traffic to and from the school site.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 69 of 80
● The District, in conjunction with the City, shall prepare a Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan (NTMP) that will address traffic concerns on neighborhood streets,
improve safety, and the quality-of-life for residents.
● The District shall prepare a recommended vehicle travel routes to school map, such as
Figure 5.12-6, Recommended Vehicle Travel Routes to School, page 5.12-59 of recirculated EIR.
● Limit traffic traveling in the opposite direction of the street segments with proposed
passenger loading zones by installing signs to restrict peak hour turning at the intersections
of Myrtle Avenue|25th Street, Myrtle Avenue|26th Street, and Silverstrand|25th Street. The
signs would include No Right Turn on northbound Myrtle at 25th Street, No Left Turn on
southbound Myrtle at 25th Street, No Left turn on westbound 26th Street at Myrtle, and No
Right Turn on northbound Silverstrand at 25th Street.
● Install “Do Not Block Intersection” signs or mark “Keep Clear” on the pavements at the
25th Street|Park Avenue, 25th Street|Myrtle Avenue, and 26th Street|Myrtle Avenue
intersections.
▪ Sidewalks near the project site are not continuous, and there are sidewalk obstructions, missing
curb ramps, and steep driveways.
● Prepare a “Pedestrian School Route Plan” to provide information for students, parents, and
faculty regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety. and proposed traffic control devices,
crosswalks, and pedestrian-accessways.
▪ To maximize the number of drop-off/pick-up spaces at the proposed school and limit vehicle
stacking on adjacent streets, the following measures are recommended.
● Designate passenger loading zones on the north side of 25th Street and the east side of
Myrtle Avenue along the entire frontage of the school property by installing signs that state
“Passenger Loading & Unloading Only, 8:00 to 9:00 AM & 2:30 to 3:30 PM, School Days”
(or time periods deemed appropriate by the District and the City of Hermosa Beach to
coincide with the proposed school’s peak drop-off and pick-up times).
● If feasible, widen 25th Street and Myrtle Avenue by approximately 8 feet at the proposed
passenger loading zones to create a separation between travel lanes and passenger loading
activities.
● As a part of the NTMP, prepare and implement a pedestrian monitoring and assistance plan
that includes the assignment of adult personnel and volunteers on the north side of 25th
Street and east side of Myrtle Avenue adjacent to the proposed school to control, direct, and
advise students as they walk to and from the school grounds, to assist with vehicle drop -
offs/pick-ups.
▪ Drivers and pedestrians may access streets near the school that have no school warning signs and
markings.
● Install school area warning signs to notify drivers that they are entering a school zone on
25th Street west of Myrtle Avenue, 25th Street east of the school site, 26th Street west of
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 70 of 80
Myrtle Avenue, Morningside Drive south of 27th Street/Gould Avenue, Myrtle Drive south
of 25th Street, and Silverstrand Avenue south of the school site.
● Paint yellow school crosswalks at the intersections of 25th Street and Myrtle Avenue (all four
legs), 26th Street and Myrtle Avenue (south leg), and 27th Street/Gould Avenue at
Morningside Drive (all four legs).
▪ Increased vehicle and pedestrian activity will occur at the intersection of 25th Street and Myrtle
Avenue.
● In addition to crossing guards identified in the City’s safe routes to school map, the District
shall work cooperatively with the City of Hermosa Beach to seek funding for circulation and
safety measures, including a qualified crossing guard at the intersection of 25th Street and
Myrtle Avenue.
Impact 5.12-6: Secondary effects caused by Mitigation Measures TRAF-3 and TRAF-4 would alter
on-street parking. Construction-related parking impacts would be limited with mitigating
construction-contract terms.
Construction
Although construction staging and parking are proposed in the eastern portion of the site, the new
parking lot on the west side (when complete) may also be used, because space is limited. Most
vehicles will access the site from the driveway at 26th Street and Morningside Drive. However, there
could be deliveries and construction trucks on all sides of the school during certain times. Even
though existing parking restrictions on the surrounding streets would be enforced, construction of
the proposed school would last (on-and-off) for roughly one year. To ensure that construction
parking does not create a significant impact, mitigation has been proposed.
School Operations
Onsite Parking
The California Department of Education recommends that a school have at least 2.25 parking spaces
per classroom/teaching station. Accordingly, the proposed school, with 15 classrooms, 2 labs, and 1
learning center/library—considered 18 teaching stations for a conservative analysis—would require
41 on-site parking spaces. The project proposes 41 on-site parking spaces. These spaces would
accommodate faculty, staff, and visitors on a typical school day.
Offsite Parking
Offsite improvements on 25th Street and implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-3 and
TRAF-4 would alter on-street parking on 25th Street, Myrtle Avenue, and 26th Street.
25th Street Improvements
Driveway. The project includes improvements to the right-of-way along 25th Street adjacent to the
project site; no physical improvements are proposed on the segments of Myrtle Avenue and 26th
Street adjacent to the project site. The project proposes widening the site’s western driveway on 25th
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 71 of 80
Street from one lane to two to accommodate ingress into and egress out of the school’s parking lot.
This improvement would result in the loss of one curbside space. The loss of the on-street space
would be offset, however, by closure and construction of curb and sidewalk at the site’s eastern
driveway on 25th Street. Therefore, the project’s proposed driveway alterations would result in no
net change to on-street parking.
Passenger Loading. The proposed passenger loading zone on 25th Street would result in the loss
of one on-street space because the two ends of the pulled-in curb would render unusable
approximately 10 feet on each end, or 20 feet total, which is the length of a vehicle space. The loss of
this space would be offset by the project’s proposed relocation of an existing fire hydrant from this
segment of 25th Street to the eastern perimeter of the project site. Parking is not allowed within 15
feet on either side of a fire hydrant; 15 feet east of the relocated hydrant would extend into an
adjacent resident’s driveway, 15 feet to the west would extend into the angled curb area of the
loading zone. Table 5.12-21, On-Street Parking, School Frontage on 25th Street, page 5.12-66 of
recirculated EIR, compares the existing and proposed parking restrictions and improvements along
the project’s approximately 250-foot street frontage on 25th Street. The table assumes Mitigation
Measure TRAF-4 is approved by the City of Hermosa Beach. As shown, the project would not result
in the physical loss of on-street parking on 25th Street; the project would actually increase the
available supply of on-street parking, during the day, outside the peak morning and afternoon
periods.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-3 and TRAF-4 would restrict use of 29 existing on-
street spaces (or 32 project-modified on-street parking spaces) during the AM and PM peak periods.
Although short term, affecting only a few hours of each school day and while outside the summer
peak season, the secondary effects caused by TRAF-3 and TRAF-4 to on-street parking are
considered significant and adverse.
Special Events
There would be several special events throughout the year, when the demand for parking would
exceed the number of spaces in the parking lot. During these events, most of the event attendees
would have to find parking on the nearby streets or in parking lots in the vicinity of the school.
Because parking is at a premium in the project area and unoccupied spaces are usually difficult to
find, there would be a substantial parking impact during such events, which typically occur in the
evenings. However, these parking situations would be temporary—a few hours—and occur only four
to six times annually. Therefore, parking impacts caused by special events would not constitute a
significant environmental impact.
For field trips, buses would be used to transport students to and from the school site. Because there
are no designated bus parking zones at the school site, temporary arrangements would be needed for
short-term bus parking. For example, buses could park in the drop-off/pick-up zone on 25th Street
or Myrtle Avenue adjacent to the school; these areas could be blocked with cones after the peak
drop-off period ends to reserve the curbside area for the buses. Alternatively, the buses could be
parked in the circulation aisles of the school’s parking lot or along Gould Avenue, Valley Drive, or
another street or parking lot within walking distance of the school. This is an operational issue that is
not within the purview of CEQA and would be handled by the District separately.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 72 of 80
Mitigation:
Impact 5.12-1b
TRAF-1 The District shall develop a Transportation Management Program to emphasize use,
awareness, and safety of public transit, ridesharing, walking, and bicycling to the
proposed school site. The program shall consider contracting a bus service to pick up
student passengers at each District school and transport them to the next school. The
District shall also consider a “Walking School Bus” program to facilitate group walking
of children to and from school and/or between schools with one or more adults. The
District shall provide information on the availability and benefits of the various travel
modes to faculty/staff, students, and parents and offer incentives to faculty/staff for
using public transit or carpools.
TRAF-2 Half-hour peak traffic impacts at the intersections of Valley Drive|Gould Avenue and
Ardmore Avenue|Gould Avenue shall be improved by one or more of the following:
a. Prior to the opening of the proposed school, the District shall stagger the
proposed school’s bell schedule so that the starting and ending times for third
and fourth grades would be offset by 30 minutes. The staggered schedule would
separate arrival and departure times for the two grade levels and reduce peak
traffic surge by approximately 50 percent. If the starting and ending times for
the two grade levels cannot be staggered by 30 minutes, a smaller, more
practical time interval such as 15 minutes shall be implemented.
b. If the District cannot stagger the bell schedule by 30 minutes, the District shall
pay an ad-hoc, fair-share contribution of 13.3 percent to the City of Hermosa
Beach for deployment of traffic control officers or implementation of another
economically comparable improvement at Valley Drive|Gould Avenue and/or
Ardmore Avenue|Gould Avenue intersections during the morning arrival
and/or afternoon departure peak periods. The traffic control officers or other
economically comparable improvement shall be available and/or operable by
the first day of school. Deployment of traffic control officers and/or use of
another economically comparable improvement shall be reviewed and approved
by the City of Hermosa Beach.
TRAF-3 In conjunction with parking restrictions required to designate City right-of-way, adjacent
to the project site on 25th Street and Myrtle Avenue as student passenger loading (see
TRAF-4), prior to opening the proposed school, additional parking restriction signage
shall be installed on the north side of 25th Street (near 301 25th Street), east side of
Myrtle Avenue (near the residence of 301 25th Street), and south side of 26th Street
(near 316 and 336 26th Street) to provide a continuous, unobstructed path from the
passenger loading areas to the intersection of Gould Avenue and Morningside Drive.
The sign shall state, “No Parking, 8 AM to 9 AM & 2:30 PM to 3:30 PM, School Days”
(or time periods deemed appropriate based on the staggered bell schedule per Mitigation
Measure TRAF-2a). The signs will be subject to review and approval by the City of
Hermosa Beach.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 73 of 80
Impact 5.12-3
TRAF-1 See above under Impact 5.12-1b.
TRAF-4 The following shall be implemented to enhance passenger loading activities:
a. Prior to opening the proposed school, the District shall work with the City to
designate passenger loading zones on the north side of 25th Street and east side
of Myrtle Avenue, adjoining the frontages of the proposed school site. Use of
City right-of-way will be subject to review and approval by the City of Hermosa
Beach.
b. Prior to opening the proposed school, the District shall work with the City to
install signs at the passenger loading zones that state: “Passenger Loading &
Unloading Only, 8 AM to 9 AM & 2:30 PM to 3:30 PM, School Days” (or time
periods deemed appropriate based on the staggered bell schedule per Mitigation
Measure TRAF-2a). The signs will be subject to review and approval by the City
of Hermosa Beach.
TRAF-5 To enhance traffic safety and awareness for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian
movements, the following measures shall be implemented to comply with standards
included in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Part 7, Traffic
Control For School Areas:
a. The District shall prepare a “Pedestrian School Route Plan” to educate parents,
students and staff of pedestrian and bicycle safety. The plan shall provide
guidance on the preferred travel routes and locations to cross-streets based on
the existing and proposed traffic control devices and crosswalks. The Pedestrian
School Route Plan shall include the City-prepared School Routes Plan (Figure
5.12-7, Safe Routes to School Network) and shall be completed prior to the opening
of the proposed school. The plan shall be distributed to students and parents at
the beginning of each school year and to all new students/parents who begin
school midyear. It shall also be available on the school’s website as a public
outreach tool.
b. The District shall prepare a “Recommended Vehicle Travel Routes Map” (see
Figure 5.12-6, Recommended Vehicle Travel Routes to School) to limit two-way travel
on streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed school site. The map of
vehicle travel routes to school shall be completed and available for distribution
to students and parents by the first day of school; it shall be made available on
the school’s website as a public outreach tool.
c. To maximize the number of passenger loading spaces at the proposed school,
limit vehicle stacking on adjacent streets, and improve pedestrian safety on
streets adjoining the project site, the District shall prepare and implement a
“Pedestrian Monitoring and Assistance Plan” by the first day of school that
includes:
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 74 of 80
i. Assignment of adult personnel and volunteers at the passenger loading
zones on the north side of 25th Street and east side of Myrtle Avenue to
control, direct, and guide students as they walk to and from school
grounds.
ii. Procedures for the adult personnel and volunteers include but are not
limited to
A. Directing vehicles to stop at the spaces at the front of the passenger
loading zones, when unoccupied, to facilitate vehicle flow.
B. Creating a vehicle valet system, such as opening car doors.
C. Discouraging students from crossing 25th Street in front of the
school, including at the intersection of Silverstrand Avenue.
D. Directing students using the Myrtle Avenue passenger loading zone
to access school grounds from the entry on 26th Street, at the eastern
perimeter of the proposed school parking lot.
d. The District, in conjunction with the City of Hermosa Beach, shall create a
working group—including but not limited to representatives from the City and
District—to prepare and implement an ongoing Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan (NTMP) to identify operational traffic concerns on adjacent
streets and ways to manage them accordingly. Development of the NTMP shall
begin at least nine months prior to the opening of the proposed school to
ensure its timely completion prior to the opening of the proposed school. The
NTMP shall be updated as needed to meet its purpose to improve pedestrian,
bicycle, and vehicular safety; enhance the quality-of-life for surrounding land
uses caused by speeding vehicles and careless drivers; and help the District and
City to prioritize limited resources. The NTMP shall be distributed to students
and parents and be available on the school’s website as a public outreach tool.
If operational traffic safety hazards remain after all improvements identified in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-5 are implemented, the NTMP working group shall
consider additional ways to manage traffic safety and vehicle queueing and
stacking at “problem areas,” including but not limited to:
i. Painting curbs red at intersections, if warranted.
ii. Installing additional traffic control improvements, offsite loading areas,
crossing guards, if needed.
iii. Installing additional stop and/or yield signs and other signage that
restricts turning movements during peak traffic periods, as warranted.
iv. Restricting more on-street parking during peak traffic periods, if
appropriate.
v. Widening the passenger loading zone on Myrtle Avenue adjacent to the
proposed school by eight feet, if warranted.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 75 of 80
e. The District shall work with the City to install school area warning signs to
notify drivers that they are entering a school zone on 25th Street west of Myrtle
Avenue, 25th Street east of the school site, 26th Street west of Myrtle Avenue,
Morningside Drive south of 27th Street|Gould Avenue, Myrtle Drive south of
25th Street, and Silverstrand Avenue south of the project site. The signs shall be
subject to review and approval by the City of Hermosa Beach.
f. The District shall work with the City to install yellow school crosswalks at the
intersections of 25th Street and Myrtle Avenue (all four legs), 26th Street and
Myrtle Avenue (south leg), and 27th Street|Gould Avenue at Morningside
Drive (all four legs). The yellow school crosswalks shall be subject to review and
approval by the City of Hermosa Beach.
g. To minimize the volumes of traffic traveling in the opposite direction of street
segments with passenger loading zones, the District shall work with the City of
Hermosa Beach to install signage to restrict peak hour turning movements onto
25th Street and Myrtle Avenue. Sign text may include “No Right (or Left) Turn
from 8 AM to 9 AM & 2:30 PM to 3:30 PM, School Days.” Signs shall be
installed at the below intersections and be subject to review and approval by the
City of Hermosa Beach:
i. Myrtle Avenue|25th Street: No Right Turn on northbound Myrtle at 25th
Street and No Left Turn on southbound Myrtle at 25th Street
ii. Myrtle Avenue|26th Street: No Left Turn on westbound 26th Street at
Myrtle Avenue
iii. Silverstrand|25th Street: No Right Turn on northbound Silverstrand at
25th.
h. To facilitate the flow of traffic to and from the school site and enhance
vehicular circulation, the District shall work with the City of Hermosa Beach to
either install “Do Not Block Intersection” signs or mark “Keep Clear” on the
pavements at the intersections of 25th Street|Park Avenue, 25th Street|Myrtle
Avenue, and 26th Street|Myrtle Avenue.
i. In addition to crossing guards identified in the City’s safe routes to school map
(Figure 5.12-7), the District shall work with the City of Hermosa Beach to seek
funding for a qualified crossing guard at the intersection of 25th Street and
Myrtle Avenue and for other appropriate circulation and safety measures
recommended in the NTMP.
TRAF-6 To limit potential hazards caused by temporary roadway or sidewalk closures and/or
traffic detours caused by project construction, the District shall require its const ruction
contractors to submit a construction work site traffic control plan to the City of
Hermosa Beach for approval prior to the start of any construction at the project site.
The plan shall show all haul routes, construction hours, protective devices, warning
signs, parking/staging areas, and access points to the property. The District shall
encourage its contractors to limit construction-related trucks to off-peak commute
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 76 of 80
periods. Applicable transportation-related safety measures shall be implemented during
construction.
Impact 5.12-6
TRAF-7 The District shall prohibit its construction contractors to park construction vehicles and
equipment and employee personal vehicles on the City-classified local streets. All
construction-related vehicles and equipment shall park within the project site and/or at
offsite, off-street locations at the expense of the construction contractor.
Findings:
The District hereby finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1 through 7 are
feasible, and are therefore adopted (Public Resources Code § 21081[a][1], Guidelines § 15091[a][1]).
Therefore, the District hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the final EIR.
7. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 5.13-2: Adverse change in Native American resource during construction activities.
The project’s Historical Resources Assessment Report evaluated whether the project site and the
structures on the property qualify as historical resources based on PRC Section 5024.1(c). Based on
an evaluation of the history of Hermosa Beach and of documentation of the built improvements on
the property, the assessment concluded that the buildings and the property itself do not meet the
criteria listed in PRC Section 5024.1(c) to qualify them as historical cultural resources. Section 5.4,
Cultural Resources, and Appendix E, of the Draft EIR, further discusses this determination.
However, it is known that Native American tribes accessed the entire Los Angeles basin prior to the
urbanization of the region. The Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians identified
the site as being within their geographic area and as culturally sensitive to the Gabrieleño/Tongva
people. The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians’ has also indicated that the City of Hermosa Beach is
within their traditional use area. As excavation for the proposed buildings’ foundations and footings
may encounter undisturbed soils, it is possible that construction-related earthwork may inadvertently
uncover buried tribal cultural artifacts.
Although the project site was previously graded during construction of the existing site, due to
the excavation required for installation of the proposed improvements, it is possible that
project implementation would encounter undisturbed soils, and project implementation
could potentially result in the discovery of subsurface tribal resources and cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of the resources if not mitigated.
TCR-1 In addition to implementing Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires a registered
professional archaeologist (RPA) to monitor ground-disturbing activities for the
discovery of potential historical or archaeological resources, the RPA shall also
monitor for potential tribal cultural resources. If tribal cultural resources are
recovered, the RPA shall contact the liaisons for the local Native American tribes,
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 77 of 80
including their Native American monitors, to assess the find and as appropriate
return the artifact to the appropriate tribe(s).
Finding:
The District hereby finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR -1 is feasible, and is
therefore adopted (Public Resources Code § 21081[a][1], Guidelines § 15091[a][1]). Therefore, the
District hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
final EIR.
D. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Impact 5.12-1b: Half-Hour Peak Traffic Impacts Remain Significant and Unavoidable
The District is committed to implementing Mitigation Measure TRAF-1. However, this mitigation
measure alone will not reduce potentially significant project-level and cumulatively considerable
traffic impacts at the intersections of Valley Drive|Gould Avenue and Ardmore Avenue|Gould
Avenue and the street segments of 24th Street, Morningside Drive, and Park Avenue, 25th Street,
26th Street, and Myrtle Avenue.
Intersections
The project’s peak half-hour traffic impacts at the intersections of Valley Drive|Gould Avenue and
Ardmore Avenue|Gould Avenue would be fully mitigated and reduced to acceptable levels of service
standards at both project and cumulative levels with the implementation of a 30-minute staggered
bell schedule (TRAF-2). Due to existing contracts with District teachers and the District’s
educational program, the District is unlikely to be able to stagger the bell schedule by 30 minutes.
The District, however, is committed to staggering the bell schedule by at least 15 minutes; staggering
by less than 30 minutes will not fully mitigate significant peak half-hour traffic impacts at the
intersections. The District is also committed to paying their ad-hoc, fair-share contribution of 13.3
percent to deploy traffic control officers at both intersections. Deployment of the TCOs would
improve the level of service to acceptable standards; however, fee payment would not fully mitigate
the impact at the intersections to a “less-than-significant” level, as it is uncertain whether other funds
are available to match the District’s fair-share contribution and because the hiring and deployment of
the TCOs are within the City’s purview and City’s legal responsibility. Therefore, project impacts at
the Valley Drive|Gould Avenue and Ardmore Avenue|Gould Avenue intersections remain
significant and unavoidable.
Street Segments
As indicated above, the District is committed to staggering the school’s bell schedule by 15 minutes.
It is uncertain at this time whether a 30-minute stagger can be implemented by the District (TRAF-
2); if it can, with the exception of studied segments along 25th Street, 26th Street, and Myrtle
Avenue, traffic impacts at all other studied street segments would be reduced to levels below
significance.
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 78 of 80
The City has indicated that it is not practical to restrict parking on all impacted street segments. It
will, however, consider restricting on-street parking adjacent to the school site on 25th Street, 26th
Street, and Myrtle Avenue (TRAF-4). The City will also consider restricting two additional on-street
parking spaces on 25th Street (between Myrtle Avenue and the eastern property line), 26th Street
(between Myrtle Avenue and Morningside Drive), and Myrtle Avenue (between 25th and 26th
streets)—or six additional on-street spaces—for continuous, unobstructed traffic flow (TRAF-3).
As it is uncertain whether the District can implement a 30-minute bell stagger and whether the City
will approve parking restrictions along 25th Street, 26th Street, and Myrtle Avenue, and as traffic
impacts on the street segments of 25th Street, 26th Street, and Myrtle Avenue would remain
significant and unavoidable even if the District implemented a 30-minute bell stagger, the project’s
impact on the studied street segments would remain significant and unavoidable. Implementation of
proposed signage (TRAF-3) would occur on City right-of-way and within the jurisdiction and
purview of another agency; therefore, TRAF-3 is legally infeasible, and Impact 5.12-1b remains
significant and unavoidable.
Impact 5.12-3: Traffic Safety Hazard Impacts Remain Significant and Unavoidable
Short-term project construction and long-term operational traffic hazards would be reduced to less
than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1, TRAF-4, TRAF-5, and
TRAF-6. However, the three latter mitigation measures would need to be implemented within City
right-of-way and/or are the legal responsibility of the City. Therefore, they are legally infeasible, and
Impact 5.12-3 remains significant and unavoidable.
▪ Mitigation Measure TRAF-4. Implementation of this mitigation measure would allow
passenger loading activities on 25th Street and Myrtle Avenue. Potential traffic hazards caused by
vehicles queueing would be reduced to acceptable standards, and impacts would be reduced
from potentially significant to less than significant. The proposed use of City rights-of-way
adjacent to the project site and installation of passenger loading signs to indicate their designated
use are the legal responsibility of the City. Therefore, traffic hazards related to passenger loading
would remain significant and unavoidable.
▪ Mitigation Measure TRAF-5. Traffic control procedures and devices under this mitigation
measure would be consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,
Part 7, Traffic Control For School Areas, to notify drivers of the proposed school and facilitate
student pedestrians and parents/drivers on the City’s local circulation system to the proposed
North School site. Compliance with the MUTCD Part 7 would result in efficient and uniform
traffic controls that would mitigate potentially significant operational traffic hazards on the local
circulation system caused by project operation. Some of the proposed improvements would be
within City right-of-way and/or are the legal responsibility of the City. Therefore, traffic hazard
impacts on nearby streets and roads caused by operation of the proposed school would remain
significant and unavoidable.
▪ Mitigation Measure TRAF-6. The project’s construction work site traffic control plan would
reduce potentially significant traffic hazards during construction of the proposed project. The
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 79 of 80
plan, however, would require approval by the City. Consequently, traffic hazards caused by
project construction would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 5.12-6: Secondary Parking Effects Remain Significant and Unavoidable
Implementation of TRAF-7, which the District will implement, would fully reduce potentially
significant parking impacts during construction of the proposed project to less than significant levels.
However, while implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-3 (improve half-hour peak traffic
circulation on 25th Street, Myrtle Avenue, and 26th Street) and TRAF-4 (use of 25th Street and
Myrtle Avenue as designated passenger loading) would increase the supply of on-street parking, they
would also result in the restriction of on-street parking during the morning drop-off and afternoon
pick-up periods. No mitigation is available to address parking restrictions caused by TRAF-3 and
TRAF-4. The District acknowledges the potential inconvenience these mitigation measures will
cause, but believes the benefits of the proposed school outweigh them. The District has determined
that the secondary parking effects are significant and adverse.
Finding: The District finds, based on the Final EIR, and the whole of the record, that the
proposed Project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to transportation and
traffic because improvements to intersections and street segments are not within the
purview and/or responsibility of the District.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
In preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address the feasibility of both
mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating the approval of a
project with significant environmental impacts. Where the significant impacts can be mitigated to less
than significant by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency has no obligation in drafting
its findings to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts
would be less severe than those of the project as mitigated.
The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures that can avoid or reduce them below
significance, and the Hermosa Beach City School District’s findings concerning them, are set forth in
Section III above. The mitigation measures also are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program adopted by the Hermosa Beach City School District pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097.
The FEIR examined a reasonable range of alternatives to determine whether they could meet the
project’s objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the project’s significant
impacts. Based on numerous community comments, the DEIR analyzed the below 19 project
alternative variations:
• Alternate 1: Modernization of Existing North School Facilities
• Alternates 2a – 2b: New School within District Property (parking lot on District property
and school would use Valley Park for physical education) and Expanded onto Valley Park
(parking lot in Valley Park)
• Alternates 3a – 3d: Alternative Locations
Resolution #06:18/19
Exhibit A
Page 80 of 80
• Alternate 4: Hybrid Option (alternative sites, including possible expansion of existing
schools)
• Alternate 5: New School Expanded onto Valley Park (Design Per Measure Q)
• Alternate 6: New School with Underground Parking (Design Per Measure S)
• Alternate 7: New School Expanded onto Eastern Slope (Design Per Measure S)
• Alternate 8: Reduced Intensity by Grade Configuration
• Alternates 9a – 9b: Passenger Loading in (Proposed) Western Parking Lot
• Alternates 10a – 10c: Connect Morningside Drive at 26th Street to 25th Street or
Morningside Drive
• Alternates 11a – 11b: School Building on Slope and New Road in Valley Park
• Alternative A: No Project (No Development)
• Alternative B: No Project (New Permanent Classroom Facilities at Valley and View Schools
to Accommodate the Existing Enrollment Capacities)
IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Draft EIR includes thresholds of significance that are used to establish normally acceptable
standards for Project impacts in the District. In many instances, the Project meets the standards
without the need for modification. In some cases, mitigation measures have been required that
modify the Project to reduce impacts to below the normally accepted thresholds. There are several
instances where impacts cannot be reduced to a level below the normally accepted thresholds. While
there are many reasons why this may occur, reasons usually fall into the following categories: the
issue is much larger than the District’s jurisdiction or capability to resolve; there are no feasible
mitigation measures; the measures that are identified cannot be guaranteed to reduce the impact to
less than significant; or the proportionate share of the mitigation for the Project is small and there is
no identified source for the remainder of the funding. When an impact is above the normally
accepted threshold and cannot be mitigated, the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable in
the Draft EIR. The CEQA Guidelines allow the District to approve a Project with significant and
unavoidable impacts provided specific findings are made.
1. The project keeps the existing school in the neighborhood;
2. Use of District owned land maximizes use of limited funds;
3. The school is adjacent to a park, which affords options for students before and after school.
As such, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the District has
balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts
relating to transportation associated with the proposed Project, despite the adoption of all feasible
mitigation measures. The District has also examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of
which meets both the Project objectives and is preferable to the proposed Project.
City of Hermosa Beach
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885
Page 1 of 5
September 20, 2018
Paula Montalbo
Business Manager
Hermosa Beach City School District
425 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
VIA email: pmontablo@hbcsd.org
RE: City of Hermosa Beach Comments on North School Reconstruction Project Draft Environmental
Impact Report
Dear Ms. Montalbo,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the recirculated sections of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the North School Reconstruction Project (‘Project’) and
for allowing additional time for our traffic engineers to collaborate on this issue before submitting
our letter. This letter is not intended to replace the letter submitted by the City of Hermosa Beach
in January 2018, which included comments on areas other than transportation, but rather build
upon that letter given the additional transportation analysis and mitigations provided as part of
the Recirculated Draft EIR.
The City would like to express its appreciation for the continued dialogue with the School District,
and we regard this process as a meaningful opportunity to collaborate on addressing potential
impacts to City services and infrastructure. While there are still some questions, which we have
articulated in this letter, based on the additional analysis and information included in the
recirculated Draft EIR, and our on-going coordination with the School District, we are optimistic
that the Final EIR will be able to provide the technical basis for a final project design and suite of
mitigation measures that resolve environmental impacts to the greatest degree feasible. We
remain committed to working with the School District toward that end and look forward to finding
effective solutions that mitigate significant traffic impacts and implement our collective
community vision to provide exceptional local schools to the Hermosa Beach community.
Role of the City of Hermosa Beach
Given the location of the North School Reconstruction Project, on a small and constra ined site
within a residential neighborhood, the City recognizes that mitigation of all significant traffic
impacts will not likely be possible without some use of, or changes to, City property or right -of-
way and/or the allocation of City staff resources to further reduce significant impacts and
potential inconveniences to the neighborhood. However, the City maintains the previously-
stated suggestions that the School District prioritize implementation of mitigation measures that
are on-site or within their operational control, including on-site loading and unloading, prior to
relying on mitigation measures that use City property, right-of-way, or operational resources.
City of Hermosa Beach
Page 2 of 5
While the Project itself is not subject to approval by the City of Hermosa Beach, there are
components of the proposed project which involve City property, right-of-way, or utility
infrastructure (i.e. sewer connections, storm drains, etc.) that are subjec t to approval by the City.
The range of possible measures being considered by the School District further considers
measures that involve City personnel and ongoing operational or maintenance resources which
will also require City approval to allocate ongoing funding and staffing resources toward those
efforts. The City’s decision makers will need to play an active role in evaluating and approving
the mitigation methods considered in the DEIR that involve physical changes and use of City
resources and personnel.
To that end, we feel this information is key for the City to properly evaluate the feasibility of those
mitigation measures that fall under our jurisdiction, so that the CEQA analysis can disclose with
certainty all feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented, and provide substantial
evidence to support conclusions that certain mitigation measures are infeasible or ineffective.
Analysis and Information to Inform the Recommendations of the
City of Hermosa Beach
There are three key areas articulated in our previous letter related to requests for additional
analysis or disclosure of information to determine both the potential significant impacts of the
project and assist in evaluating the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.
Level of Service Analysis
We would like to thank the School District for providing the additional level of service analysis in
the Recirculated Draft EIR for a thirty-minute peak period, as we believe it provides a better
depiction of the actual traffic conditions that may be experienced during the focused peak
periods of school pick up and drop off.
Loading/Unloading and Queuing
In our comment letter of January 2, 2018, we requested that the EIR analyze potential queuing
through a quantitative analysis that, in turn, would then be used to verify the length of the loading
zone needed to accommodate the maximum capacity of 510 students. The City’s traffic
engineer suggested that the analysis use actual school traffic data collected at the other two
elementary schools in the District (CHB letter, page 8), and that this method would yield a robust
and useful analysis.
The Recirculated DEIR does not provide this analysis and instead applies a factor of one (1)
loading space per 50 students, a number found in “Traffic Operations and Safety at Schools:
Recommended Guidelines” (Cooner et al 2004). However, this factor is not presented as a
recommendation or a guideline in the source text, rather it is cited as one example of what other
cities have done. Moreover, the one space per 50 students factor comes from schools in the City
of Henderson, Nevada, where school buses are also provided. Because the schools in the City of
Henderson provide buses, it can be implied that the demand for the student loading zone is
significantly less. The actual rate applied at Henderson schools is one (1) vehicle loading space
per 50 students and two (2) school bus loading spaces per 50 students. Because the North School
Reconstruction does not propose to provide school buses or a bus loading zone, to the use this
rate (one (1) vehicle loading space per 50 students) without further emphasis on how the
proposed metric is relevant to the conditions in Hermosa Beach, it is difficult to assess whether the
proposed loading zone(s) are adequate to avoid back up of vehicles queuing in the street
City of Hermosa Beach
Page 3 of 5
outside of the loading zone(s) and constrains the ability of the City and the School District to
compare the effectiveness of the different mitigation measures.
It is the City’s opinion that an evaluation of the adequacy of the proposed loading zones should
not be postponed until mitigation measures are implemented after the project is approved, as
suggested in the Recirculated DEIR (Page 6-5, TRAF-5 (d)(v)). It should instead be evaluated and
disclosed prior to certification of the Final EIR in order to determine whether the proposed site
plan provides sufficient space to accommodate the projected demand. The City recognizes
there may be challenges to estimating the demand for loading/unloading and potential queuing
impacts. Nevertheless, we suggest that a more thorough search of available technical reports
along with the expertise of traffic engineers who have addressed this specific issue would yield
the basis of a sufficiently rigorous analysis to serve as a n estimate of potential impacts and a
working hypothesis for adaptive management purposes. The City feels this analysis is important to
determining whether queuing or stacking of vehicles into travel lanes creates an adverse impact,
as it not only inhibits the efficient flow of the circulation system, but might also create secondary
traffic safety hazards.
Walk and Bike to School Rates
We previously expressed support for the District to rely on the data provided in the 2016 Safe
Routes to School/Commute Survey administered by the School District and summarized by the
City to estimate the current rates at which students walk and bike to school so that mitigation
measures may be proposed that further encourage walking and biking to school. If it is helpful to
this process, the City is willing to work with the District to administer a 2018 version of the survey,
providing another data point that can be used to support the implementation of transportation
demand management based mitigation measures.
City Input on Feasibility/Prioritization of Mitigation Measures
Both the November 2017 DEIR and the recirculated sections conclude that impacts to the local
circulation system are significant and unavoidable because “mitigation measures proposed are
within the jurisdiction of the City of Hermosa Beach.” Several pages of the recirculated
Transportation and Traffic section are devoted to the discussion of whether or not specific
measures are “preferred” or “warranted” or “feasible”, even though the measures discussed a re
within City right-of-way and would necessitate the City’s approval and participation.
The City suggests that all proposed mitigation measures should be left on the table unless there is
definitive data and sound rationale to support the conclusion that mitigation measures are either
not effective or not feasible. Determinations of feasibility, preference and desirability of specific
methods for mitigating project impacts requires careful consideration by City of Hermosa Beach
decision makers and at this stage it is premature to determine that certain mitigations are
infeasible without formal review and consideration from the City. Rather than attempting to make
decisions of feasibility and “preference” on behalf of the City, and in lieu of applying the blanket
assertion that all mitigation measures within City right-of-way are “infeasible” because they
involve the jurisdiction of another agency, the process would be better served, and mitigation of
impacts more assured, if a definitive suite of effective and feasible mitigation measures were
identified and incorporated into the Final EIR. This is consistent with the Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan (NMTP) proposed in mitigation measure TRAF-5 and could include provisions
to adjust mitigation methods during the implementation phase in response to variations in
enrollment levels at the school.
City of Hermosa Beach
Page 4 of 5
The City maintains the previously-stated suggestions that the School District prioritize
implementation of mitigation measures that are on-site or within their operational control,
including on-site loading and unloading, prior to relying on mitigation measures that use City
property, right-of-way, or operational resources. This includes continued evaluation or further
disclosure of the potential to accommodate, at least in part, loading and unloading of students
on School District property. Additionally, please expand on the basis for the conclusion that
staggered school schedules beyond 15 minutes is infeasible because it may conflict with teacher
contracts. This seems like it could be a very useful, non-structural tool to control traffic and
congestion and should be explored further (or the basis for rejecting explained in more detail).
The suite of mitigation measures should be developed to serve as the basis fo r decisions by the
City and District on which measures are implemented, their timing, potential funding sources and
appropriate cost-sharing formulas and the parties responsible for their implementation. The fair-
share formulas used to calculate the fair-share percentages presented in the Recirculated DEIR
for various mitigation measures are in need of further development or refinement between the
City and School District. The mitigation package should further identify an appropriate
prioritization and phasing plan that is linked to the anticipated impacts at varying student
enrollment levels. Details on the mitigation measures should be sufficient to determine their
feasibility, estimated cost and secondary impacts, if any. For those measures that would result in
secondary physical impacts the package should identify secondary mitigation or avoidance
measures, if feasible, also at a conceptual level.
This information should be included in the Final EIR and provided to our City Council prior to FEIR
certification so the City’s decision makers can provide, at a minimum, conceptual approval of
measures involving City property, right-of-way, or resources. This assurance can serve as evidence
to the District and in the FEIR that the mitigation package is feasible. The conceptually approved
package would become part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project.
We respectfully request that the EIR not eliminate any of the potential mitigating measures without
completing this process.
For the City to best assist the District in its process and play a productive role in resolving which
mitigation measures are feasible or infeasible, it is extremely important that a well-vetted and
prioritized mitigation package is developed that identifies realistic costs and benefits of specific
mitigation methods, along with an estimation of the degree of mitigation expected to be
achieved (based on substantial evidence).
City Recommendations on Process Moving Forward
We believe the comments contained within this letter will not only strengthen the School District’s
process, but provide additional certainty to the Final EIR related to: the level of impacts that will
result from the project, the mitigation measures that can realistically be expected to b e
implemented, the level of mitigation those measures are expected to achieve, and the costs and
means for implementing them.
The City recommends the School District formally submit the requests and necessary supporting
materials to the City on those mitigation measures that involve the use of City property/right -of-
way or services at the earliest opportunity possible, to allow staff to thoroughly evaluate and
make recommendations. These components must comply with the City’s standards and adhere
to the City’s processes for submittal, review, recommendation, and approval. Based on the
requests submitted, staff will determine the appropriate decision-making body to review and
City of Hermosa Beach
Page 5 of 5
approve these components, which may be a staff, commission, or City Council-level decision. In
the event certain requests are denied, the City will provide the District with findings to articulate
the rationale for determining a proposed mitigation is infeasible. If there is substantial evidence
available now to determine certain proposed mitigation is infeasible, it should be documented
in the EIR. However, we believe that between our two agencies there is a combination of
mitigation measures that will work together to mitigate impacts at different levels of enrollment.
In achieving these objectives, the process not only aligns the City and the District along an
implementation path that is practicable and mutually acceptable to both parties, it also fortifies
the project’s CEQA process by fully disclosing the project’s impacts and docume nting (with
supporting substantial evidence) that all feasible mitigation measures have been implemented
per CEQA.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide these comments. The City remains committed to
collaborating with the School District through this process for the North School project and other
initiatives to improve the trip to and from school at all of the District’s campuses, and we look
forward to continuing the dialogue on these matters. Our staff and traffic engineer are available
to discuss these comments and data needs in more detail. We have found in-person
collaboration and problem solving sessions helpful when trying to assess impacts and mitigations
where multiple agencies are involved and we look forward to continuing this conversation.
Sincerely,
Suja Lowenthal
City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0004
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
(Deputy City Clerk Linda Abbott)
Recommended Action:
Deputy City Clerk recommends that the City Council approve the following minutes:
1.Special meeting of July 25, 2016
2.Adjourned Regular meeting of August 27, 2016
3.“Streets for All” Leadership Breakfast meeting of December 4, 2017
4.Adjourned Regular meeting of December 7, 2017
5.Adjourned Regular meeting of April 25, 2018
Attachments :
1. Special meeting of July 25, 2016
2.Adjourned Regular meeting of August 27, 2016
3.“Streets for All” Leadership Breakfast meeting of December 4, 2017
4.Adjourned Regular meeting of December 7, 2017
5.Adjourned Regular meeting of April 25, 2018
Submitted by: Linda Abbott, Deputy City Clerk
Concur:Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk
Noted: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of Hermosa Beach
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Adjourned Meeting Minutes-draft
Monday, July 25, 2016
6:00 PM
Closed Session
Agenda Amended 7-21-16 (See Item #4)
Council Chambers
City Council
Mayor
Hany Fangary
Mayor Pro Tem
Justin Massey
Councilmembers
Jeff Duclos
Stacey Armato
Carolyn Petty
City Council Adjourned Meeting Minutes July 25, 2016
Page 2 of 2
City of Hermosa Beach Approved on 1/8/2019
6:00 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION
(LOCATION: Meetings convene in the Council Chambers and move to the Second Floor Conference
Room after Public Comment)
CALL TO ORDER IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:Armato, Duclos, Massey, Mayor Fangary
Absent:Petty (arrived 6:05 p.m.)
PUBLIC COMMENT
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION IN SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 6:01
p.m.
1.16-0446 MINUTES: Approval of the following Closed Session minutes:
July 6, 2016
July 11, 2016
July 12, 2016
2.16-0447 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: Threatened Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open
session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation.
Number of Potential Cases: 1
3.16-0448 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: Pending Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open
session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation.
a) Name of Case: Holtz v. City of Hermosa Beach
Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number: BS163221
b) Name of Case: Johnston v. City of Hermosa Beach
Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number: BS163448
4.16-0445 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: Potential Initiation of Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)
The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open
session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation.
Number of Potential Cases: 2 (Amended 7-21-16)
ADJOURNMENT OF CLOSED SESSION 10:30 p.m.
Elaine Doerfling
City Clerk
City of Hermosa Beach
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Adjourned Meeting Minutes-draft
Saturday, August 27, 2016
8:30 AM
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION (RETREAT)
Hotel Hermosa, Penthouse Suite - 8:30 AM
(2515 Pacific Coast Hwy, Hermosa Beach CA 90254)
Rok Sushi, Upstairs Area (1200 Hermosa Ave) - 6:00 PM
City Council
Mayor
Hany S. Fangary
Mayor Pro Tem
Justin Massey
Councilmembers
Jeff Duclos
Stacey Armato
Carolyn Petty
City Council Adjourned Meeting Minutes August 27, 2016
Page 2 of 2
City of Hermosa Beach Approved on 1/8/2019
8:30 AM – BREAKFAST
CALL TO ORDER 8:30 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Armato, Duclos, Massey, Petty, Mayor Fangary
Absent: None
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
9:00 AM - MORNING GOAL:
UNDERSTANDING THE ATTRIBUTES OF A HIGH PERFORMANCE GOVERNING BODY,
THE OBSTACLES, AND A FRAMEWORK AND CONCEPTS THAT CLARIFY THE
CHALLENGES OF THE WORK
NOON - LUNCH BREAK
1:00 PM - AFTERNOON GOAL:
WORK ON ISSUES SPECIFIC TO HERMOSA BEACH
1. What can Council do, if anything, to get its work done more effectively?
2. Specific issues to discuss:
a. Council individual liaison to specific issues
b. Board and Commission roles/responsibilities
c. Meeting management
d. Individual Councilmember work supplementing meeting preparatory
information
3. Council expectations of the city manager and city manager expectations of council.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
ADJOURN FROM HOTEL HERMOSA 5:00 p.m.
ROK SUSHI (UPSTAIRS AREA) 6:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT 7:45 p.m.
Elaine Doerfling
City Clerk
City of Hermosa Beach
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Adjourned Meeting Minutes-draft
Streets for All Leadership Breakfast
(hosted by Beach Cities Health District)
Monday, December 4, 2017, 8 a.m.
Bluewater Grill, Avalon Room
(665 North Harbor Drive, Redondo Beach)
City Council
Mayor
Jeff Duclos
Mayor Pro Tem
Stacey Armato
Councilmembers
Mary Campbell
Hany S. Fangary
Justin Massey
City Council Adjourned Meeting Minutes December 4, 2017
City of Hermosa Beach Page 2 of 2 Approved on 1/8/2019
The program began at 8:30 a.m.
Present as observers only: Armato, Fangary, Mayor Duclos
The program ended at 10:00 a.m.
Elaine Doerfling
City Clerk
City of Hermosa Beach
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Adjourned Meeting Minutes-draft
Thursday, December 7, 2017
6:00 PM
Appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore
and Council Committee Reorganization
Council Chambers
City Council
Mayor
Justin Massey
Mayor Pro Tem
Jeff Duclos
Councilmembers
Stacey Armato
Mary Campbell
Hany S. Fangary
City Council Adjourned Meeting Minutes December 7, 2017
Page 2 of 2
City of Hermosa Beach Approved on 1/8/2019
6:00 P.M. - ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER 6:07 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Dency Nelson
ROLL CALL
Present: Armato, Campbell, Duclos, Fangary, Mayor Massey
Absent: None
PRESENTATIONS
a)REPORT APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE AND
17-0730 COUNCIL COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION - DECEMBER 2017
(City Clerk Elaine Doerfling)
Attachments:Committee.List-1
CommitteeInformation
SBCCOG Reso
Mayoral Terms of Office
Action: To appoint Jeff Duclos as Mayor for a term ending Thursday, November 29, 2018.
Motion Campbell, second Fangary. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Additional Action: To appoint Stacey Armato as Mayor pro tempore for a term ending Thursday,
November 29, 2018.
Motion Duclos, second Massey. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Additional Action:
1. To appoint Mayor Duclos to the Los Angeles County-City Selection Committee; and
2. To appoint Mayor Duclos to the South Bay Cities Sanitation District Board of Directors and
Mayor pro tempore Armato to serve as alternate director.
Motion Massey, second Fangary. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Final Action: To appoint Councilmember Campbell to replace Mayor Duclos on the School
Board Compact.
Motion Duclos, second Armato. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT 7:00 p.m.
Elaine Doerfling
City Clerk
City of Hermosa Beach
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Adjourned Meeting Minutes-draft
Wednesday, April 25, 2018 6:00 PM
Closed Session - 6:00 PM
Budget Study Session - 7:00 PM
(FY 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program)
Council Chambers
City Council
Mayor
Jeff Duclos
Mayor Pro Tem
Stacey Armato
Councilmembers
Mary Campbell
Hany S. Fangary
Justin Massey
City Council Adjourned Meeting Minutes April 25, 2018
City of Hermosa Beach Page 2 of 3 Approved on 1/8/2019
6:00 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION
(LOCATION: Meetings convene in the Council Chambers and move to the Second Floor Conference
Room after Public Comment)
CALL TO ORDER IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Armato, Campbell, Mayor Duclos
Absent:Fangary, Massey (both arrived at 6:07 p.m.)
PUBLIC COMMENT None
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION IN SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 6:03
p.m.
1.18-0264 MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session held on April 10, 2018.
2.18-0262 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: Workers Comp Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in
open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation.
Name of Case: Sibbald v. City of Hermosa Beach
WCAB Number: ADJ9968627, ADJ9969378
RECESS TO OPEN SESSION IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:55 p.m.
City Council Adjourned Meeting Minutes April 25, 2018
City of Hermosa Beach Page 3 of 3 Approved on 1/8/2019
7:00 P.M. - STUDY SESSION
CALL TO ORDER 7:08 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Public Works Superintendent Ells Freeman
ROLL CALL
Present:Armato, Campbell, Fangary, Massey, Mayor Duclos
Absent:None
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
As City Attorney Jenkins was not present, Interim City Manager Jalili reported that there were no
reportable actions.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1.REPORT FY 2018-19 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
18-0281 (Public Works Director Glen W. C. Kau)
Attachments:1. FY 2018-19 CIP Presentation
2. FY 2018-19 Project Detail Sheets
3. SUPPLEMENTAL eComment and Attachment from Alex Reizman.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL eComment from Debbie Sanowski.pdf
5. SUPPLEMENTAL Memorandum and Revised Presentation Slides from Public Works
Director Glen Kau (added 4-25-18 at 10am).pdf
6. SUPPLEMENTAL Letter and Attachment from David Grethen (added 4-25-18 at 2pm).pdf
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
ADJOURNMENT 9:37 p.m.
Elaine Doerfling
City Clerk
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0013
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
CHECK REGISTERS
(Finance Director Viki Copeland)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council ratify the following check registers.
Attachments:
1.Check Register 12/6/18
2.Check Register 12/13/18
Approved: Viki Copeland, Finance Director
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
12/06/2018
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1
5:09:37PM
Page:
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
90728 12/6/2018 AGPAOA, RACHEL PO 14963 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT FEE REFUND21159
001-3840 25.00
Total : 25.0021159
90729 12/6/2018 AUTOMATED FILING SYSTEMS, INC. 0115016-IN PO 14751/RECORDS FILE FOLDERS FOR 201903535
001-2101-4305 1,549.27
Total : 1,549.2703535
90730 12/6/2018 CA ASSOC CODE ENFORCE OFFICERS 300008407 PO 14876/STAFFORD/2019 MEMBERSHIP12504
001-4201-4315 95.00
Total : 95.0012504
90731 12/6/2018 CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC 4027603131 PW ADMIN COPIER MAINT/USE 8/16-11/15/1810838
715-1208-4201 228.38
Total : 228.3810838
90732 12/6/2018 CHUG SALON PO 14954 CITATION NO. 34006530 OVERPAYMENT21156
001-3302 38.00
Total : 38.0021156
90733 12/6/2018 CPRS PO 14888 NICHOLS/SHATTUCK/VINT/CONFERENCE REGIS07700
001-4601-4317 90.00
Total : 90.0007700
90734 12/6/2018 DENNINGTON, JAQUELINE PO 14964 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT FEE REFUND21160
001-3840 49.00
Total : 49.0021160
90735 12/6/2018 DOERFLING, ELAINE C.TR 768 LEAGUE CA CITIES/PER DIEM/AIRFARE/REGIS02055
001-1121-4317 1,020.96
Total : 1,020.9602055
90736 12/6/2018 EAN HOLDINGS LLC PO 14946 CITATION NO. 35005500 OVERPAYMENT19716
001-3302 53.00
Total : 53.0019716
90737 12/6/2018 EVANS, MARLIN K.PO 14827 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/CLASS NOS. 7735/3715059
001-4601-4221 403.50
2b (1)
12/06/2018
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
2
5:09:37PM
Page:
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 403.50 90737 12/6/2018 EVANS, MARLIN K.15059
90738 12/6/2018 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 1163488-02 MAT REQ 773492/GLOVES15406
001-4204-4309 128.12
MAT REQ 773492/GLASSES1163488-03
001-4204-4309 166.22
Total : 294.3415406
90739 12/6/2018 GRIFFIN, HAILEY PO 14944 CITATION NO. 31001820 OVERPAYMENT21165
001-3302 68.00
Total : 68.0021165
90740 12/6/2018 HAWTHORNE, CITY OF IT-HERMOSA-04 PO 14903/MARK 43 RECORDS MGMT REPLACE05345
715-2101-5405 14,343.00
Total : 14,343.0005345
90741 12/6/2018 HERMOSA AUTOMOTIVE INC 43116 MAT REQ 773384/SMOG CHECK/VEHICLE HB1209136
715-2101-4311 50.00
Total : 50.0009136
90742 12/6/2018 HEWKO, LUKE PO 14950 DISMISSED CITATION NO. 3500579121163
001-3302 53.00
Total : 53.0021163
90743 12/6/2018 HONDA MD INC, STEPHAN T October 2018 PO 14925/DETAINEE BLOOD DRAWS/OCT1815141
001-2101-4201 603.00
PO 14925/DETAINEE BLOOD DRAWS/SEP18September 2018
001-2101-4201 63.60
Total : 666.6015141
90744 12/6/2018 HYATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO TR 768 DOERFLING/LEAGUE CA CITY NEW LAW SEMINAR19187
001-1121-4317 731.89
Total : 731.8919187
90745 12/6/2018 LA CO SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT 191392BL MAT REQ 863253/PRISONER MEALS/OCT1800151
001-2101-4306 178.96
Total : 178.9600151
90746 12/6/2018 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 1465168 LEGAL SERVICES/PERSONNEL/AUG1802175
001-1203-4201 5,829.05
12/06/2018
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
3
5:09:37PM
Page:
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 5,829.05 90746 12/6/2018 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE02175
90747 12/6/2018 MANCLARK, KATHRYN PO 14965 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT FEE REFUND21161
001-3840 58.80
Total : 58.8021161
90748 12/6/2018 MCGOVERN, DAVID PO 14966 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT FEE REFUND21158
001-3840 324.30
Total : 324.3021158
90749 12/6/2018 MENDOZA, MARIA PO 14943 CITATION NO. 40002434 OVERPAYMENT21166
001-3302 48.00
Total : 48.0021166
90750 12/6/2018 NATIONAL RECREATION & PARK PO 14887 NICHOLS/MEMBERSHIP/FEB19-JAN2008764
001-4601-4315 99.00
ORTA/MEMBERSHIP/FEB19-JAN20PO 14911
001-4601-4315 99.00
Total : 198.0008764
90751 12/6/2018 NICHOLS, FREDERICK CARL PO 14945 DISMISSED CITATION NO. 4300314821164
001-3302 53.00
Total : 53.0021164
90752 12/6/2018 OFFICE DEPOT 231658712002 MAT REQ 649645/POCKET FILES FOR A/P13114
001-1202-4305 49.47
MAT REQ 649758/OFFICE SUPPLIES232438908001
001-4101-4305 90.27
MAT REQ 863436/OFFICE SUPPLIES232598314001
001-4601-4305 57.53
Total : 197.2713114
90753 12/6/2018 PETERSON, TERRY 1 (PO 14936)COMMUNITY THEATRE PIANO STRING REPAIR16782
001-4601-4201 75.00
2 PIANO TUNINGS1 (PO 14937)
001-4601-4201 230.00
Total : 305.0016782
90754 12/6/2018 POLICE EXECUTIVE 7714 & 7963 PAPA/MCKINNON/2019 MEMBERSHIP14297
001-2101-4315 400.00
12/06/2018
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
4
5:09:37PM
Page:
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 400.00 90754 12/6/2018 POLICE EXECUTIVE14297
90755 12/6/2018 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 42345771 to 42352984 YARD UNIFORMS, TOWELS, &/OR MATS/NOV1817676
001-2101-4309 66.16
001-3104-4309 48.36
001-3302-4309 59.56
001-4202-4314 306.58
001-4204-4309 159.92
715-4206-4309 39.36
Total : 679.9417676
90756 12/6/2018 ROUND STAR WEST LLC PO 14796 INSTRUCT PMT/CLASSES 7813-4/8-9/20/22/2316921
001-4601-4221 6,293.00
Total : 6,293.0016921
90757 12/6/2018 SHARPLESS, PATRICK PO 14977 DISMISSED CITATION NO. 3100686821157
001-3302 48.00
Total : 48.0021157
90758 12/6/2018 SMARTCOVER SYSTEMS 11501 (PO 14935)PARTS WARRANTY/SEWER COVERS/PIER & 35TH20282
161-3109-4201 399.00
160-3102-4201 399.00
Total : 798.0020282
90759 12/6/2018 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO 2-01-414-2152 ELECTRICITY/NOV1800159
001-6101-4303 1,780.32
ELECTRICITY/NOV182-01-414-3747
105-2601-4303 53.20
ELECTRICITY/SEP-NOV182-01-414-4281
105-2601-4303 257.21
ELECTRICITY/NOV182-01-414-5106
001-3104-4303 650.89
ELECTRICITY/NOV182-23-725-4420
001-4204-4303 3,638.27
ELECTRICITY/NOV182-39-985-7812
001-4204-4303 1,293.92
ELECTRICITY/OCT18-NOV182-41-090-1755
001-4204-4303 67.82
Total : 7,741.6300159
12/06/2018
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
5
5:09:37PM
Page:
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
90760 12/6/2018 THE PUN GROUP LLP 111832 FINANCIAL AUDIT SERVICES FY 17/18/PMT 217596
001-1202-4201 10,000.00
Total : 10,000.0017596
90761 12/6/2018 TORRANCE WHOLESALE NURSERY 141309 MAT REQ 532437/LANDSCAPE MATERIALS11102
001-6101-4309 204.25
Total : 204.2511102
90762 12/6/2018 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, PARS #6746019200PO 14263 PARS/OPEB CONTRIBUTIONS/DEC1814528
001-1101-4190 135.42
001-1121-4190 600.50
001-1201-4190 2,191.83
001-1202-4190 2,199.83
001-1203-4190 587.67
001-1204-4190 2,140.67
001-1208-4190 481.17
001-2101-4190 37,186.33
001-2203-4190 10,914.50
001-3104-4190 1,851.75
001-3301-4190 138.42
001-3302-4190 6,759.08
001-4101-4190 2,528.83
001-4201-4190 2,556.25
001-4202-4190 2,203.50
001-4204-4190 1,457.50
001-4601-4190 1,362.75
001-6101-4190 1,915.50
105-2601-4190 717.08
160-3102-4190 302.17
161-3109-4190 255.42
715-4206-4190 1,130.83
Total : 79,617.0014528
90763 12/6/2018 URBAN INSIGHT, INC.201893216/PO 14967 GENERAL PLAN WEBSITE HOSTING JUL18-JUN1921162
001-4105-4201 2,400.00
Total : 2,400.0021162
90764 12/6/2018 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 80951 MAT REQ 773567/STREET SIGN MAINTENANCE01206
001-3104-4309 611.13
12/06/2018
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
6
5:09:37PM
Page:
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
90764 12/6/2018 (Continued)ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC01206
MAT REQ 773566/STREET SIGN MAINTENANCE80952
001-3104-4309 611.13
Total : 1,222.2601206
184550000 12/4/2018 ADMINSURE AS AGENT FOR THE 12/6/18 Check Run WORK COMP CLAIMS REIMB/NOV1814691
705-1217-4324 11,209.21
Total : 11,209.2114691
Bank total : 147,564.61 38 Vouchers for bank code :boa
147,564.61Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report 38
"I hereby certify that the demands or claims covered by the
checks listed on pages 1 to 6 inclusive, of the check
register for 12/6/18 are accurate funds are available for
payment, and are in conformance to the budget."
By
Finance Director
Date 12/17/18
12/13/2018
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1
5:09:37PM
Page:
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
90765 12/13/2018 ABSOLUTE INTERNATIONAL SECURIT 2018052616 PLAZA/DOWNTOWN/SECURITY 11/30-12/1/1821086
001-2101-4201 1,941.52
Total : 1,941.5221086
90766 12/13/2018 ACEVEDO, VIRGILIO PO 14981 17/18 BUSINESS LICENSE/CASP FEE REFUND21169
001-3115 301.00
001-6851 4.00
Total : 305.0021169
90767 12/13/2018 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CO OP 2301 (PO 14432)TAXI VOUCHER PROGRAM/OCT1811437
145-3404-4201 5,800.95
Total : 5,800.9511437
90768 12/13/2018 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT Report #2/PO 14189 STREET IMPROVEMENTS/OCT1816956
147-8174-4201 58,194.58
115-8174-4201 15,722.32
122-8174-4201 162,668.00
Total : 236,584.9016956
90769 12/13/2018 AMERICAN ARBOR CARE 59099 (PO 14962) 122 1ST STREET/TREE REMOVAL CONSULTATION20197
001-6101-4201 200.00
Total : 200.0020197
90770 12/13/2018 ANDERSONPENNA PARTNERS INC 6864 (PO 14193)CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/OCT1818269
147-8174-4201 45,159.25
Total : 45,159.2518269
90771 12/13/2018 BARROWS, PATRICK PO 14892 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/CLASSES 7905/6/9/3717271
001-4601-4221 1,499.40
Total : 1,499.4017271
90772 12/13/2018 BEACH GIRL PROPERTIES LLC 236 PARKING METERS - 70 14TH STREET/NOV1816371
001-3842 650.00
PARKING METERS - 70 14TH STREET/DEC18237
001-3842 650.00
Total : 1,300.0016371
90773 12/13/2018 BRAUN LINEN SERVICE 1501839 thru 1506265 PRISONER LAUNDRY/NOV1800163
001-2101-4306 199.042b (2)
12/13/2018
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
2
5:09:37PM
Page:
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 199.04 90773 12/13/2018 BRAUN LINEN SERVICE00163
90774 12/13/2018 CALIFORNIA MARKING DEVICE 6148/Mat Req 549855 MANAGEMENT ANALYST/CHAN/NAME PLATE00262
001-4202-4305 18.62
ARMATO/CAMPBELL/NAME BADGES6155/Mat Req 549820
001-1101-4305 48.18
Total : 66.8000262
90775 12/13/2018 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE Account 4286211111 WATER USAGE/OCT1800016
105-2601-4303 5,602.85
001-6101-4303 14,882.34
001-4204-4303 1,204.64
001-3304-4303 252.61
Total : 21,942.4400016
90776 12/13/2018 COMEDY & MAGIC CLUB PO 14920 STAFF/COUNCIL/COMMISSIONER/HOLIDAY PARTY10468
001-1101-4319 4,793.69
Total : 4,793.6910468
90777 12/13/2018 COMPLETES PLUS 01YO3383 to 01YP1911 AUTO REPAIR PARTS/NOV1809436
715-2101-4311 103.69
715-3104-4311 53.84
715-3302-4311 42.75
Total : 200.2809436
90778 12/13/2018 CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC 3009 (PO 12582)ADA/CURBS/DESIGN/ASSESS/JUN1820511
001-4202-4201 2,692.50
Total : 2,692.5020511
90779 12/13/2018 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 341389 MAT REQ 549596/FINGERPRINTING/NOV1800364
001-1203-4251 192.00
Total : 192.0000364
90780 12/13/2018 DONNOE & ASSOCIATES, INC 7572 (PO 14207)APPLICANT TEST RENTAL/MAINT SUPERVISOR17868
001-1203-4201 462.00
Total : 462.0017868
90781 12/13/2018 DOODY, KARI PO 14980 SIGNED-OFF CITATION NO. 3400558816856
001-3302 28.00
12/13/2018
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
3
5:09:37PM
Page:
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 28.00 90781 12/13/2018 DOODY, KARI16856
90782 12/13/2018 DOUGLAS ELLIMAN REAL ESTATE PO 14987 BUSINESS LICENSE DOUBLE PAYMENT REFUND21173
001-3115 199.00
001-6851 4.00
001-3877 20.00
Total : 223.0021173
90783 12/13/2018 EASY READER HD18-065 to HD18-068 MAT REQ 973734/LEGAL ADS/NOV1800181
001-1121-4323 895.13
Total : 895.1300181
90784 12/13/2018 FAMILY THEATRE INC PO 14826 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/CLASS NO. 773916932
001-4601-4221 1,963.50
Total : 1,963.5016932
90785 12/13/2018 FARRELL, MICHAEL PO 14979 DISMISSED CITATION NO. 3100434321170
001-3302 53.00
Total : 53.0021170
90786 12/13/2018 FRONTIER 310-318-0113-1203155 EOC ANALOG LINES/DEC1819884
715-1206-4304 1,763.49
CASHIER TAPS LINE/DEC18310-318-8751-0128095
001-1204-4304 51.78
Total : 1,815.2719884
90787 12/13/2018 GASB 02874589 PO 14807/ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION THRU DEC1900669
001-1202-4201 265.00
Total : 265.0000669
90788 12/13/2018 GIBSON, EVON PO 14978 DISMISSED CITATION NO. 3400543721171
001-3302 38.00
Total : 38.0021171
90789 12/13/2018 HRBOKA, DENNIS PO 14914 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/CLASS NO. 767109130
001-4601-4221 840.00
Total : 840.0009130
90790 12/13/2018 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS SI00319138 MAT REQ 773255/CALENDARS FOR 201916742
001-2101-4305 98.68
12/13/2018
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
4
5:09:37PM
Page:
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
90790 12/13/2018 (Continued)INDEPENDENT STATIONERS16742
MAT REQ 773256/PLANNERS/DESK CALENDARSSI00319216
001-2101-4305 94.77
Total : 193.4516742
90791 12/13/2018 LA SUPERIOR COURT - TORRANCE PO 14983 CITATION SURCHARGES/OCT1800118
001-3302 53,091.20
CITATION SURCHARGES/NOV18PO 14984
001-3302 50,929.20
Total : 104,020.4000118
90792 12/13/2018 LA UNIFORMS & TAILORING 1025/Mat Req 773254 PSO UNIFORM FOR N. RODRIGUEZ20771
001-2101-4314 622.51
Total : 622.5120771
90793 12/13/2018 MACLEAN, LAUREN PO 14985 2 PARKING PERMIT REFUNDS21174
001-3843 80.00
Total : 80.0021174
90794 12/13/2018 PACIFIC COAST CONSTRUCTION 247 (PO 14907)ARDMORE & PIER/SEWER MANHOLE REPAIR09513
161-3109-4201 4,800.00
Total : 4,800.0009513
90795 12/13/2018 PPC, INC.0115016-IN PO 14751/RECORDS FILE FOLDERS FOR 201903535
001-2101-4305 1,549.27
Total : 1,549.2703535
90796 12/13/2018 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 88000535-001 MAT REQ 532332/LANDSCAPING SUPPLIES19829
001-6101-4309 568.59
Total : 568.5919829
90797 12/13/2018 SMART AND FINAL IRIS COMPANY 3220630013773 REQ 863438/SENIOR CTR/COFFEE/CREAM/CUPS00114
001-4601-4328 77.37
MAT REQ 863248/FORKS FOR JAIL3220630015292
001-2101-4306 9.84
REQ 549821/MEETING SUPPLIES/REFRESHMENTS3220630016303
001-1201-4305 64.28
MAT REQ 863257/JAIL/CREAMER/CUPS/CUTLERY3220630022807
001-2101-4306 65.99
MAT REQ 863434/SENIOR CENTER SUPPLIES3220630027237
12/13/2018
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
5
5:09:37PM
Page:
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
90797 12/13/2018 (Continued)SMART AND FINAL IRIS COMPANY00114
001-4601-4328 59.77
REQ 863435/COFFEE/SWIFFERS/PAPER TOWELS3220630027238
001-4601-4305 63.72
MAT REQ 863254/BRIEFING ROOM/COFFEE3220630053894
001-2101-4305 71.64
REQ 863331/PARK PROGRAM CLEANING SUPPLY3220630054513
001-4601-4308 52.51
MAT REQ 863333/PARK PROGRAM SNACKS3220630057181
001-4601-4308 299.53
MAT REQ 837835/EOC TRAINING REFRESHMENTS3220630057452
001-1201-4305 114.43
Total : 879.0800114
90798 12/13/2018 SOUTH BAY FORD 592206 to 593142 AUTO PARTS 10/31/18-11/13/1810532
715-3104-4311 114.38
715-2101-4311 2,301.94
Total : 2,416.3210532
90799 12/13/2018 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO 2-23-687-8021 ELECTRICITY/NOV1800159
001-3104-4303 52.61
ELECTRICITY/NOV182-36-722-1322
105-2601-4303 44.92
Total : 97.5300159
90800 12/13/2018 TORRANCE AUTO PARTS 203445 MAT REQ 773364/OIL/WASHER FLUID/COOLANT16735
715-2101-4311 88.03
Total : 88.0316735
90801 12/13/2018 UPTIME COMPUTER SERVICE 31214 PRINTER MAINTENANCE/JAN1804768
715-1206-4201 943.00
Total : 943.0004768
90802 12/13/2018 VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES 70969460 VOIP PHONES/BARD/OCT1818666
001-3302-4304 69.29
VOIP PHONES/YARD/OCT1870969468
001-4202-4304 143.88
VOIP PHONES/EOC GYM/OCT1870970164
001-1201-4304 61.38
12/13/2018
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
6
5:09:37PM
Page:
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
90802 12/13/2018 (Continued)VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES18666
VOIP PHONES/BASE 3/OCT1870970753
001-3302-4304 107.93
VOIP PHONES/COMM RES/OCT1870970758
001-4601-4304 141.25
Total : 523.7318666
90803 12/13/2018 VORTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.07-1289973/PO 14781 CHAMBERS/PANIC BARS ON DOORS/ADA MODIFY15597
715-4202-4201 6,499.70
Total : 6,499.7015597
90804 12/13/2018 YOUNGBLOOD, ERVIN L 3563A (PO 14355)POLYGRAPH EXAM/DEC1819574
001-2101-4201 250.00
Total : 250.0019574
182514921 12/11/2018 ADMINSURE AS AGENT FOR THE 12/13/18 Check Run WORK COMP CLAIMS REIMB/DEC1814691
705-1217-4324 6,188.58
Total : 6,188.5814691
400135823 12/7/2018 PITNEY BOWES INC 12/13/18 Check Run POSTAGE METER REFILL/DEC1813838
001-1208-4305 1,000.00
Total : 1,000.0013838
Bank total : 460,180.86 42 Vouchers for bank code :boa
460,180.86Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report 42
12/13/2018
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
7
5:09:37PM
Page:
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
"I hereby certify that the demands or claims covered by the
checks listed on pages 1 to 7 inclusive, of the check
register for 12/13/18 are accurate funds are available for
payment, and are in conformance to the budget."
By
Finance Director
Date 12/17/18
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0003
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
REVENUE REPORT, EXPENDITURE REPORT,
AND CIP REPORT BY PROJECT FOR NOVEMBER 2018
(Finance Director Viki Copeland)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the November 2018 Financial Reports.
Summary:
Attached are the November 2018 Revenue and Expenditure reports.The reports provide detail by
revenue account and by department for expenditures,with summaries by fund at the end of each
report.
General Fund revenue is 22.8%received for 41.7%of the fiscal year.The General Fund revenue,
particularly tax revenue,is not received incrementally.Adjusting for tax revenue would bring the total
to 41.6%
General Fund expenditures are 38.2%expended for 41.7%of the fiscal year.Expenditures do not
necessarily occur on an incremental basis.
This CIP Report groups the funding for each project together,which is similar to how the projects are
shown in the budget.In the regular Expenditure Report,the CIPs appear at the end of each fund,
therefore, the total funding is not displayed in one place.
Attachments:
1.Nov 18 Revenue Report
2.Nov 18 Expenditure Report
3.Nov 18 CIP Report by Project
Respectfully Submitted by: Viki Copeland, Finance Director
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3100 Taxes
3101 Current Year Secured 14,149,469.00 0.00 0.00 14,149,469.00 0.00
3102 Current Year Unsecured 553,090.00 497,841.30 497,841.30 55,248.70 90.01
3103 Prior Year Collections 0.00 100,008.68 100,008.68 -100,008.68 0.00
3104 In-lieu Sales Tax 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3106 Supplemental Roll SB813 366,471.00 123,318.85 123,318.85 243,152.15 33.65
3107 Transfer Tax 300,181.00 71,502.76 71,502.76 228,678.24 23.82
3108 Sales Tax 3,034,000.00 1,081,060.06 1,081,060.06 1,952,939.94 35.63
3109 1/2 Cent Sales Tx Ext 254,433.00 62,012.67 62,012.67 192,420.33 24.37
3110 Spectrum Cable TV Franchise 171,585.00 43,461.91 43,461.91 128,123.09 25.33
3111 Electric Franchise 82,259.00 0.00 0.00 82,259.00 0.00
3112 Gas Franchise 38,596.00 0.00 0.00 38,596.00 0.00
3113 Refuse Franchise 227,797.00 92,439.06 92,439.06 135,357.94 40.58
3114 Transient Occupancy Tax 3,260,078.00 1,085,501.04 1,085,501.04 2,174,576.96 33.30
3115 Business License 1,070,000.00 308,597.67 308,597.67 761,402.33 28.84
3120 Utility User Tax 2,250,177.00 770,725.76 770,725.76 1,479,451.24 34.25
3122 Property tax In-lieu of Veh Lic Fees 2,659,922.00 17,896.11 17,896.11 2,642,025.89 0.67
3123 Frontier Cable Franchise Fee 204,555.00 45,665.60 45,665.60 158,889.40 22.32
Total Taxes 15.02 28,622,613.00 4,300,031.47 4,300,031.47 24,322,581.53
3200 Licenses And Permits
3202 Dog Licenses 12,600.00 9,764.50 9,764.50 2,835.50 77.50
3203 Bicycle Licenses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
2
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3204 Building Permits 857,000.00 315,259.86 315,259.86 541,740.14 36.79
3205 Electric Permits 96,530.00 36,432.00 36,432.00 60,098.00 37.74
3206 Plumbing Permits 65,000.00 38,538.00 38,538.00 26,462.00 59.29
3207 Occupancy Permits 11,065.00 7,473.00 7,473.00 3,592.00 67.54
3208 Grease Trap Permits 1,280.00 792.00 792.00 488.00 61.88
3209 Garage Sales 0.00 112.00 112.00 -112.00 0.00
3211 Banner Permits 1,250.00 52.00 52.00 1,198.00 4.16
3212 Animal/Fowl Permits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3213 Animal Redemption Fee 0.00 293.00 293.00 -293.00 0.00
3214 Amplified Sound Permit 17,637.00 4,681.00 4,681.00 12,956.00 26.54
3215 Temporary Sign Permit 1,312.00 1,388.00 1,388.00 -76.00 105.79
3216 Spray Booth Permit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3217 Open Fire Permit 0.00 378.00 378.00 -378.00 0.00
3218 Auto Repair Permit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3219 Newsrack Permits 1,400.00 0.00 0.00 1,400.00 0.00
3220 Commercial St Light Banner Program 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3225 Taxicab Franchise Fees 26,332.00 356.00 356.00 25,976.00 1.35
3226 Admin Permit - Limited Outdoor Seating 958.00 479.00 479.00 479.00 50.00
3227 Mechanical Permits 44,800.00 19,559.00 19,559.00 25,241.00 43.66
3228 Concealed Weapons Permit 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
3229 Private Special Event Permit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3230 Temporary Minor Special Event Permit 2,395.00 2,395.00 2,395.00 0.00 100.00
3232 Second-Single Family Dweling Permit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3233 Emergency Shelters Permit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
3
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3234 Single-Room Occupancy Permit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3235 Outdor Fitness Permit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3236 Drone Permit Fee 2,900.00 730.00 730.00 2,170.00 25.17
3239 A-Frame sign Permit 500.00 395.00 395.00 105.00 79.00
Total Licenses And Permits 38.41 1,143,059.00 439,077.36 439,077.36 703,981.64
3300 Fines & Forfeitures
3301 Municipal Court Fines 96,439.00 31,998.90 31,998.90 64,440.10 33.18
3302 Court Fines /Parking 1,981,749.00 959,569.25 959,569.25 1,022,179.75 48.42
3305 Administrative Fines 15,650.00 3,400.00 3,400.00 12,250.00 21.73
3306 Nuisance Abatement- Restrooms 33,000.00 16,700.00 16,700.00 16,300.00 50.61
Total Fines & Forfeitures 47.57 2,126,838.00 1,011,668.15 1,011,668.15 1,115,169.85
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 187,508.00 48,916.04 48,916.04 138,591.96 26.09
3402 Rents & Concessions 1,500.00 582.02 582.02 917.98 38.80
3403 Pier Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3404 Community Center Leases 25,500.00 12,700.80 12,700.80 12,799.20 49.81
3405 Community Center Rentals 180,000.00 51,750.00 51,750.00 128,250.00 28.75
3406 Community Center Theatre 65,000.00 50,697.75 50,697.75 14,302.25 78.00
3411 Other Facilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3412 Tennis Courts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3414 Fund Exchange 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3418 Special Events 100,000.00 26,458.26 26,458.26 73,541.74 26.46
3Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
4
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3419 Revenue-Centennial Celeb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3422 Beach/Plaza Promotions 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00
3425 Ground Lease 39,382.00 16,409.00 16,409.00 22,973.00 41.67
3427 Cell Site License- Sprint 38,754.00 15,944.50 15,944.50 22,809.50 41.14
3428 Cell Site License - Verizon 32,754.00 13,506.10 13,506.10 19,247.90 41.23
3429 Inmate Phone Services 780.00 474.09 474.09 305.91 60.78
3431 Storage Facility Operating Lease 180,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 105,000.00 41.67
3432 Film Permits 60,000.00 39,290.00 39,290.00 20,710.00 65.48
3450 Investment Discount 1,035.00 175.38 175.38 859.62 16.94
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3476 Solid Waste Lease Space 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 37.35 942,213.00 351,903.94 351,903.94 590,309.06
3500 Intergovernmental/State
3505 In Lieu Motor Vehicle 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3507 Highway Maintenance 3,100.00 0.00 0.00 3,100.00 0.00
3508 Mandated Costs 7,088.00 7,539.00 7,539.00 -451.00 106.36
3509 Homeowner Property Tax Relief 84,000.00 0.00 0.00 84,000.00 0.00
3510 POST 22,365.00 1,977.48 1,977.48 20,387.52 8.84
3511 STC-Service Officer Training 4,730.00 0.00 0.00 4,730.00 0.00
3575 VLF Coll Excess of $14m-Rev code 11001.5 10,326.00 0.00 0.00 10,326.00 0.00
Total Intergovernmental/State 7.23 131,609.00 9,516.48 9,516.48 122,092.52
3800 Current Service Charges
4Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
5
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3801 Residential Inspection 57,591.00 18,249.00 18,249.00 39,342.00 31.69
3802 Planning Sign Permit/Master Sign Program 16,484.00 8,124.00 8,124.00 8,360.00 49.28
3803 Negative Declaration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3804 General Plan Maintenance Fees 217,000.00 68,295.00 68,295.00 148,705.00 31.47
3805 Amendment to Planning Entitlement 20,620.00 4,124.00 4,124.00 16,496.00 20.00
3806 Board Of Appeals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3807 Refuse Lien Fees/Consolidated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3808 Zone Variance Review 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3809 Tentative Map Review 9,010.00 6,757.50 6,757.50 2,252.50 75.00
3810 Final Map Review 8,100.00 2,700.00 2,700.00 5,400.00 33.33
3811 Zone Change 3,902.00 3,902.00 3,902.00 0.00 100.00
3812 Conditional Use Permit - Comm/Other 9,362.00 0.00 0.00 9,362.00 0.00
3813 Plan Check Fees 408,000.00 163,417.74 163,417.74 244,582.26 40.05
3814 Appeal to City Council From Staff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3815 Public Works Services 130,000.00 47,498.59 47,498.59 82,501.41 36.54
3816 Utility Trench Service Connect Permit 100,000.00 35,341.04 35,341.04 64,658.96 35.34
3817 Address Change Request Fee 4,640.00 928.00 928.00 3,712.00 20.00
3818 Police Services 1,500.00 400.00 400.00 1,100.00 26.67
3819 Jail Services 15,300.00 6,120.00 6,120.00 9,180.00 40.00
3821 Daily Permit Lot A/Parking Structure 50,136.00 22,351.00 22,351.00 27,785.00 44.58
3823 Special Event Security/Police 39,000.00 36,346.78 36,346.78 2,653.22 93.20
3824 500' Noticing 11,646.00 1,294.00 1,294.00 10,352.00 11.11
3825 Public Notice Posting 3,825.00 1,225.00 1,225.00 2,600.00 32.03
3827 Library Grounds Maintenance 18,527.00 0.00 0.00 18,527.00 0.00
5Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
6
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3831 Non-Utility Street Excavation Permit 49,533.00 23,403.00 23,403.00 26,130.00 47.25
3833 Recreation Service Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3834 Encroachment Permit 312,400.00 129,103.98 129,103.98 183,296.02 41.33
3835 Youth Sports Admin Fee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3836 Refund Transaction Fee 800.00 585.00 585.00 215.00 73.13
3837 Returned Check Charge 300.00 141.00 141.00 159.00 47.00
3838 Sale Of Maps/Publications 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3839 Photocopy Charges 400.00 152.00 152.00 248.00 38.00
3840 Ambulance Transport 457,945.00 220,238.08 220,238.08 237,706.92 48.09
3841 Police Towing 73,850.00 31,017.00 31,017.00 42,833.00 42.00
3842 Parking Meters 2,000,000.00 945,894.34 945,894.34 1,054,105.66 47.29
3843 Parking Permits-Annual 443,423.00 24,042.17 24,042.17 419,380.83 5.42
3844 Daily Parking Permits 1,820.00 1,196.87 1,196.87 623.13 65.76
3845 Lot A Revenue 564,607.00 246,257.00 246,257.00 318,350.00 43.62
3846 No Pier Pkg Structure Revenue 715,604.00 330,289.75 330,289.75 385,314.25 46.16
3847 In Lieu Fee / Parking Facility 57,800.00 0.00 0.00 57,800.00 0.00
3848 Driveway Permits 1,348.00 1,572.00 1,572.00 -224.00 116.62
3849 Guest Permits 1,736.00 857.00 857.00 879.00 49.37
3850 Contractors Permits 40,000.00 17,646.00 17,646.00 22,354.00 44.12
3851 Cash Key Revenue -554.00 49.50 49.50 -603.50 -8.94
3852 Recreation Program Transaction Fee 40,000.00 18,920.00 18,920.00 21,080.00 47.30
3855 Bus Passes 2,000.00 640.00 640.00 1,360.00 32.00
3856 500' - 2nd Noticing 515.00 0.00 0.00 515.00 0.00
3857 Parking Plan Application 8,640.00 0.00 0.00 8,640.00 0.00
6Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
7
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3858 Monthly Permit Lot A/Parking Structure 82,929.00 40,176.00 40,176.00 42,753.00 48.45
3859 Admin Permit - Abandon CUP 0.00 619.00 619.00 -619.00 0.00
3860 Car2Go Parking Fee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3861 Fire Alarm Sys Insp - New Installation 0.00 382.00 382.00 -382.00 0.00
3862 Alarm Permit Fee 5,415.00 1,158.00 1,158.00 4,257.00 21.39
3863 False Alarm Fee 423.00 0.00 0.00 423.00 0.00
3864 C.U.P./Fences/Walls 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3865 Lot B Revenue 102,226.00 40,845.50 40,845.50 61,380.50 39.96
3867 Precise Development Plans 5,114.00 2,557.00 2,557.00 2,557.00 50.00
3868 Public Noticing/300 Ft Radius 5,446.00 3,890.00 3,890.00 1,556.00 71.43
3869 2nd Party Response 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3870 Legal Determination Hearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3871 Passport Processing Fee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3872 Passport Photo Fee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3876 Spec Fire Protectn Sys Insp-New Install 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3877 Business License Registration 7,000.00 5,215.00 5,215.00 1,785.00 74.50
3878 Fire Re-Inspections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3879 Business License Renewal Fee 30,000.00 13,494.00 13,494.00 16,506.00 44.98
3882 Special Event Fire Code Permit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3883 Final/Tentative Map Extension 949.00 0.00 0.00 949.00 0.00
3884 Lot Line Adjustment 1,176.00 0.00 0.00 1,176.00 0.00
3886 Text Amendment/Private 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3888 Slope/Grade Height Determination 5,444.00 2,252.50 2,252.50 3,191.50 41.38
3890 300 Ft Radius Noticing/Appeal to CC 474.00 232.00 232.00 242.00 48.95
7Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
8
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3891 Appeal of Plng Comm Action to Council 1,681.00 0.00 0.00 1,681.00 0.00
3892 Underground Tank Install/Removal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3893 Contract Recreation Classes 375,000.00 171,241.10 171,241.10 203,758.90 45.66
3894 Other Recreation Programs 225,000.00 67,754.33 67,754.33 157,245.67 30.11
3895 Zoning Information Letters 0.00 186.00 186.00 -186.00 0.00
3896 Mailing Fee 12.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 0.00
3897 Admin Fee/TULIP Ins Certificate 500.00 1,620.12 1,620.12 -1,120.12 324.02
3898 Height Limit Exception 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3899 Condo - CUP/PDP 20,344.00 19,444.00 19,444.00 900.00 95.58
Total Current Service Charges 41.24 6,765,943.00 2,790,144.89 2,790,144.89 3,975,798.11
3900 Other Revenue
3901 Sale of Real/Personal Property 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3902 Refunds/Reimb Previous Years 0.00 116.34 116.34 -116.34 0.00
3903 Contributions Non Govt 0.00 4,872.00 4,872.00 -4,872.00 0.00
3904 General Miscellaneous 0.00 4,118.00 4,118.00 -4,118.00 0.00
3905 Cable Franchise Acceptance Fee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3907 Pkg Str Utility Reimb From Beach House 3,300.00 938.01 938.01 2,361.99 28.42
3908 Hermosa Sr Ctr Donations/Memberships 10,000.00 3,543.15 3,543.15 6,456.85 35.43
3914 Planning EIR Admin Reimbursement 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00
3920 BCHD Healthy Cities Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3938 Solid Waste Contract Admin Fee 52,707.00 18,300.44 18,300.44 34,406.56 34.72
3945 In-Serv Firefighter Trng Prog/El Camino 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3955 Operating Transfers In 538,739.00 224,475.00 224,475.00 314,264.00 41.67
8Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
9
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3960 Verizon PEG Grant 15,663.00 0.00 0.00 15,663.00 0.00
3961 Chamber Funding Econ Dev 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3962 Election Reimbursement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3963 HB Youth Enrichment Program Fee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3964 South Park Donations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3967 Athens Reimbursement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Other Revenue 39.42 650,409.00 256,362.94 256,362.94 394,046.06
6800 Current Service Charges Continued
6801 Mural Review 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 0.00 100.00
6802 Sign Variance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6803 General Plan Amendment/ Map or Text 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6804 Temporary Use Permit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6805 Unusual Architectural/Building Rev 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6806 Determination of Similar Use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6807 Planning Commission Interpretation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6808 Request for Reasonable Accomodation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6809 Categorical Exemption 1,800.00 900.00 900.00 900.00 50.00
6810 Deed Restriction/Covenant Review 1,300.00 4,620.00 4,620.00 -3,320.00 355.38
6811 Landscape Plan Review 8,520.00 6,248.00 6,248.00 2,272.00 73.33
6812 Planning Landscape Doc Package Review 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6813 Preliminary Plan Review 372.00 868.00 868.00 -496.00 233.33
6814 Extra Meeting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6815 Special Meeting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
10
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
6816 Traffic/Special Study Review 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6818 New/Modified Business Zoning Review 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6819 Historic Resource Review 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6820 Appeal to the Planning Commission 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6821 Solar Plan Check/Inspection 834.00 2,724.50 2,724.50 -1,890.50 326.68
6822 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6823 Damaged Building Inspection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6824 Extended Construction Hours Review 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6825 Clean Bay Restaurant - NPDES Inspection 20,600.00 200.00 200.00 20,400.00 0.97
6826 Light Industry - NPDES Inspection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6827 Stormwater Mitigation Plan Review 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6828 Public Improvement Plan Check 56,912.00 27,414.00 27,414.00 29,498.00 48.17
6829 Street/Row Vacation Review 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6830 Engineering Study Review 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6831 Assessment District Formation Research 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6832 DUI Collision Response 581.00 0.00 0.00 581.00 0.00
6833 Vehicle Identification Verification 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6834 Citation Sign-off 460.00 415.00 415.00 45.00 90.22
6835 Taxicab Inspection 104.00 0.00 0.00 104.00 0.00
6836 Police Business Background Check 263.00 0.00 0.00 263.00 0.00
6837 Deceased Animal Pickup 114.00 57.00 57.00 57.00 50.00
6838 Animal Trap Rental 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6839 Pet Home Quarantine Review 57.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 0.00
6840 Multiple Dog Review 216.00 0.00 0.00 216.00 0.00
10Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
11
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
6841 Fire Sprinkler System Insp - New Install 0.00 750.00 750.00 -750.00 0.00
6842 Miscellaneous Fire Code Permit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6843 State Mandated Fire Inspection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6844 Fire False Alarm Response 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6845 Hazardous Materials Spill Response 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6846 Parking Cash Key Processing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6847 Document Certification 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00
6848 Fire Standby Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6849 Traffic Plan Review 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6850 Annual Business Fire Inspection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6851 Busines Licenses State Mandated Fee 0.00 3,712.30 3,712.30 -3,712.30 0.00
6852 Centennial Sweatshir 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6860 Refuse Lien Fees/Athens 350.00 0.00 0.00 350.00 0.00
6861 Oversized Vehicle Permit 738.00 287.00 287.00 451.00 38.89
6862 Athens Reimbursement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6866 Records Technology Fee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6867 Credit Card Processing Fee 34,352.00 26,889.20 26,889.20 7,462.80 78.28
6868 Alternate Materials/Methods Review 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6869 Disabled Parking Space Install 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6870 Public Tree Install Review 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6871 Sewer Service Charge Rebate -9,000.00 -4,055.28 -4,055.28 -4,944.72 45.06
6872 PY Sewer Service Charge Rebate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6873 Impound Fee- Bicycle, Scooters & Wheeled 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6874 Limited Live Entertainment Permit Fee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
12
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
Total Current Service Charges Continued 60.40 120,083.00 72,529.72 72,529.72 47,553.28
31,271,532.05 9,231,234.95 9,231,234.95 40,502,767.00 22.79Total General Fund
12Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
13
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Lightg/Landscapg Dist Fund105
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3100 Taxes
3101 Current Year Secured 454,988.00 0.00 0.00 454,988.00 0.00
3103 Prior Year Collections 5,122.00 3,363.53 3,363.53 1,758.47 65.67
3105 Assessment Rebates -4,184.00 -984.40 -984.40 -3,199.60 23.53
Total Taxes 0.52 455,926.00 2,379.13 2,379.13 453,546.87
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 0.00 137.91 137.91 -137.91 0.00
3450 Investment Discount 0.00 0.57 0.57 -0.57 0.00
3460 Unrealized Gain(Loss) On Inv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 0.00 0.00 138.48 138.48 -138.48
3900 Other Revenue
3902 Refunds/Reimb Previous Years 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3904 General Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3955 Operating Transfers In 210,463.00 87,695.00 87,695.00 122,768.00 41.67
Total Other Revenue 41.67 210,463.00 87,695.00 87,695.00 122,768.00
576,176.39 90,212.61 90,212.61 666,389.00 13.54Total Lightg/Landscapg Dist Fund
13Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
14
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
State Gas Tax Fund115
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 2,179.00 2,199.25 2,199.25 -20.25 100.93
3450 Investment Discount 7.00 9.16 9.16 -2.16 130.86
3460 Unrealized Gain(Loss) On Inv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 101.03 2,186.00 2,208.41 2,208.41 -22.41
3500 Intergovernmental/State
3501 Section 2106 Allocation 71,348.00 29,206.39 29,206.39 42,141.61 40.94
3502 Section 2107 Allocation 142,485.00 53,138.31 53,138.31 89,346.69 37.29
3503 Section 2107.5 Allocation 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 0.00 100.00
3512 Section 2105 (Prop 111) 114,779.00 45,512.67 45,512.67 69,266.33 39.65
3513 Sec 2103 Higher Mtr Veh Excise Tax(HUTA) 75,071.00 34,940.85 34,940.85 40,130.15 46.54
3522 TDA Article 3/Local 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3566 Loan Repayment- HUTA Transportation Fds 22,300.00 0.00 0.00 22,300.00 0.00
3567 Road Maintenance Rehab Account 328,215.00 91,600.73 91,600.73 236,614.27 27.91
Total Intergovernmental/State 34.08 758,198.00 258,398.95 258,398.95 499,799.05
499,776.64 260,607.36 260,607.36 760,384.00 34.27Total State Gas Tax Fund
14Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
15
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
AB939 Fund117
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 939.00 550.82 550.82 388.18 58.66
3450 Investment Discount 3.00 1.95 1.95 1.05 65.00
3460 Unrealized Gain(Loss) On Inv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 58.68 942.00 552.77 552.77 389.23
3800 Current Service Charges
3860 AB939 Surcharge 58,632.00 22,509.49 22,509.49 36,122.51 38.39
3874 Compost/Worm Bin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Current Service Charges 38.39 58,632.00 22,509.49 22,509.49 36,122.51
3900 Other Revenue
3902 Refunds/Reimb Previous Years 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Other Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6800 Current Service Charges Continued
6853 Solid Waste Contracting Fee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Current Service Charges Continued 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
36,511.74 23,062.26 23,062.26 59,574.00 38.71Total AB939 Fund
15Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
16
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Prop A Open Space Fund121
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3600 Intergovernmental/County
3608 Maintenance Allocation 20,557.00 0.00 0.00 20,557.00 0.00
3613 Beach Restroom Rehab/Co Share 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3630 Maint Allocation-Pier Structural Repairs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3631 South Park Phase I Improvements Grant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20,557.00 0.00 0.00 20,557.00 0.00Total Prop A Open Space Fund
16Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
17
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Tyco Fund122
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 17,010.00 10,108.37 10,108.37 6,901.63 59.43
3426 Easement Agreement 318,845.00 163,678.86 163,678.86 155,166.14 51.33
3450 Investment Discount 52.00 37.64 37.64 14.36 72.38
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
162,082.13 173,824.87 173,824.87 335,907.00 51.75Total Tyco Fund
17Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
18
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3100 Taxes
3116 Parks & Recreation Facility Tax 0.00 14,986.00 14,986.00 -14,986.00 0.00
Total Taxes 0.00 0.00 14,986.00 14,986.00 -14,986.00
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 4,169.00 2,503.03 2,503.03 1,665.97 60.04
3450 Investment Discount 15.00 9.28 9.28 5.72 61.87
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 60.05 4,184.00 2,512.31 2,512.31 1,671.69
3900 Other Revenue
3903 Contributions Non Govt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3910 Park/Recreation In Lieu Fee 157,361.00 143,113.00 143,113.00 14,248.00 90.95
Total Other Revenue 90.95 157,361.00 143,113.00 143,113.00 14,248.00
933.69 160,611.31 160,611.31 161,545.00 99.42Total Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund
18Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
19
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Bayview Dr Dist Admin Exp Fund135
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 53.00 15.40 15.40 37.60 29.06
Total Use Of Money & Property 29.06 53.00 15.40 15.40 37.60
3900 Other Revenue
3925 Spec Assessment Admin Fees 4,500.00 0.00 0.00 4,500.00 0.00
Total Other Revenue 0.00 4,500.00 0.00 0.00 4,500.00
4,537.60 15.40 15.40 4,553.00 0.34Total Bayview Dr Dist Admin Exp Fund
19Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
20
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Lower Pier Admin Exp Fund136
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3900 Other Revenue
3925 Special Assessment Admin Fees 2,600.00 0.00 0.00 2,600.00 0.00
2,600.00 0.00 0.00 2,600.00 0.00Total Lower Pier Admin Exp Fund
20Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
21
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Myrtle Dist Admin Exp Fund137
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 233.00 50.20 50.20 182.80 21.55
Total Use Of Money & Property 21.55 233.00 50.20 50.20 182.80
3900 Other Revenue
3925 Special Assessment Admin Fees 9,000.00 0.00 0.00 9,000.00 0.00
Total Other Revenue 0.00 9,000.00 0.00 0.00 9,000.00
9,182.80 50.20 50.20 9,233.00 0.54Total Myrtle Dist Admin Exp Fund
21Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
22
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Loma Dist Admin Exp Fund138
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 420.00 140.34 140.34 279.66 33.41
Total Use Of Money & Property 33.41 420.00 140.34 140.34 279.66
3900 Other Revenue
3925 Special Assessment Admin Fees 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 0.00
Total Other Revenue 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00
10,279.66 140.34 140.34 10,420.00 1.35Total Loma Dist Admin Exp Fund
22Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
23
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Beach Dr Assmnt Dist Admin Exp Fund139
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 69.00 19.99 19.99 49.01 28.97
Total Use Of Money & Property 28.97 69.00 19.99 19.99 49.01
3900 Other Revenue
3925 Special Assessment Admin Fees 3,500.00 0.00 0.00 3,500.00 0.00
Total Other Revenue 0.00 3,500.00 0.00 0.00 3,500.00
3,549.01 19.99 19.99 3,569.00 0.56Total Beach Dr Assmnt Dist Admin Exp Fund
23Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
24
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Community Dev Block Grant140
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3700 Intergovernmental/Federal
3715 CDBG Administration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3720 Americans with Disabilities Act 120,000.00 0.00 0.00 120,000.00 0.00
120,000.00 0.00 0.00 120,000.00 0.00Total Community Dev Block Grant
24Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
25
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition A Fund145
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3100 Taxes
3117 Proposition A Transit 383,939.00 165,592.94 165,592.94 218,346.06 43.13
Total Taxes 43.13 383,939.00 165,592.94 165,592.94 218,346.06
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 28,160.00 14,144.01 14,144.01 14,015.99 50.23
3450 Investment Discount 106.00 51.74 51.74 54.26 48.81
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 50.22 28,266.00 14,195.75 14,195.75 14,070.25
3800 Current Service Charges
3853 Dial-A-Taxi Program 4,600.00 2,190.00 2,190.00 2,410.00 47.61
3855 Bus Passes 800.00 239.40 239.40 560.60 29.93
Total Current Service Charges 44.99 5,400.00 2,429.40 2,429.40 2,970.60
235,386.91 182,218.09 182,218.09 417,605.00 43.63Total Proposition A Fund
25Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
26
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition C Fund146
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3100 Taxes
3118 Proposition C Local Return 318,467.00 137,355.34 137,355.34 181,111.66 43.13
Total Taxes 43.13 318,467.00 137,355.34 137,355.34 181,111.66
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 30,918.00 11,386.53 11,386.53 19,531.47 36.83
3450 Investment Discount 111.00 41.81 41.81 69.19 37.67
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 36.83 31,029.00 11,428.34 11,428.34 19,600.66
200,712.32 148,783.68 148,783.68 349,496.00 42.57Total Proposition C Fund
26Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
27
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Measure R Fund147
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3100 Taxes
3119 Measure R Local Return Funds 238,856.00 103,104.06 103,104.06 135,751.94 43.17
Total Taxes 43.17 238,856.00 103,104.06 103,104.06 135,751.94
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 18,086.00 9,965.86 9,965.86 8,120.14 55.10
3450 Investment Discount 64.00 36.48 36.48 27.52 57.00
3460 Unrealized Gain(Loss) On Inv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 55.11 18,150.00 10,002.34 10,002.34 8,147.66
3900 Other Revenue
3970 Measure R SBCCOG South Bay Highway Pr 399,922.00 15,596.66 15,596.66 384,325.34 3.90
Total Other Revenue 3.90 399,922.00 15,596.66 15,596.66 384,325.34
528,224.94 128,703.06 128,703.06 656,928.00 19.59Total Measure R Fund
27Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
28
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Measure M148
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3100 Taxes
3118 Local Returns 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3119 Measure R Local Return Funds 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3131 Measure M Local Return Funds 270,697.00 115,966.25 115,966.25 154,730.75 42.84
Total Taxes 42.84 270,697.00 115,966.25 115,966.25 154,730.75
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 701.00 2,711.37 2,711.37 -2,010.37 386.79
3450 Investment Discount 0.00 9.78 9.78 -9.78 0.00
3460 Unrealized Gain(Loss) On Inv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 388.18 701.00 2,721.15 2,721.15 -2,020.15
3900 Other Revenue
3970 Measure R SBCCOG South Bay Highway Pr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Other Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
152,710.60 118,687.40 118,687.40 271,398.00 43.73Total Measure M
28Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
29
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3500 Intergovernmental/State
3558 Beverage Recycling Grant 31,881.00 0.00 0.00 31,881.00 0.00
3562 State Homeland Security Grant Program 77,526.00 0.00 0.00 77,526.00 0.00
3566 Coastal Conservancy Grant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3571 Local Coastal Assistance Grant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3572 Local Coastal Assistance Grant 2017 82,812.00 0.00 0.00 82,812.00 0.00
3573 Alcoholic Beverage Control Grant (ABC) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3580 BSCC- Mental Health Evaluation Team 21,854.00 0.00 0.00 21,854.00 0.00
3581 SWRCB- Storm Water Grant Program 1,349,700.00 0.00 0.00 1,349,700.00 0.00
Total Intergovernmental/State 0.00 1,563,773.00 0.00 0.00 1,563,773.00
3700 Intergovernmental/Federal
3732 STPL Street Improvement Reimb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3734 Solar Grant TBD/Energy Upgrades 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3736 Bulletproof Vest Partnership 2,700.00 0.00 0.00 2,700.00 0.00
3740 SWRCB (ARRA)/Strand Infiltration Trench 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3741 SWRCB (ARRA)/Pier Ave Impr Project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3742 STPL Pier St Impr Grant CIP 129 (ARRA) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3745 Energy Eff & Conserv Block Grant (ARRA) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3746 State Safe Routes to School (SR2S) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3747 Fed HSIP Grnt-Valley School Signal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3748 Gen Plan/Coastal/Strat Growth Council 23,013.00 0.00 0.00 23,013.00 0.00
3749 SCE Rule 20A Funds/PCH Beautification 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
29Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
30
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3750 Dept of Justice- Body Worn Cameras 41,681.00 0.00 0.00 41,681.00 0.00
Total Intergovernmental/Federal 0.00 67,394.00 0.00 0.00 67,394.00
3900 Other Revenue
3965 Fireman's Fund Emerg Prep Prog Grant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3966 West Basin WD Grant- Reclaimed Waterline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3970 Melchione Trust- Surf Memorial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3971 LA Country Library 43,308.00 0.00 0.00 43,308.00 0.00
3972 Caltrans Reimbursement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3973 Caltrans Cooperative Agreement PCH&2nd 134,000.00 134,000.00 134,000.00 0.00 100.00
3974 South Park- Prop A Open Space Grant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3980 SWGP- Manhattan Beach Reimb 36,996.00 0.00 0.00 36,996.00 0.00
3981 SWGP- Redondo Beach Reimb 751,771.00 0.00 0.00 751,771.00 0.00
3982 SWGP- Torrance Reimb 489,834.00 0.00 0.00 489,834.00 0.00
3983 City Homelessness Planning Grant 2,364.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 -12,636.00 634.52
3984 Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program 84,150.00 0.00 0.00 84,150.00 0.00
3985 California Green Business Program 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 100.00
Total Other Revenue 11.38 1,572,423.00 179,000.00 179,000.00 1,393,423.00
3,024,590.00 179,000.00 179,000.00 3,203,590.00 5.59Total Grants Fund
30Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
31
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Air Quality Mgmt Dist Fund152
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 1,554.00 39.79 39.79 1,514.21 2.56
3450 Investment Discount 5.00 0.13 0.13 4.87 2.60
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 2.56 1,559.00 39.92 39.92 1,519.08
3500 Intergovernmental/State
3538 AQMD Emission Control AB2766 25,000.00 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 0.00
3551 MSRC Discretionary Matching Funds 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Intergovernmental/State 0.00 25,000.00 0.00 0.00 25,000.00
26,519.08 39.92 39.92 26,559.00 0.15Total Air Quality Mgmt Dist Fund
31Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
32
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Supp Law Enf Serv Fund (SLESF)153
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3100 Taxes
3135 C.O.P.S. Allocation 100,000.00 68,028.91 68,028.91 31,971.09 68.03
Total Taxes 68.03 100,000.00 68,028.91 68,028.91 31,971.09
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 4,470.00 2,009.83 2,009.83 2,460.17 44.96
3450 Investment Discount 10.00 7.60 7.60 2.40 76.00
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 45.03 4,480.00 2,017.43 2,017.43 2,462.57
34,433.66 70,046.34 70,046.34 104,480.00 67.04Total Supp Law Enf Serv Fund (SLESF)
32Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
33
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Sewer Fund160
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 123,380.00 57,030.54 57,030.54 66,349.46 46.22
3450 Investment Discount 483.00 209.61 209.61 273.39 43.40
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 46.21 123,863.00 57,240.15 57,240.15 66,622.85
3500 Intergovernmental/State
3550 CA Waste Oil Recycling Grant 5,400.00 0.00 0.00 5,400.00 0.00
Total Intergovernmental/State 0.00 5,400.00 0.00 0.00 5,400.00
3600 Intergovernmental/County
3602 Beach Outlet Maintenance 8,000.00 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 0.00
Total Intergovernmental/County 0.00 8,000.00 0.00 0.00 8,000.00
3800 Current Service Charges
3828 Sewer Connection Fee 55,000.00 20,058.00 20,058.00 34,942.00 36.47
3829 Sewer Demolition Fee 2,600.00 1,612.00 1,612.00 988.00 62.00
3832 Sewer Lateral Installation 22,346.00 12,216.00 12,216.00 10,130.00 54.67
Total Current Service Charges 42.39 79,946.00 33,886.00 33,886.00 46,060.00
3900 Other Revenue
3902 Refunds/Reimb Previous Years 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3922 Other Financing Source- Debt Issuance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3955 Operating Transfers In 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
33Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
34
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Sewer Fund160
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
Total Other Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6800 Current Service Charges Continued
6861 Sewer Service Charge 1,050,155.00 4,689.01 4,689.01 1,045,465.99 0.45
Total Current Service Charges Continued 0.45 1,050,155.00 4,689.01 4,689.01 1,045,465.99
1,171,548.84 95,815.16 95,815.16 1,267,364.00 7.56Total Sewer Fund
34Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
35
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Storm Drains Fund161
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3900 Other Revenue
3955 Operating Transfers In 700,000.00 291,665.00 291,665.00 408,335.00 41.67
408,335.00 291,665.00 291,665.00 700,000.00 41.67Total Storm Drains Fund
35Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
36
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Asset Seizure/Forft Fund170
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3300 Fines & Forfeitures
3304 State Forfeited Funds 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3307 Department of Justice Forfeited Funds 0.00 11,528.74 11,528.74 -11,528.74 0.00
3308 Department of Treasury Forfeited Funds 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fines & Forfeitures 0.00 0.00 11,528.74 11,528.74 -11,528.74
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 9,200.00 5,045.02 5,045.02 4,154.98 54.84
3450 Investment Discount 21.00 18.48 18.48 2.52 88.00
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 54.91 9,221.00 5,063.50 5,063.50 4,157.50
3900 Other Revenue
3903 Contributions Non Govt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Other Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-7,371.24 16,592.24 16,592.24 9,221.00 179.94Total Asset Seizure/Forft Fund
36Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
37
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Fire Protection Fund180
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 2,205.00 781.19 781.19 1,423.81 35.43
3450 Investment Discount 8.00 2.94 2.94 5.06 36.75
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 35.43 2,213.00 784.13 784.13 1,428.87
3900 Other Revenue
3912 Fire Flow Fee 48,751.00 9,920.85 9,920.85 38,830.15 20.35
Total Other Revenue 20.35 48,751.00 9,920.85 9,920.85 38,830.15
40,259.02 10,704.98 10,704.98 50,964.00 21.00Total Fire Protection Fund
37Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
38
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
RTI Undersea Cable190
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 0.00 3,194.63 3,194.63 -3,194.63 0.00
3426 Easement Agreement 45,000.00 0.00 0.00 45,000.00 0.00
3450 Investment Discount 0.00 11.73 11.73 -11.73 0.00
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
41,793.64 3,206.36 3,206.36 45,000.00 7.13Total RTI Undersea Cable
38Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
39
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
RTI Tidelands191
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 0.00 2,323.36 2,323.36 -2,323.36 0.00
3426 Easement Agreement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3450 Investment Discount 0.00 8.51 8.51 -8.51 0.00
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-2,331.87 2,331.87 2,331.87 0.00 0.00Total RTI Tidelands
39Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
40
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
2015 Lease Revenue Bonds201
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3900 Other Revenue
3922 Other Financing Sources- Debt Issuance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3955 Operating Transfers In 632,432.00 632,431.79 632,431.79 0.21 100.00
0.21 632,431.79 632,431.79 632,432.00 100.00Total 2015 Lease Revenue Bonds
40Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
41
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 156,066.00 70,521.23 70,521.23 85,544.77 45.19
3414 Fund Exchange 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3450 Investment Discount 664.00 258.79 258.79 405.21 38.97
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Use Of Money & Property 45.16 156,730.00 70,780.02 70,780.02 85,949.98
3900 Other Revenue
3902 Refunds/Reimb Previous Years 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3913 In-Lieu Fee/Street Pavement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3955 Operating Transfers In 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3962 SCE Reimbursement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Other Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
85,949.98 70,780.02 70,780.02 156,730.00 45.16Total Capital Improvement Fund
41Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
42
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Artesia Blvd Relinquishment302
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3450 Investment Discount 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3475 Investment Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total Artesia Blvd Relinquishment
42Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
43
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Bayview Dr Redemption Fund 2004-2609
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 2,734.00 917.44 917.44 1,816.56 33.56
1,816.56 917.44 917.44 2,734.00 33.56Total Bayview Dr Redemption Fund 2004-2
43Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
44
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Lwr Pier Dist Redemption Fund610
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 407.00 28.62 28.62 378.38 7.03
378.38 28.62 28.62 407.00 7.03Total Lwr Pier Dist Redemption Fund
44Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
45
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Beach Dr Assessment Dist Redemption Fund611
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 1,440.00 460.72 460.72 979.28 31.99
979.28 460.72 460.72 1,440.00 31.99Total Beach Dr Assessment Dist Redemption Fund
45Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
46
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Beach Dr Assessment Dist Reserve Fund612
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 100.00 42.03 42.03 57.97 42.03
57.97 42.03 42.03 100.00 42.03Total Beach Dr Assessment Dist Reserve Fund
46Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
47
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Myrtle Ave Assessment Fund617
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 2,285.00 503.43 503.43 1,781.57 22.03
1,781.57 503.43 503.43 2,285.00 22.03Total Myrtle Ave Assessment Fund
47Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
48
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Loma Drive Assessment Fund618
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 2,788.00 869.71 869.71 1,918.29 31.19
1,918.29 869.71 869.71 2,788.00 31.19Total Loma Drive Assessment Fund
48Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
49
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Bayview Dr Reserve Fund 2004-2619
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 327.00 137.99 137.99 189.01 42.20
189.01 137.99 137.99 327.00 42.20Total Bayview Dr Reserve Fund 2004-2
49Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
50
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Insurance Fund705
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3800 Current Service Charges
3880 Insurance Service Charges 2,610,232.00 1,087,605.00 1,087,605.00 1,522,627.00 41.67
Total Current Service Charges 41.67 2,610,232.00 1,087,605.00 1,087,605.00 1,522,627.00
3900 Other Revenue
3902 Refunds/Reimb Previous Years 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3904 General Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3955 Operating Transfers In 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Other Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,522,627.00 1,087,605.00 1,087,605.00 2,610,232.00 41.67Total Insurance Fund
50Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
51
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3800 Current Service Charges
3822 Building Maintenance Service Charges 101,555.00 42,310.00 42,310.00 59,245.00 41.66
3885 Comm Equip/Business Mach Charges 698,486.00 291,035.00 291,035.00 407,451.00 41.67
3889 Vehicle/Equip Replacement Charges 818,135.00 340,889.60 340,889.60 477,245.40 41.67
Total Current Service Charges 41.67 1,618,176.00 674,234.60 674,234.60 943,941.40
3900 Other Revenue
3901 Sale of Real/Personal Property 0.00 5,294.00 5,294.00 -5,294.00 0.00
3902 Refunds/Reimb Previous Years 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3903 Contributions Non Govt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3904 General Miscellaneous 0.00 14,034.09 14,034.09 -14,034.09 0.00
3911 Gain on Sale of Fixed Assets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3955 Operating Transfers In 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3962 SCE Reimbursement 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 0.00
Total Other Revenue 19.33 100,000.00 19,328.09 19,328.09 80,671.91
6800 Current Service Charges Continued
6866 Records Technology Fee 122,581.00 50,988.51 50,988.51 71,592.49 41.60
Total Current Service Charges Continued 41.60 122,581.00 50,988.51 50,988.51 71,592.49
1,096,205.80 744,551.20 744,551.20 1,840,757.00 40.45Total Equipment Replacement Fund
51Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
52
3:13PM
Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Investment Fund900
Account Number
Adjusted
Estimate Revenues
Year-to-date
Revenues Balance
Prct
Rcvd
3400 Use Of Money & Property
3401 Interest Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total Investment Fund
Grand Total 55,010,335.00 13,725,901.34 13,725,901.34 41,284,433.66 24.95
52Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
City Council1101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1101-4100 Personal Services
45,150.00 18,812.54 18,812.54 41.671101-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 26,337.46
50.00 504.68 504.68 1,009.361101-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 -454.68
2,045.00 2,562.06 2,562.06 125.281101-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 -517.06
31,800.00 13,250.00 13,250.00 41.671101-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 18,550.00
21,451.00 3,920.03 3,920.03 18.271101-4180 Retirement 0.00 17,530.97
65.00 45.24 45.24 69.601101-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 19.76
75,328.00 42,587.21 42,587.21 56.541101-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 32,740.79
1,116.00 509.26 509.26 45.631101-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 606.74
1,625.00 677.10 677.10 41.671101-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 947.90
Total Personal Services 178,630.00 82,868.12 82,868.12 0.00 95,761.88 46.39
1101-4200 Contract Services
47,000.00 32,389.48 32,389.48 68.911101-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 14,610.52
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001101-4251 Contract Services/Gov't 0.00 0.00
Total Contract Services 47,000.00 32,389.48 32,389.48 0.00 14,610.52 68.91
1101-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
6,000.00 76.42 76.42 1.271101-4304 Telephone 0.00 5,923.58
15,000.00 5,018.51 5,018.51 33.461101-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 9,981.49
28,403.00 21,391.33 21,391.33 75.311101-4315 Membership 0.00 7,011.67
25,000.00 2,103.45 2,103.45 8.411101-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 22,896.55
50,520.00 42,737.83 42,737.83 84.601101-4319 Special Events 0.00 7,782.17
3,620.00 1,510.00 1,510.00 41.711101-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 2,110.00
4,834.00 2,015.00 2,015.00 41.681101-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 2,819.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 133,377.00 74,852.54 74,852.54 0.00 58,524.46 56.12
1101-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001101-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
2
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
City Council1101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1101-5600 Buildings/Improvements
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001101-5601 Buildings 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001101-5602 Imprvmnts Other Than Bldgs 0.00 0.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total City Council 359,007.00 190,110.14 190,110.14 0.00 168,896.86 52.95
2Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
3
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
City Clerk1121
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1121-4100 Personal Services
122,456.00 52,671.23 52,671.23 43.011121-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 69,784.77
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001121-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 0.00
6,449.00 0.00 0.00 0.001121-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 6,449.00
76,080.00 32,340.00 32,340.00 42.511121-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 43,740.00
27,871.00 6,965.79 6,965.79 24.991121-4180 Retirement 0.00 20,905.21
30,467.00 14,125.10 14,125.10 46.361121-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 16,341.90
2,881.00 1,233.38 1,233.38 42.811121-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 1,647.62
7,206.00 3,002.50 3,002.50 41.671121-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 4,203.50
Total Personal Services 273,410.00 110,338.00 110,338.00 0.00 163,072.00 40.36
1121-4200 Contract Services
35,750.00 1,614.00 1,614.00 4.511121-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 34,136.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001121-4251 Contract Services/Govt 0.00 0.00
Total Contract Services 35,750.00 1,614.00 1,614.00 0.00 34,136.00 4.51
1121-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
900.00 181.10 181.10 20.121121-4304 Telephone 0.00 718.90
4,300.00 764.10 764.10 17.771121-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 3,535.90
750.00 367.00 367.00 48.931121-4315 Membership 0.00 383.00
7,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.001121-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 7,200.00
20,000.00 3,127.03 3,127.03 15.641121-4323 Public Noticing 0.00 16,872.97
7,257.00 3,025.00 3,025.00 41.681121-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 4,232.00
612.00 255.00 255.00 41.671121-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 357.00
12,543.00 5,225.00 5,225.00 41.661121-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 7,318.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 53,562.00 12,944.23 12,944.23 0.00 40,617.77 24.17
1121-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001121-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
4
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
City Clerk1121
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1121-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001121-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001121-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total City Clerk 362,722.00 124,896.23 124,896.23 0.00 237,825.77 34.43
4Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
5
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
City Attorney1131
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1131-4200 Contract Services
300,000.00 151,579.60 151,579.60 50.531131-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 148,420.40
Total City Attorney 300,000.00 151,579.60 151,579.60 0.00 148,420.40 50.53
5Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
6
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
City Prosecutor1132
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1132-4200 Contract Services
227,380.00 75,074.10 75,074.10 33.021132-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 152,305.90
Total Contract Services 227,380.00 75,074.10 75,074.10 0.00 152,305.90 33.02
1132-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
252.00 38.71 38.71 15.361132-4304 Telephone 0.00 213.29
100.00 0.00 0.00 0.001132-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 100.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001132-4315 Membership 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001132-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 0.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 352.00 38.71 38.71 0.00 313.29 11.00
Total City Prosecutor 227,732.00 75,112.81 75,112.81 0.00 152,619.19 32.98
6Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
7
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
City Treasurer1141
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1141-4100 Personal Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001141-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001141-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001141-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 0.00
6,360.00 2,650.00 2,650.00 41.671141-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 3,710.00
415.00 181.55 181.55 43.751141-4180 Retirement 0.00 233.45
12,802.00 5,048.90 5,048.90 39.441141-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 7,753.10
92.00 38.40 38.40 41.741141-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 53.60
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001141-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 0.00
Total Personal Services 19,669.00 7,918.85 7,918.85 0.00 11,750.15 40.26
1141-4200 Contract Services
14,000.00 -1,877.91 -1,877.91 13.411141-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 15,877.91
Total Contract Services 14,000.00 -1,877.91 -1,877.91 0.00 15,877.91 0.00
1141-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
500.00 128.92 128.92 25.781141-4304 Telephone 0.00 371.08
1,300.00 488.24 488.24 37.561141-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 811.76
105.00 65.00 65.00 61.901141-4315 Membership 0.00 40.00
2,405.00 0.00 0.00 0.001141-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 2,405.00
3,762.00 1,565.00 1,565.00 41.601141-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 2,197.00
609.00 255.00 255.00 41.871141-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 354.00
450.00 190.00 190.00 42.221141-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 260.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 9,131.00 2,692.16 2,692.16 0.00 6,438.84 29.48
1141-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001141-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1141-5400 Equipment/Furniture
7Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
8
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
City Treasurer1141
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001141-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total City Treasurer 42,800.00 8,733.10 8,733.10 0.00 34,066.90 20.40
8Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
9
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
City Manager1201
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1201-4100 Personal Services
779,672.00 309,856.22 309,856.22 39.741201-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 469,815.78
100.00 504.68 504.68 504.681201-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 -404.68
32,394.00 12,748.73 12,748.73 39.361201-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 19,645.27
12,480.00 0.00 0.00 0.001201-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 12,480.00
69,973.00 20,818.68 20,818.68 29.751201-4180 Retirement 0.00 49,154.32
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001201-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 0.00
107,267.00 39,544.71 39,544.71 36.871201-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 67,722.29
11,858.00 4,823.58 4,823.58 40.681201-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 7,034.42
26,302.00 10,959.15 10,959.15 41.671201-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 15,342.85
Total Personal Services 1,040,046.00 399,255.75 399,255.75 0.00 640,790.25 38.39
1201-4200 Contract Services
525,750.00 149,879.69 149,879.69 28.511201-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 375,870.31
9,240.00 0.00 0.00 0.001201-4251 Contract Services/Gov't 0.00 9,240.00
Total Contract Services 534,990.00 149,879.69 149,879.69 0.00 385,110.31 28.02
1201-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
7,600.00 2,261.88 2,261.88 29.761201-4304 Telephone 0.00 5,338.12
10,500.00 2,744.11 2,744.11 26.131201-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 7,755.89
6,492.00 3,512.00 3,512.00 54.101201-4315 Membership 0.00 2,980.00
27,537.00 8,188.92 8,188.92 29.741201-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 19,348.08
9,852.00 4,105.00 4,105.00 41.671201-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 5,747.00
3,406.00 1,420.00 1,420.00 41.691201-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 1,986.00
37,650.00 15,687.50 15,687.50 41.671201-4395 Equip Replacement Chrgs 0.00 21,962.50
53,687.00 22,370.00 22,370.00 41.671201-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 31,317.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 156,724.00 60,289.41 60,289.41 0.00 96,434.59 38.47
1201-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001201-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
10
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
City Manager1201
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1201-5400 Equipment/Furniture
12,396.00 12,095.56 12,095.56 97.581201-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 300.44
13,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.001201-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 13,500.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001201-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 25,896.00 12,095.56 12,095.56 0.00 13,800.44 46.71
Total City Manager 1,757,656.00 621,520.41 621,520.41 0.00 1,136,135.59 35.36
10Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
11
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Finance Administration1202
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1202-4100 Personal Services
548,406.00 235,368.47 235,368.47 42.921202-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 313,037.53
486.00 844.18 844.18 173.701202-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 -358.18
46,939.00 30,440.04 30,440.04 64.851202-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 16,498.96
28,848.00 0.00 0.00 0.001202-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 28,848.00
141,659.00 25,816.29 25,816.29 18.221202-4180 Retirement 0.00 115,842.71
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001202-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 0.00
76,765.00 31,123.92 31,123.92 40.541202-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 45,641.08
6,325.00 2,794.66 2,794.66 44.181202-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 3,530.34
26,398.00 10,999.15 10,999.15 41.671202-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 15,398.85
Total Personal Services 875,826.00 337,386.71 337,386.71 0.00 538,439.29 38.52
1202-4200 Contract Services
134,027.00 32,184.90 32,184.90 24.011202-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 101,842.10
Total Contract Services 134,027.00 32,184.90 32,184.90 0.00 101,842.10 24.01
1202-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
1,400.00 252.45 252.45 18.031202-4304 Telephone 0.00 1,147.55
7,020.00 1,959.77 1,959.77 27.921202-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 5,060.23
610.00 470.00 470.00 77.051202-4315 Membership 0.00 140.00
7,165.00 590.00 590.00 8.231202-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 6,575.00
20,986.00 8,745.00 8,745.00 41.671202-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 12,241.00
2,113.00 880.00 880.00 41.651202-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 1,233.00
33,049.00 13,770.00 13,770.00 41.671202-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 19,279.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 72,343.00 26,667.22 26,667.22 0.00 45,675.78 36.86
1202-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001202-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001202-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
12
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Finance Administration1202
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1202-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001202-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Finance Administration 1,082,196.00 396,238.83 396,238.83 0.00 685,957.17 36.61
12Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
13
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Human Resources1203
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1203-4100 Personal Services
160,356.00 62,505.04 62,505.04 38.981203-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 97,850.96
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001203-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 0.00
5,171.00 455.85 455.85 8.821203-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 4,715.15
28,143.00 6,178.58 6,178.58 21.951203-4180 Retirement 0.00 21,964.42
124,305.00 54,072.57 54,072.57 43.501203-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 70,232.43
2,534.00 999.87 999.87 39.461203-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 1,534.13
7,052.00 2,938.35 2,938.35 41.671203-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 4,113.65
2,000.00 811.76 811.76 40.591203-4191 Instant Bonuses 0.00 1,188.24
Total Personal Services 329,561.00 127,962.02 127,962.02 0.00 201,598.98 38.83
1203-4200 Contract Services
226,793.00 59,817.39 59,817.39 26.381203-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 166,975.61
11,000.00 896.00 896.00 8.151203-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 10,104.00
Total Contract Services 237,793.00 60,713.39 60,713.39 0.00 177,079.61 25.53
1203-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001203-4300 Employee recognition instant bonus 0.00 0.00
1,900.00 464.11 464.11 24.431203-4304 Telephone 0.00 1,435.89
4,000.00 1,069.70 1,069.70 26.741203-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 2,930.30
1,450.00 149.00 149.00 10.281203-4315 Membership 0.00 1,301.00
13,500.00 3,837.00 3,837.00 28.421203-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 9,663.00
12,000.00 5,941.00 5,941.00 49.511203-4320 Medical Exams 0.00 6,059.00
6,752.00 2,815.00 2,815.00 41.691203-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 3,937.00
612.00 255.00 255.00 41.671203-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 357.00
14,413.00 6,005.00 6,005.00 41.661203-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 8,408.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 54,627.00 20,535.81 20,535.81 0.00 34,091.19 37.59
1203-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001203-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
13Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
14
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Human Resources1203
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1203-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001203-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Human Resources 621,981.00 209,211.22 209,211.22 0.00 412,769.78 33.64
14Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
15
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Finance Cashier1204
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1204-4100 Personal Services
359,088.00 127,680.29 127,680.29 35.561204-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 231,407.71
1,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.001204-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 1,500.00
6,006.00 5,417.09 5,417.09 90.191204-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 588.91
40,438.00 19,642.83 19,642.83 48.581204-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 20,795.17
40,308.00 12,564.77 12,564.77 31.171204-4180 Retirement 0.00 27,743.23
10.00 4.26 4.26 42.601204-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 5.74
93,815.00 35,472.86 35,472.86 37.811204-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 58,342.14
4,135.00 2,032.88 2,032.88 49.161204-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 2,102.12
25,688.00 10,703.35 10,703.35 41.671204-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 14,984.65
Total Personal Services 570,988.00 213,518.33 213,518.33 0.00 357,469.67 37.39
1204-4200 Contract Services
165,914.00 46,302.13 46,302.13 27.911204-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 119,611.87
2,000.00 499.00 499.00 24.951204-4251 Contract Services/Gov't 0.00 1,501.00
Total Contract Services 167,914.00 46,801.13 46,801.13 0.00 121,112.87 27.87
1204-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
2,690.00 739.49 739.49 27.491204-4304 Telephone 0.00 1,950.51
48,005.00 11,114.25 11,114.25 23.151204-4305 Office Operating Supplies 0.00 36,890.75
235.00 235.00 235.00 100.001204-4315 Membership 0.00 0.00
4,266.00 2,246.66 2,246.66 52.661204-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 2,019.34
24,158.00 10,065.00 10,065.00 41.661204-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 14,093.00
1,828.00 760.00 760.00 41.581204-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 1,068.00
23,116.00 9,630.00 9,630.00 41.661204-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 13,486.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 104,298.00 34,790.40 34,790.40 0.00 69,507.60 33.36
1204-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001204-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
15Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
16
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Total Finance Cashier 843,200.00 295,109.86 295,109.86 0.00 548,090.14 35.00
General Appropriations1208
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1208-4100 Personal Services
65,616.00 0.00 0.00 0.001208-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 65,616.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001208-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 0.00
380.00 0.00 0.00 0.001208-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 380.00
4,537.00 17.44 17.44 0.381208-4180 Retirement 0.00 4,519.56
18,431.00 0.00 0.00 0.001208-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 18,431.00
951.00 0.00 0.00 0.001208-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 951.00
5,774.00 2,405.85 2,405.85 41.671208-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 3,368.15
Total Personal Services 95,689.00 2,423.29 2,423.29 0.00 93,265.71 2.53
1208-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001208-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1208-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
140.00 14.19 14.19 10.141208-4304 Telephone 0.00 125.81
-10,000.00 -5,372.61 -5,372.61 53.731208-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 -4,627.39
18,396.00 7,665.00 7,665.00 41.671208-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 10,731.00
306.00 125.00 125.00 40.851208-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 181.00
2,036.00 850.00 850.00 41.751208-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 1,186.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 10,878.00 3,281.58 3,281.58 0.00 7,596.42 30.17
1208-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001208-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total General Appropriations 106,567.00 5,704.87 5,704.87 0.00 100,862.13 5.35
16Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
17
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Prospective Expenditures1214
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1214-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
107,801.00 0.00 0.00 0.001214-4322 Unclassified 0.00 107,801.00
Total Prospective Expenditures 107,801.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107,801.00 0.00
17Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
18
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Legal Settlement- E&B Resources1220
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1220-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001220-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Legal Settlement- E&B Resources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
18Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
19
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Interfund Transfers Out1299
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
1,332,432.00 976,713.79 976,713.79 73.301299-4399 OperatingTransfers Out 0.00 355,718.21
Total Interfund Transfers Out 1,332,432.00 976,713.79 976,713.79 0.00 355,718.21 73.30
19Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
20
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Police2101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2101-4100 Personal Services
5,069,227.00 1,900,213.03 1,900,213.03 37.492101-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 3,169,013.97
80,793.00 33,924.94 33,924.94 41.992101-4105 Special Duty Pay 0.00 46,868.06
360,000.00 127,908.18 127,908.18 35.532101-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 232,091.82
871,159.00 199,244.46 199,244.46 22.872101-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 671,914.54
18,252.00 2,442.87 2,442.87 13.382101-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 15,809.13
6,000.00 2,533.85 2,533.85 42.232101-4117 Shift Differential 0.00 3,466.15
9,000.00 33.00 33.00 0.372101-4118 Training Officer 0.00 8,967.00
3,645,645.00 972,346.08 972,346.08 26.672101-4180 Retirement 0.00 2,673,298.92
17,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-4184 IRC 415(B) Retirement 0.00 17,000.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 0.00
28,922.00 11,904.55 11,904.55 41.162101-4187 Uniform Allowance 0.00 17,017.45
887,617.00 339,822.10 339,822.10 38.282101-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 547,794.90
74,527.00 32,628.56 32,628.56 43.782101-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 41,898.44
446,236.00 185,931.65 185,931.65 41.672101-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 260,304.35
Total Personal Services 11,514,378.00 3,808,933.27 3,808,933.27 0.00 7,705,444.73 33.08
2101-4200 Contract Services
210,900.00 109,184.65 109,184.65 51.772101-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 101,715.35
860,807.00 406,900.90 406,900.90 47.272101-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 453,906.10
Total Contract Services 1,071,707.00 516,085.55 516,085.55 0.00 555,621.45 48.16
2101-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
56,760.00 16,977.40 16,977.40 29.912101-4304 Telephone 0.00 39,782.60
55,000.00 7,084.19 7,084.19 12.882101-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 47,915.81
13,000.00 4,402.81 4,402.81 33.872101-4306 Prisoner Maintenance 0.00 8,597.19
775.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-4307 Radio Maintenance 0.00 775.00
10,500.00 397.96 397.96 3.792101-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 10,102.04
22,365.00 2,499.20 2,499.20 11.172101-4312 Travel Expense , POST 0.00 19,865.80
4,730.00 385.98 385.98 8.162101-4313 Travel Expense, STC 0.00 4,344.02
19,500.00 4,289.36 4,289.36 22.002101-4314 Uniforms 0.00 15,210.64
20Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
21
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Police2101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4,579.00 2,245.00 2,245.00 49.032101-4315 Membership 0.00 2,334.00
67,145.00 21,121.40 21,121.40 31.462101-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 46,023.60
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-4326 Prior Yr Expense 0.00 0.00
4,524.00 402.39 402.39 8.892101-4350 Safety Gear 0.00 4,121.61
360,146.00 150,060.00 150,060.00 41.672101-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 210,086.00
11,250.00 4,690.00 4,690.00 41.692101-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 6,560.00
391,640.00 163,183.35 163,183.35 41.672101-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 228,456.65
1,300,118.00 541,715.00 541,715.00 41.672101-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 758,403.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 2,322,032.00 919,454.04 919,454.04 0.00 1,402,577.96 39.60
2101-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-4904 Depreciation/Improvements 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2101-5400 Equipment/Furniture
3,075.00 3,074.76 3,074.76 99.992101-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.24
4,140.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 4,140.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 7,215.00 3,074.76 3,074.76 0.00 4,140.24 42.62
2101-5600 Buildings/Improvements
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-5601 Buildings 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-5602 Imprvmnts Other Than Bldgs 0.00 0.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Police 14,915,332.00 5,247,547.62 5,247,547.62 0.00 9,667,784.38 35.18
21Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
22
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Crossing Guard2102
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2102-4200 Contract Services
115,085.00 26,657.76 26,657.76 23.162102-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 88,427.24
Total Crossing Guard 115,085.00 26,657.76 26,657.76 0.00 88,427.24 23.16
22Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
23
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Fire2201
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2201-4100 Personal Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4108 FLSA Overtime 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4119 Fitness Incentive 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4180 Retirement 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4187 Uniform Allowance 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 0.00
Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2201-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 0.00
Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2201-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 144.76 144.76 0.002201-4304 Telephone 0.00 -144.76
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4314 Uniforms 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4315 Membership 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4326 Prior Yr Expense 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4350 Safety Gear 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 0.00
23Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
24
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Fire2201
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 0.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 0.00 144.76 144.76 0.00 -144.76 0.00
2201-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4903 Depreciation/Bldgs 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4904 Depreciation/Improvements 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2201-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-5403 Vehicles 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2201-5600 Buildings/Improvements
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-5602 Improvements Other Than Bldgs 0.00 0.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fire 0.00 144.76 144.76 0.00 -144.76 0.00
24Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
25
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
County Fire District Costs2202
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2202-4200 Contract Services
4,727,878.00 2,376,183.96 2,376,183.96 50.262202-4251 Contract Services/Gov't 0.00 2,351,694.04
Total Contract Services 4,727,878.00 2,376,183.96 2,376,183.96 0.00 2,351,694.04 50.26
2202-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002202-4303 Utilities 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002202-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 0.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2202-5600 Buildings/Improvements
418,223.00 0.00 0.00 0.002202-5601 Buildings and Improvements 0.00 418,223.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 418,223.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 418,223.00 0.00
Total County Fire District Costs 5,146,101.00 2,376,183.96 2,376,183.96 0.00 2,769,917.04 46.17
25Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
26
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Fire Department Legacy Costs2203
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2203-4100 Personal Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002203-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 0.00
612,000.00 590,425.00 590,425.00 96.472203-4180 Retirement 0.00 21,575.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002203-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002203-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 0.00
130,974.00 54,572.50 54,572.50 41.672203-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits/OPEB 0.00 76,401.50
Total Personal Services 742,974.00 644,997.50 644,997.50 0.00 97,976.50 86.81
2203-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002203-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 0.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fire Department Legacy Costs 742,974.00 644,997.50 644,997.50 0.00 97,976.50 86.81
26Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
27
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Sewers/Storm Drains3102
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3102-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
Total Sewers/Storm Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
27Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
28
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Street Maint/Traffic Safety3104
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3104-4100 Personal Services
309,438.00 130,821.74 130,821.74 42.283104-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 178,616.26
16,651.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 16,651.00
20,713.00 29,312.52 29,312.52 141.523104-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 -8,599.52
44,013.00 8,688.72 8,688.72 19.743104-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 35,324.28
114,389.00 19,691.14 19,691.14 17.213104-4180 Retirement 0.00 94,697.86
58,809.00 22,373.89 22,373.89 38.053104-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 36,435.11
2,174.00 815.05 815.05 37.493104-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 1,358.95
22,221.00 9,258.75 9,258.75 41.673104-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 12,962.25
Total Personal Services 588,408.00 220,961.81 220,961.81 0.00 367,446.19 37.55
3104-4200 Contract Services
381,423.00 89,409.25 89,409.25 23.443104-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 292,013.75
10,294.00 4,064.14 4,064.14 39.483104-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 6,229.86
Total Contract Services 391,717.00 93,473.39 93,473.39 0.00 298,243.61 23.86
3104-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
6,066.00 2,710.72 2,710.72 44.693104-4303 Utilities 0.00 3,355.28
115,000.00 26,667.06 26,667.06 23.193104-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 88,332.94
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-4326 Prior Yr Expense 0.00 0.00
666.00 275.00 275.00 41.293104-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 391.00
55,595.00 23,164.60 23,164.60 41.673104-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 32,430.40
425,162.00 177,150.00 177,150.00 41.673104-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 248,012.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 602,489.00 229,967.38 229,967.38 0.00 372,521.62 38.17
3104-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
28Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
29
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Total Street Maint/Traffic Safety 1,582,614.00 544,402.58 544,402.58 0.00 1,038,211.42 34.40
Downtown Enhancement3301
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3301-4100 Personal Services
47,337.00 18,895.94 18,895.94 39.923301-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 28,441.06
1,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.003301-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 1,200.00
4,773.00 1,646.83 1,646.83 34.503301-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 3,126.17
13,338.00 2,401.88 2,401.88 18.013301-4180 Retirement 0.00 10,936.12
7,009.00 2,813.99 2,813.99 40.153301-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 4,195.01
705.00 306.33 306.33 43.453301-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 398.67
1,661.00 692.10 692.10 41.673301-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits/OPEB 0.00 968.90
Total Personal Services 76,023.00 26,757.07 26,757.07 0.00 49,265.93 35.20
3301-4200 Contract Services
267,170.00 86,779.79 86,779.79 32.483301-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 180,390.21
Total Contract Services 267,170.00 86,779.79 86,779.79 0.00 180,390.21 32.48
3301-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003301-4303 Utilities 0.00 0.00
3,000.00 1,849.14 1,849.14 61.643301-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 1,150.86
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003301-4319 Special Events 0.00 0.00
221.00 90.00 90.00 40.723301-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 131.00
557.00 232.10 232.10 41.673301-4395 Equip Replacement Chrgs 0.00 324.90
5,940.00 2,475.00 2,475.00 41.673301-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 3,465.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 9,718.00 4,646.24 4,646.24 0.00 5,071.76 47.81
3301-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003301-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003301-4903 Depreciation/Bldgs 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3301-5400 Equipment/Furniture
29Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
30
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Downtown Enhancement3301
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003301-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003301-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003301-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Downtown Enhancement 352,911.00 118,183.10 118,183.10 0.00 234,727.90 33.49
30Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
31
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Community Services3302
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3302-4100 Personal Services
1,029,655.00 343,357.59 343,357.59 33.353302-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 686,297.41
40,800.00 26,572.96 26,572.96 65.133302-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 14,227.04
47,044.00 45,583.55 45,583.55 96.903302-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 1,460.45
42,890.00 44,365.16 44,365.16 103.443302-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 -1,475.16
7,525.00 2,072.64 2,072.64 27.543302-4117 Shift Differential 0.00 5,452.36
602.00 180.00 180.00 29.903302-4118 Field Training Officer 0.00 422.00
285,240.00 49,937.61 49,937.61 17.513302-4180 Retirement 0.00 235,302.39
380.00 20.97 20.97 5.523302-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 359.03
4,800.00 1,952.06 1,952.06 40.673302-4187 Uniform Allowance 0.00 2,847.94
264,289.00 98,744.98 98,744.98 37.363302-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 165,544.02
15,307.00 6,731.34 6,731.34 43.983302-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 8,575.66
81,109.00 33,795.40 33,795.40 41.673302-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 47,313.60
Total Personal Services 1,819,641.00 653,314.26 653,314.26 0.00 1,166,326.74 35.90
3302-4200 Contract Services
233,824.00 90,291.81 90,291.81 38.623302-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 143,532.19
83,969.00 41,422.23 41,422.23 49.333302-4251 Contract Services/Govt 0.00 42,546.77
Total Contract Services 317,793.00 131,714.04 131,714.04 0.00 186,078.96 41.45
3302-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
3,500.00 1,068.38 1,068.38 30.533302-4304 Telephone 0.00 2,431.62
20,000.00 1,640.17 1,640.17 8.203302-4305 Office Operating Supplies 0.00 18,359.83
775.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-4307 Radio Maintenance 0.00 775.00
33,372.00 8,165.00 8,165.00 24.473302-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 25,207.00
3,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-4314 Uniforms 0.00 3,000.00
540.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-4315 Membership 0.00 540.00
7,865.00 1,886.24 1,886.24 23.983302-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 5,978.76
101,235.00 42,180.00 42,180.00 41.673302-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 59,055.00
7,088.00 2,955.00 2,955.00 41.693302-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 4,133.00
110,061.00 45,858.75 45,858.75 41.673302-4395 Equip Replacement Chrgs 0.00 64,202.25
31Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
32
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Community Services3302
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
153,515.00 63,965.00 63,965.00 41.673302-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 89,550.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 440,951.00 167,718.54 167,718.54 0.00 273,232.46 38.04
3302-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-4903 Depreciation/Bldgs 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3302-5400 Equipment/Furniture
2,575.00 5,623.48 5,623.48 218.393302-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 -3,048.48
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 2,575.00 5,623.48 5,623.48 0.00 -3,048.48 218.39
3302-5600 Buildings/Improvements
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-5601 Buildings 0.00 0.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Community Services 2,580,960.00 958,370.32 958,370.32 0.00 1,622,589.68 37.13
32Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
33
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
North Pier Parking Structure3304
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3304-4200 Contract Services
140,946.00 29,399.34 29,399.34 20.863304-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 111,546.66
225.00 0.00 0.00 0.003304-4251 Contract Services/Gov't 0.00 225.00
Total Contract Services 141,171.00 29,399.34 29,399.34 0.00 111,771.66 20.83
3304-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
17,837.00 7,422.72 7,422.72 41.613304-4303 Utilities 0.00 10,414.28
689.00 285.53 285.53 41.443304-4304 Telephone 0.00 403.47
4,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.003304-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 4,500.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 23,026.00 7,708.25 7,708.25 0.00 15,317.75 33.48
3304-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003304-4903 Depreciation/Bldgs 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total North Pier Parking Structure 164,197.00 37,107.59 37,107.59 0.00 127,089.41 22.60
33Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
34
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Downtown Parking Lot A3305
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3305-4200 Contract Services
61,443.00 17,270.49 17,270.49 28.113305-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 44,172.51
Total Contract Services 61,443.00 17,270.49 17,270.49 0.00 44,172.51 28.11
3305-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
2,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.003305-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 2,000.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00
3305-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003305-4904 Depreciation/Improvements 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Downtown Parking Lot A 63,443.00 17,270.49 17,270.49 0.00 46,172.51 27.22
34Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
35
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Co. Share Pkg Structure Rev.3306
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3306-4200 Contract Services
329,845.00 0.00 0.00 0.003306-4251 Contract Services/Gov't 0.00 329,845.00
Total Co. Share Pkg Structure Rev. 329,845.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 329,845.00 0.00
35Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
36
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
After School Program Shuttle3411
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3411-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003411-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total After School Program Shuttle 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
36Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
37
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Community Dev/Planning4101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4101-4100 Personal Services
643,087.00 254,331.27 254,331.27 39.554101-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 388,755.73
674.00 334.78 334.78 49.674101-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 339.22
30,174.00 6,141.39 6,141.39 20.354101-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 24,032.61
81,219.00 27,261.42 27,261.42 33.574101-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 53,957.58
0.00 249.60 249.60 0.004101-4117 Shift Differential 0.00 -249.60
105,813.00 22,656.43 22,656.43 21.414101-4180 Retirement 0.00 83,156.57
0.00 43.83 43.83 0.004101-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 -43.83
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004101-4187 Uniform Allowance 0.00 0.00
104,241.00 42,447.04 42,447.04 40.724101-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 61,793.96
10,572.00 4,255.19 4,255.19 40.254101-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 6,316.81
30,346.00 12,644.15 12,644.15 41.674101-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 17,701.85
Total Personal Services 1,006,126.00 370,365.10 370,365.10 0.00 635,760.90 36.81
4101-4200 Contract Services
47,090.00 2,215.15 2,215.15 4.704101-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 44,874.85
Total Contract Services 47,090.00 2,215.15 2,215.15 0.00 44,874.85 4.70
4101-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
3,000.00 275.60 275.60 9.194101-4304 Telephone 0.00 2,724.40
5,000.00 2,357.17 2,357.17 47.144101-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 2,642.83
241.00 0.00 0.00 0.004101-4314 Uniforms 0.00 241.00
4,408.00 252.00 252.00 5.724101-4315 Membership 0.00 4,156.00
13,307.00 3,602.98 3,602.98 27.084101-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 9,704.02
13,636.00 5,680.00 5,680.00 41.654101-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 7,956.00
2,234.00 930.00 930.00 41.634101-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 1,304.00
43,240.00 18,015.00 18,015.00 41.664101-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 25,225.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 85,066.00 31,112.75 31,112.75 0.00 53,953.25 36.57
Total Community Dev/Planning 1,138,282.00 403,693.00 403,693.00 0.00 734,589.00 35.47
37Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
38
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Coastal Permit Auth Grant4104
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4104-4100 Personal Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004104-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 0.00
Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4104-4200 Contract Services
62,576.00 3,761.64 3,761.64 6.014104-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 58,814.36
Total Contract Services 62,576.00 3,761.64 3,761.64 0.00 58,814.36 6.01
4104-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004104-4305 Office Operating Supplies 0.00 0.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Coastal Permit Auth Grant 62,576.00 3,761.64 3,761.64 0.00 58,814.36 6.01
38Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
39
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Zoning Ordinance Update4105
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4105-4200 Contract Services
250,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.004105-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 250,000.00
Total Zoning Ordinance Update 250,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250,000.00 0.00
39Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
40
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Community Dev/Building4201
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4201-4100 Personal Services
485,622.00 197,427.67 197,427.67 40.654201-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 288,194.33
434.00 334.77 334.77 77.144201-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 99.23
20,420.00 9,022.15 9,022.15 44.184201-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 11,397.85
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004201-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 0.00
0.00 249.60 249.60 0.004201-4117 Shift Differential 0.00 -249.60
164,409.00 23,956.79 23,956.79 14.574201-4180 Retirement 0.00 140,452.21
0.00 43.83 43.83 0.004201-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 -43.83
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004201-4187 Uniform Allowance 0.00 0.00
71,755.00 25,619.01 25,619.01 35.704201-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 46,135.99
7,187.00 3,065.59 3,065.59 42.654201-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 4,121.41
30,675.00 12,781.25 12,781.25 41.674201-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 17,893.75
Total Personal Services 780,502.00 272,500.66 272,500.66 0.00 508,001.34 34.91
4201-4200 Contract Services
262,068.00 41,664.90 41,664.90 15.904201-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 220,403.10
Total Contract Services 262,068.00 41,664.90 41,664.90 0.00 220,403.10 15.90
4201-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
5,500.00 1,481.59 1,481.59 26.944201-4304 Telephone 0.00 4,018.41
5,000.00 1,603.87 1,603.87 32.084201-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 3,396.13
1,246.00 413.24 413.24 33.174201-4314 Uniforms 0.00 832.76
5,290.00 95.00 95.00 1.804201-4315 Membership 0.00 5,195.00
10,336.00 3,966.14 3,966.14 38.374201-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 6,369.86
18,432.00 7,680.00 7,680.00 41.674201-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 10,752.00
1,409.00 585.00 585.00 41.524201-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 824.00
24,774.00 10,322.50 10,322.50 41.674201-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 14,451.50
54,211.00 22,590.00 22,590.00 41.674201-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 31,621.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 126,198.00 48,737.34 48,737.34 0.00 77,460.66 38.62
4201-4900 Depreciation
40Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
41
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Community Dev/Building4201
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004201-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004201-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004201-4903 Depreciation/Bldgs 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004201-4904 Depreciation/Improvements 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4201-5600 Buildings/Improvements
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004201-5602 Imprvmnts Other Than Bldgs 0.00 0.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Community Dev/Building 1,168,768.00 362,902.90 362,902.90 0.00 805,865.10 31.05
41Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
42
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Public Works Administration4202
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4202-4100 Personal Services
616,696.00 203,749.87 203,749.87 33.044202-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 412,946.13
2,000.00 727.17 727.17 36.364202-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 1,272.83
21,417.00 4,388.44 4,388.44 20.494202-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 17,028.56
12,480.00 54,436.22 54,436.22 436.194202-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 -41,956.22
148,108.00 29,930.20 29,930.20 20.214202-4180 Retirement 0.00 118,177.80
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 0.00
100,698.00 30,464.44 30,464.44 30.254202-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 70,233.56
9,771.00 3,961.27 3,961.27 40.544202-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 5,809.73
26,442.00 11,017.50 11,017.50 41.674202-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 15,424.50
Total Personal Services 937,612.00 338,675.11 338,675.11 0.00 598,936.89 36.12
4202-4200 Contract Services
112,929.00 21,313.38 21,313.38 18.874202-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 91,615.62
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 0.00
Total Contract Services 112,929.00 21,313.38 21,313.38 0.00 91,615.62 18.87
4202-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
19,980.00 5,615.79 5,615.79 28.114202-4304 Telephone 0.00 14,364.21
14,998.00 5,143.53 5,143.53 34.294202-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 9,854.47
6,678.00 2,288.98 2,288.98 34.284202-4314 Uniforms 0.00 4,389.02
1,775.00 1,443.75 1,443.75 81.344202-4315 Membership 0.00 331.25
24,807.00 5,176.03 5,176.03 20.874202-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 19,630.97
74,882.00 31,200.00 31,200.00 41.674202-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 43,682.00
6,478.00 2,700.00 2,700.00 41.684202-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 3,778.00
17,100.00 7,125.00 7,125.00 41.674202-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 9,975.00
64,163.00 26,735.00 26,735.00 41.674202-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 37,428.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 230,861.00 87,428.08 87,428.08 0.00 143,432.92 37.87
4202-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
42Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
43
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Public Works Administration4202
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-4903 Depreciation/Bldgs 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-4904 Depreciation/Improvements 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4202-5400 Equipment/Furniture
850.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 850.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 850.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 850.00 0.00
4202-5600 Buildings/Improvements
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-5602 Imprvmts Other Than Bldg 0.00 0.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Public Works Administration 1,282,252.00 447,416.57 447,416.57 0.00 834,835.43 34.89
43Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
44
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Building Maintenance4204
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4204-4100 Personal Services
274,917.00 100,231.67 100,231.67 36.464204-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 174,685.33
14,575.00 6,974.45 6,974.45 47.854204-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 7,600.55
22,070.00 12,396.06 12,396.06 56.174204-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 9,673.94
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 0.00
82,103.00 12,744.69 12,744.69 15.524204-4180 Retirement 0.00 69,358.31
0.00 39.27 39.27 0.004204-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 -39.27
61,617.00 21,503.41 21,503.41 34.904204-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 40,113.59
3,861.00 1,654.81 1,654.81 42.864204-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 2,206.19
17,490.00 7,287.50 7,287.50 41.674204-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 10,202.50
Total Personal Services 476,633.00 162,831.86 162,831.86 0.00 313,801.14 34.16
4204-4200 Contract Services
139,544.00 51,826.31 51,826.31 37.144204-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 87,717.69
225.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 225.00
Total Contract Services 139,769.00 51,826.31 51,826.31 0.00 87,942.69 37.08
4204-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
142,755.00 43,976.23 43,976.23 30.814204-4303 Utilities 0.00 98,778.77
43,500.00 19,932.79 19,932.79 45.824204-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 23,567.21
6,000.00 1,513.58 1,513.58 25.234204-4321 Building Sfty/Security 0.00 4,486.42
5,444.00 2,270.00 2,270.00 41.704204-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 3,174.00
667.00 280.00 280.00 41.984204-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 387.00
15,071.00 6,279.60 6,279.60 41.674204-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 8,791.40
81,237.00 33,850.00 33,850.00 41.674204-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 47,387.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 294,674.00 108,102.20 108,102.20 0.00 186,571.80 36.69
4204-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
44Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
45
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Building Maintenance4204
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4204-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4204-5600 Buildings/Improvements
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-5601 Buildings 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-5602 Imprvmnts Other Than Bldgs 0.00 0.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Building Maintenance 911,076.00 322,760.37 322,760.37 0.00 588,315.63 35.43
45Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
46
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program4210
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4210-4200 Contract Services
9,350.00 0.00 0.00 0.004210-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 9,350.00
Total Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program 9,350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,350.00 0.00
46Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
47
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Community Resources4601
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4601-4100 Personal Services
332,642.00 130,123.00 130,123.00 39.124601-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 202,519.00
5,007.00 3,481.81 3,481.81 69.544601-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 1,525.19
9,209.00 765.94 765.94 8.324601-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 8,443.06
310,294.00 131,498.32 131,498.32 42.384601-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 178,795.68
105,564.00 27,112.47 27,112.47 25.684601-4180 Retirement 0.00 78,451.53
1,300.00 702.60 702.60 54.054601-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 597.40
48,989.00 23,933.13 23,933.13 48.854601-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 25,055.87
5,106.00 4,391.89 4,391.89 86.014601-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 714.11
16,353.00 6,813.75 6,813.75 41.674601-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 9,539.25
Total Personal Services 834,464.00 328,822.91 328,822.91 0.00 505,641.09 39.41
4601-4200 Contract Services
92,000.00 43,529.55 43,529.55 47.314601-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 48,470.45
285,000.00 143,713.44 143,713.44 50.434601-4221 Contract Rec Classes/Programs 0.00 141,286.56
Total Contract Services 377,000.00 187,242.99 187,242.99 0.00 189,757.01 49.67
4601-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
16,800.00 3,225.87 3,225.87 19.204601-4302 Advertising 0.00 13,574.13
5,000.00 1,154.17 1,154.17 23.084601-4304 Telephone 0.00 3,845.83
13,000.00 5,057.15 5,057.15 38.904601-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 7,942.85
20,000.00 4,038.79 4,038.79 20.194601-4308 Program Materials 0.00 15,961.21
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 0.00
2,850.00 931.22 931.22 32.674601-4315 Membership 0.00 1,918.78
15,000.00 2,383.01 2,383.01 15.894601-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 12,616.99
6,000.00 1,264.40 1,264.40 21.074601-4328 Hermosa Senior Center Programs 0.00 4,735.60
33,551.00 13,980.00 13,980.00 41.674601-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 19,571.00
35,237.00 14,680.00 14,680.00 41.664601-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 20,557.00
19,740.00 8,225.00 8,225.00 41.674601-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 11,515.00
56,120.00 23,385.00 23,385.00 41.674601-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 32,735.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 223,298.00 78,324.61 78,324.61 0.00 144,973.39 35.08
47Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
48
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Community Resources4601
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4601-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-4904 Depreciation/Improvements 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4601-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4601-5600 Buildings/Improvements
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-5601 Buildings 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-5602 Imprvmts Other Than Bldg 0.00 0.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Community Resources 1,434,762.00 594,390.51 594,390.51 0.00 840,371.49 41.43
48Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
49
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Parks6101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
6101-4100 Personal Services
320,676.00 130,388.11 130,388.11 40.666101-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 190,287.89
4,500.00 2,025.00 2,025.00 45.006101-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 2,475.00
17,188.00 13,837.61 13,837.61 80.516101-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 3,350.39
58,235.00 12,979.19 12,979.19 22.296101-4180 Retirement 0.00 45,255.81
480.00 200.00 200.00 41.676101-4187 Uniform Allowance 0.00 280.00
70,726.00 31,605.12 31,605.12 44.696101-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 39,120.88
4,699.00 2,151.04 2,151.04 45.786101-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 2,547.96
22,986.00 9,577.50 9,577.50 41.676101-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 13,408.50
Total Personal Services 499,490.00 202,763.57 202,763.57 0.00 296,726.43 40.59
6101-4200 Contract Services
260,512.00 83,479.59 83,479.59 32.046101-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 177,032.41
198.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 198.00
Total Contract Services 260,710.00 83,479.59 83,479.59 0.00 177,230.41 32.02
6101-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
263,108.00 109,426.77 109,426.77 41.596101-4303 Utilities 0.00 153,681.23
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-4304 Telephone 0.00 0.00
25,938.00 14,833.19 14,833.19 57.196101-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 11,104.81
21,867.00 9,110.00 9,110.00 41.666101-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 12,757.00
28,633.00 11,930.40 11,930.40 41.676101-4395 Equip Replacement Chrgs 0.00 16,702.60
109,542.00 45,645.00 45,645.00 41.676101-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 63,897.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 449,088.00 190,945.36 190,945.36 0.00 258,142.64 42.52
6101-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6101-5400 Equipment/Furniture
49Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
50
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Parks6101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 -1,313.68 -1,313.68 0.006101-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 1,313.68
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-5499 Non-Capitalized Assets 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 -1,313.68 -1,313.68 0.00 1,313.68 0.00
6101-5600 Buildings/Improvements
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-5602 Imprvmnts Other Than Bldgs 0.00 0.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Parks 1,209,288.00 475,874.84 475,874.84 0.00 733,413.16 39.35
50Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
51
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Community Choice Aggregation7301
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
7301-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.007301-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Community Choice Aggregation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
51Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
52
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
PCH Mobility Improvement Project8143
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8143-4200 Contract Services
94,454.00 0.00 0.00 0.008143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 94,454.00
Total PCH Mobility Improvement Project 94,454.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94,454.00 0.00
52Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
53
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Protective Bollards Along the Strand8163
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8163-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008163-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Protective Bollards Along the Strand 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
53Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
54
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Valley Drive Sharrows8168
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8168-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008168-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Valley Drive Sharrows 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
54Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
55
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
8th Street Improvements8173
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8173-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008173-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total 8th Street Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
55Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
56
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Street Improvements- Various Locations8174
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8174-4100 Personal Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008174-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008174-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008174-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008174-4180 Retirement 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008174-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 0.00
Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8174-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Street Improvements- Various Locations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
56Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
57
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Street Improvement Various Locations8186
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8186-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008186-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Street Improvement Various Locations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
57Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
58
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
South Park Phase I Improvements8537
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8537-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008537-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total South Park Phase I Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
58Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
59
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Citywide Park Master Plan8538
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8538-4200 Contract Services
42,065.00 0.00 0.00 0.008538-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 42,065.00
Total Citywide Park Master Plan 42,065.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42,065.00 0.00
59Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
60
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
South Park Phase II8540
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8540-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008540-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total South Park Phase II 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
60Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
61
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Fire Station Renovation & Upgrades8606
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8606-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008606-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Fire Station Renovation & Upgrades 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
61Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
62
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Downtown Strategic Plan Implementation8609
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8609-4200 Contract Services
103,610.00 0.00 0.00 0.008609-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 103,610.00
Total Downtown Strategic Plan Implementation 103,610.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 103,610.00 0.00
62Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
63
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Police Facilities Impovements8614
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8614-4200 Contract Services
2,972.00 902.80 902.80 30.388614-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 2,069.20
Total Police Facilities Impovements 2,972.00 902.80 902.80 0.00 2,069.20 30.38
63Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
64
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
New Corporate Yard Facility8615
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8615-4200 Contract Services
56,102.00 1,181.25 1,181.25 2.118615-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 54,920.75
Total New Corporate Yard Facility 56,102.00 1,181.25 1,181.25 0.00 54,920.75 2.11
64Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
65
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Fire Department Tower Demolition8632
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8632-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008632-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Fire Department Tower Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
65Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
66
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Municipal Solar Facility Plan/Install8634
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8634-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008634-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Municipal Solar Facility Plan/Install 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
66Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
67
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Community Center Gen Improvement Phase 38650
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8650-4200 Contract Services
261,640.00 1,250.00 1,250.00 0.488650-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 260,390.00
Total Community Center Gen Improvement Phase 3 261,640.00 1,250.00 1,250.00 0.00 260,390.00 0.48
67Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
68
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades8656
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8656-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008656-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
68Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
69
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
City Fac. Condition Assessm.& Asbesto Rp8664
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8664-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008664-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total City Fac. Condition Assessm.& Asbesto Rp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
69Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
70
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Community Center, Plaza, and Park Improv8667
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8667-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008667-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Community Center, Plaza, and Park Improv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
70Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
71
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Council Chambers Improvements8672
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8672-4200 Contract Services
106,209.00 0.00 0.00 0.008672-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 106,209.00
Total Council Chambers Improvements 106,209.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 106,209.00 0.00
71Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
72
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
General Fund001
Police Dept Substation Facility Improvem8674
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8674-4200 Contract Services
5,755.00 902.81 902.81 15.698674-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 4,852.19
Total Police Dept Substation Facility Improvem 5,755.00 902.81 902.81 0.00 4,852.19 15.69
Total General Fund 41,276,717.00 15,640,833.23 15,640,833.23 0.00 25,635,883.77 37.89
72Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
73
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Lightg/Landscapg Dist Fund105
Interfund Transfers Out1299
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
11,054.00 4,605.00 4,605.00 41.661299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 6,449.00
Total Interfund Transfers Out 11,054.00 4,605.00 4,605.00 0.00 6,449.00 41.66
73Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
74
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Lightg/Landscapg Dist Fund105
Lighting/Landscaping/Medians2601
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2601-4100 Personal Services
113,688.00 39,374.14 39,374.14 34.632601-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 74,313.86
3,000.00 2,840.08 2,840.08 94.672601-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 159.92
6,244.00 2,670.92 2,670.92 42.782601-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 3,573.08
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002601-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 0.00
37,577.00 5,113.32 5,113.32 13.612601-4180 Retirement 0.00 32,463.68
31,067.00 10,004.09 10,004.09 32.202601-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 21,062.91
1,658.00 656.54 656.54 39.602601-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 1,001.46
8,605.00 3,585.40 3,585.40 41.672601-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 5,019.60
Total Personal Services 201,839.00 64,244.49 64,244.49 0.00 137,594.51 31.83
2601-4200 Contract Services
51,200.00 14,800.00 14,800.00 28.912601-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 36,400.00
18,493.00 18,055.59 18,055.59 97.632601-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 437.41
Total Contract Services 69,693.00 32,855.59 32,855.59 0.00 36,837.41 47.14
2601-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
244,574.00 70,138.07 70,138.07 28.682601-4303 Utilities 0.00 174,435.93
29,100.00 8,239.16 8,239.16 28.312601-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 20,860.84
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002601-4326 Prior Yr Expense 0.00 0.00
667.00 280.00 280.00 41.982601-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 387.00
47,542.00 19,809.15 19,809.15 41.672601-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 27,732.85
73,475.00 30,615.00 30,615.00 41.672601-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 42,860.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 395,358.00 129,081.38 129,081.38 0.00 266,276.62 32.65
Total Lighting/Landscaping/Medians 666,890.00 226,181.46 226,181.46 0.00 440,708.54 33.92
Total Lightg/Landscapg Dist Fund 677,944.00 230,786.46 230,786.46 0.00 447,157.54 34.04
74Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
75
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
State Gas Tax Fund115
Interfund Transfers Out1299
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
489,707.00 204,045.00 204,045.00 41.671299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 285,662.00
Total Interfund Transfers Out 489,707.00 204,045.00 204,045.00 0.00 285,662.00 41.67
75Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
76
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
State Gas Tax Fund115
Street Maint/Traffic Safety3104
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3104-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 0.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3104-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Street Maint/Traffic Safety 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
76Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
77
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
State Gas Tax Fund115
PCH Mobility Improvement Project8143
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8143-4200 Contract Services
34,581.00 0.00 0.00 0.008143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 34,581.00
Total PCH Mobility Improvement Project 34,581.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,581.00 0.00
77Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
78
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
State Gas Tax Fund115
8th Street Improvements8173
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8173-4200 Contract Services
325,744.00 22,310.75 22,310.75 6.858173-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 303,433.25
Total 8th Street Improvements 325,744.00 22,310.75 22,310.75 0.00 303,433.25 6.85
78Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
79
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
State Gas Tax Fund115
Street Improvements Various Locations8174
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8174-4200 Contract Services
144,021.00 125,083.75 125,083.75 86.858174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 18,937.25
Total Street Improvements Various Locations 144,021.00 125,083.75 125,083.75 0.00 18,937.25 86.85
79Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
80
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
State Gas Tax Fund115
Street Improvement Various Locations8186
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8186-4200 Contract Services
144,995.00 0.00 0.00 0.008186-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 144,995.00
Total Street Improvement Various Locations 144,995.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 144,995.00 0.00
Total State Gas Tax Fund 1,139,048.00 351,439.50 351,439.50 0.00 787,608.50 30.85
80Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
81
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
AB939 Fund117
Source Redctn/Recycle Element5301
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
5301-4100 Personal Services
10,419.00 4,258.50 4,258.50 40.875301-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 6,160.50
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005301-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 0.00
1,587.00 0.00 0.00 0.005301-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 1,587.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005301-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 0.00
720.00 282.90 282.90 39.295301-4180 Retirement 0.00 437.10
935.00 386.94 386.94 41.385301-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 548.06
163.00 66.72 66.72 40.935301-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 96.28
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005301-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits/OPEB 0.00 0.00
Total Personal Services 13,824.00 4,995.06 4,995.06 0.00 8,828.94 36.13
5301-4200 Contract Services
19,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.005301-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 19,500.00
Total Contract Services 19,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,500.00 0.00
5301-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
2,350.00 2,339.29 2,339.29 99.545301-4315 Membership 0.00 10.71
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005301-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 0.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 2,350.00 2,339.29 2,339.29 0.00 10.71 99.54
Total AB939 Fund 35,674.00 7,334.35 7,334.35 0.00 28,339.65 20.56
81Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
82
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Prop A Open Space Fund121
Interfund Transfers Out1299
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
20,557.00 8,565.00 8,565.00 41.661299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 11,992.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 20,557.00 8,565.00 8,565.00 0.00 11,992.00 41.66
Total Prop A Open Space Fund 20,557.00 8,565.00 8,565.00 0.00 11,992.00 41.66
82Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
83
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Tyco Fund122
Interfund Transfers Out1299
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
210,463.00 35,078.00 35,078.00 16.671299-4399 Operating Trsfr Out 0.00 175,385.00
Total Interfund Transfers Out 210,463.00 35,078.00 35,078.00 0.00 175,385.00 16.67
83Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
84
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Tyco Fund122
Parks6101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
6101-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Parks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
84Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
85
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Tyco Fund122
8th Street Improvements8173
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8173-4200 Contract Services
67,825.00 39,506.25 39,506.25 58.258173-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 28,318.75
Total 8th Street Improvements 67,825.00 39,506.25 39,506.25 0.00 28,318.75 58.25
85Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
86
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Tyco Fund122
Street Improvements Various Locations8174
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8174-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Street Improvements Various Locations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
86Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
87
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Tyco Fund122
Street Improvement Various Locations8186
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8186-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008186-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Street Improvement Various Locations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
87Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
88
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Tyco Fund122
Municipal Pier Structural Assess/Repair8629
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8629-4200 Contract Services
177,380.00 0.00 0.00 0.008629-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 177,380.00
Total Municipal Pier Structural Assess /Repair 177,380.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 177,380.00 0.00
88Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
89
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Tyco Fund122
14Th. St. Beach Restroom Rehabilitation8631
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8631-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008631-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total 14Th. St. Beach Restroom Rehabilitation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
89Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
90
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Tyco Fund122
Municipal Pier Structural Repairs Phase38660
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8660-4200 Contract Services
275,473.00 0.00 0.00 0.008660-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 275,473.00
Total Municipal Pier Structural Repairs Phase3 275,473.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 275,473.00 0.00
90Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
91
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Tyco Fund122
Municipal Pier Use Options & Feasibility8678
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8678-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008678-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Municipal Pier Use Options & Feasibility 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
91Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
92
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Tyco Fund122
Pier Restroom Rehabilitation8679
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8679-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008679-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Pier Restroom Rehabilitation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Tyco Fund 731,141.00 74,584.25 74,584.25 0.00 656,556.75 10.20
92Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
93
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125
Community Resources4601
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4601-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Community Resources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
93Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
94
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125
Parks6101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
6101-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Parks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
94Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
95
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125
Citywide Park Master Plan8538
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8538-4100 Personal Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008538-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008538-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008538-4180 Retirement 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008538-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008538-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 0.00
Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8538-4200 Contract Services
173,410.00 0.00 0.00 0.008538-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 173,410.00
Total Citywide Park Master Plan 173,410.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 173,410.00 0.00
95Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
96
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125
Clark Stadium Bleachers8545
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8545-4200 Contract Services
30,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008545-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 30,000.00
Total Clark Stadium Bleachers 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00
96Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
97
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125
Citywide Park Improvements8546
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8546-4200 Contract Services
56,359.00 30,732.31 30,732.31 54.538546-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 25,626.69
Total Citywide Park Improvements 56,359.00 30,732.31 30,732.31 0.00 25,626.69 54.53
97Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
98
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125
Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades8656
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8656-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008656-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
98Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
99
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125
Community Center, Plaza, and Park Improv8667
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8667-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008667-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Community Center, Plaza, and Park Improv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund 259,769.00 30,732.31 30,732.31 0.00 229,036.69 11.83
99Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
100
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Bayview Dr Dist Admin Exp Fund135
Administrative Charges1219
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1219-4200 Contract Services
1,350.00 366.21 366.21 27.131219-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 983.79
Total Administrative Charges 1,350.00 366.21 366.21 0.00 983.79 27.13
100Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
101
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Bayview Dr Dist Admin Exp Fund135
Interfund Transfers Out1299
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
2,307.00 960.00 960.00 41.611299-4399 Operating Trsfr Out 0.00 1,347.00
Total Interfund Transfers Out 2,307.00 960.00 960.00 0.00 1,347.00 41.61
Total Bayview Dr Dist Admin Exp Fund 3,657.00 1,326.21 1,326.21 0.00 2,330.79 36.26
101Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
102
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Lower Pier Admin Exp Fund136
Administrative Charges1219
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1219-4200 Contract Services
1,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.001219-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 1,200.00
Total Administrative Charges 1,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,200.00 0.00
102Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
103
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Lower Pier Admin Exp Fund136
Interfund Transfers Out1299
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
2,249.00 935.00 935.00 41.571299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 1,314.00
Total Interfund Transfers Out 2,249.00 935.00 935.00 0.00 1,314.00 41.57
Total Lower Pier Admin Exp Fund 3,449.00 935.00 935.00 0.00 2,514.00 27.11
103Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
104
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Myrtle Dist Admin Exp Fund137
Administrative Charges1219
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1219-4200 Contract Services
5,585.00 2,659.47 2,659.47 47.621219-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 2,925.53
Total Administrative Charges 5,585.00 2,659.47 2,659.47 0.00 2,925.53 47.62
104Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
105
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Myrtle Dist Admin Exp Fund137
Interfund Transfers Out1299
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
5,264.00 2,195.00 2,195.00 41.701299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 3,069.00
Total Interfund Transfers Out 5,264.00 2,195.00 2,195.00 0.00 3,069.00 41.70
Total Myrtle Dist Admin Exp Fund 10,849.00 4,854.47 4,854.47 0.00 5,994.53 44.75
105Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
106
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Loma Dist Admin Exp Fund138
Administrative Charges1219
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1219-4200 Contract Services
5,740.00 2,832.77 2,832.77 49.351219-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 2,907.23
Total Administrative Charges 5,740.00 2,832.77 2,832.77 0.00 2,907.23 49.35
106Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
107
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Loma Dist Admin Exp Fund138
Interfund Transfers Out1299
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
5,710.00 2,380.00 2,380.00 41.681299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 3,330.00
Total Interfund Transfers Out 5,710.00 2,380.00 2,380.00 0.00 3,330.00 41.68
Total Loma Dist Admin Exp Fund 11,450.00 5,212.77 5,212.77 0.00 6,237.23 45.53
107Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
108
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Beach Dr Assmnt Dist Admin Exp Fund139
Administrative Charges1219
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1219-4200 Contract Services
1,453.00 340.53 340.53 23.441219-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 1,112.47
Total Administrative Charges 1,453.00 340.53 340.53 0.00 1,112.47 23.44
108Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
109
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Beach Dr Assmnt Dist Admin Exp Fund139
Interfund Transfers Out1299
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
1,891.00 790.00 790.00 41.781299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 1,101.00
Total Interfund Transfers Out 1,891.00 790.00 790.00 0.00 1,101.00 41.78
Total Beach Dr Assmnt Dist Admin Exp Fund 3,344.00 1,130.53 1,130.53 0.00 2,213.47 33.81
109Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
110
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Community Dev Block Grant140
CDBG Program General Admin4707
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4707-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004707-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total CDBG Program General Admin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
110Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
111
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Community Dev Block Grant140
City Right of Way ADA Improvements8657
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8657-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008657-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total City Right of Way ADA Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
111Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
112
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Community Dev Block Grant140
ADA Improvements at Various Locations8687
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8687-4200 Contract Services
150,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008687-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 150,000.00
Total ADA Improvements at Various Locations 150,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150,000.00 0.00
112Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
113
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Community Dev Block Grant140
ADA Improvements at Various Locations8691
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8691-4200 Contract Services
120,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008691-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 120,000.00
Total ADA Improvements at Various Locations 120,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 120,000.00 0.00
Total Community Dev Block Grant 270,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 270,000.00 0.00
113Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
114
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition A Fund145
Interfund Transfers Out1299
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 0.00
Total Interfund Transfers Out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
114Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
115
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition A Fund145
Bus Pass Subsidy3403
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3403-4200 Contract Services
3,500.00 420.00 420.00 12.003403-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 3,080.00
Total Bus Pass Subsidy 3,500.00 420.00 420.00 0.00 3,080.00 12.00
115Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
116
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition A Fund145
Dial-A-Taxi Program3404
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3404-4200 Contract Services
76,000.00 13,754.75 13,754.75 18.103404-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 62,245.25
Total Dial-A-Taxi Program 76,000.00 13,754.75 13,754.75 0.00 62,245.25 18.10
116Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
117
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition A Fund145
Commuter Express3408
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3408-4100 Personal Services
5,050.00 682.73 682.73 13.523408-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 4,367.27
Total Personal Services 5,050.00 682.73 682.73 0.00 4,367.27 13.52
3408-4200 Contract Services
33,664.00 0.00 0.00 0.003408-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 33,664.00
Total Contract Services 33,664.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33,664.00 0.00
Total Commuter Express 38,714.00 682.73 682.73 0.00 38,031.27 1.76
117Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
118
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition A Fund145
Recreation Transportation3409
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3409-4200 Contract Services
40,000.00 26,153.03 26,153.03 65.383409-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 13,846.97
Total Recreation Transportation 40,000.00 26,153.03 26,153.03 0.00 13,846.97 65.38
118Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
119
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition A Fund145
Special Event Shuttle3410
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3410-4200 Contract Services
6,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 50.003410-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 3,000.00
Total Special Event Shuttle 6,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 50.00
119Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
120
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition A Fund145
After School Program Shuttle3411
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3411-4200 Contract Services
43,200.00 4,025.00 4,025.00 9.323411-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 39,175.00
Total After School Program Shuttle 43,200.00 4,025.00 4,025.00 0.00 39,175.00 9.32
120Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
121
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition A Fund145
Beach Cities Transit Line 1093412
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3412-4200 Contract Services
13,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.003412-4251 Contract Services/Gov't 0.00 13,000.00
Total Beach Cities Transit Line 109 13,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,000.00 0.00
121Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
122
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition A Fund145
PCH Mobility Improvement Project8143
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8143-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total PCH Mobility Improvement Project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
122Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
123
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition A Fund145
Street Improvements Various Locations8174
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8174-4200 Contract Services
274,892.00 0.00 0.00 0.008174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 274,892.00
Total Street Improvements Various Locations 274,892.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 274,892.00 0.00
123Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
124
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition A Fund145
Street Improvement Various Locations8186
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8186-4200 Contract Services
59,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008186-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 59,000.00
Total Street Improvement Various Locations 59,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59,000.00 0.00
Total Proposition A Fund 554,306.00 48,035.51 48,035.51 0.00 506,270.49 8.67
124Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
125
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition C Fund146
Pavement Management Study4208
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4208-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004208-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Pavement Management Study 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
125Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
126
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition C Fund146
PCH Mobility Improvement Project8143
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8143-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total PCH Mobility Improvement Project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
126Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
127
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition C Fund146
Street Improvements Various Locations8174
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8174-4100 Personal Services
0.00 3,130.80 3,130.80 0.008174-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 -3,130.80
0.00 100.00 100.00 0.008174-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 -100.00
Total Personal Services 0.00 3,230.80 3,230.80 0.00 -3,230.80 0.00
8174-4200 Contract Services
799,333.00 138,957.25 138,957.25 17.388174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 660,375.75
Total Contract Services 799,333.00 138,957.25 138,957.25 0.00 660,375.75 17.38
Total Street Improvements Various Locations 799,333.00 142,188.05 142,188.05 0.00 657,144.95 17.79
127Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
128
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Proposition C Fund146
Street Improvement Various Locations8186
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8186-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008186-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Street Improvement Various Locations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Proposition C Fund 799,333.00 142,188.05 142,188.05 0.00 657,144.95 17.79
128Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
129
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Measure R Fund147
PCH Mobility Improvement Project8143
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8143-4200 Contract Services
255,509.00 0.00 0.00 0.008143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 255,509.00
Total PCH Mobility Improvement Project 255,509.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 255,509.00 0.00
129Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
130
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Measure R Fund147
PCH Traffic Improvements8160
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8160-4200 Contract Services
399,922.00 0.00 0.00 0.008160-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 399,922.00
Total PCH Traffic Improvements 399,922.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 399,922.00 0.00
130Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
131
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Measure R Fund147
Bike Friendly Street Improvements8168
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8168-4200 Contract Services
20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008168-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 20,000.00
Total Bike Friendly Street Improvements 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 0.00
131Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
132
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Measure R Fund147
Street Improvements Various Locations8174
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8174-4200 Contract Services
766,885.00 75,878.60 75,878.60 9.898174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 691,006.40
Total Street Improvements Various Locations 766,885.00 75,878.60 75,878.60 0.00 691,006.40 9.89
132Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
133
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Measure R Fund147
Street Improvement Various Locations8186
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8186-4200 Contract Services
89,551.00 0.00 0.00 0.008186-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 89,551.00
Total Street Improvement Various Locations 89,551.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89,551.00 0.00
133Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
134
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Measure R Fund147
Strand Bikeway/Walkway Improvments- 35th8188
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8188-4200 Contract Services
115,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008188-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 115,000.00
Total Strand Bikeway/Walkway Improvments - 35th 115,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115,000.00 0.00
Total Measure R Fund 1,646,867.00 75,878.60 75,878.60 0.00 1,570,988.40 4.61
134Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
135
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Measure M148
PCH Mobility Improvement Project8143
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8143-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total PCH Mobility Improvement Project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
135Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
136
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Measure M148
PCH Traffic Improvements8160
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8160-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008160-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total PCH Traffic Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
136Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
137
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Measure M148
Street Improvements Various Locations8174
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8174-4200 Contract Services
282,875.00 0.00 0.00 0.008174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 282,875.00
Total Street Improvements Various Locations 282,875.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 282,875.00 0.00
137Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
138
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Measure M148
Street Improvement Various Locations8186
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8186-4200 Contract Services
221,468.00 0.00 0.00 0.008186-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 221,468.00
Total Street Improvement Various Locations 221,468.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 221,468.00 0.00
Total Measure M 504,343.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 504,343.00 0.00
138Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
139
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
City Homeless Planning Grant1220
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1220-4200 Contract Services
2,364.00 0.00 0.00 0.001220-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 2,364.00
Total City Homeless Planning Grant 2,364.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,364.00 0.00
139Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
140
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Green Business Program1221
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1221-4200 Contract Services
30,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.001221-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 30,000.00
Total Green Business Program 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00
140Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
141
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Bulletproof Vest Partnership2111
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2111-4200 Contract Services
786.00 0.00 0.00 0.002111-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 786.00
Total Contract Services 786.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 786.00 0.00
2111-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
2,700.00 765.40 765.40 28.352111-4350 Safety Gear 0.00 1,934.60
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 2,700.00 765.40 765.40 0.00 1,934.60 28.35
Total Bulletproof Vest Partnership 3,486.00 765.40 765.40 0.00 2,720.60 21.96
141Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
142
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Mental Health Evaluation Team (MET)2118
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2118-4200 Contract Services
21,854.00 0.00 0.00 0.002118-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 21,854.00
Total Mental Health Evaluation Team (MET) 21,854.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,854.00 0.00
142Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
143
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Body Worn Camera2119
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2119-4200 Contract Services
41,681.00 23,354.40 23,354.40 56.032119-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 18,326.60
Total Body Worn Camera 41,681.00 23,354.40 23,354.40 0.00 18,326.60 56.03
143Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
144
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Fireman's Fund Emerg Prep Prog Grant2225
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2225-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002225-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002225-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Fireman's Fund Emerg Prep Prog Grant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
144Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
145
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Beverage Recycle Grant3102
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3102-4200 Contract Services
31,881.00 3,390.25 3,390.25 10.633102-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 28,490.75
Total Beverage Recycle Grant 31,881.00 3,390.25 3,390.25 0.00 28,490.75 10.63
145Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
146
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Sea Level Rise Study/Coastal Conservancy3106
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3106-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003106-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Sea Level Rise Study/Coastal Conservancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
146Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
147
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Coastal Permit Auth Grant4104
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4104-4200 Contract Services
23,013.00 0.00 0.00 0.004104-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 23,013.00
Total Contract Services 23,013.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23,013.00 0.00
4104-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004104-4305 Office Operating Supplies 0.00 0.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Coastal Permit Auth Grant 23,013.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23,013.00 0.00
147Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
148
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Zoning Ordinance Update4105
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4105-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004105-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Zoning Ordinance Update 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
148Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
149
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Local Coastal Assistance Grant4107
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4107-4200 Contract Services
82,812.00 0.00 0.00 0.004107-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 82,812.00
Total Local Coastal Assistance Grant 82,812.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82,812.00 0.00
149Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
150
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program4210
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4210-4200 Contract Services
84,150.00 0.00 0.00 0.004210-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 84,150.00
Total Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program 84,150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84,150.00 0.00
150Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
151
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
8th Street Improvements8173
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8173-4200 Contract Services
354,535.00 0.00 0.00 0.008173-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 354,535.00
Total 8th Street Improvements 354,535.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 354,535.00 0.00
151Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
152
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
St Imp/21st Btwn PCH/Ardmore8184
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8184-4200 Contract Services
98,152.00 0.00 0.00 0.008184-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 98,152.00
Total St Imp/21st Btwn PCH/Ardmore 98,152.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 98,152.00 0.00
152Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
153
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
ADA Improvements- PCH between 2nd & 21st8185
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8185-4200 Contract Services
287,260.00 504.00 504.00 0.188185-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 286,756.00
Total ADA Improvements- PCH between 2nd & 21st 287,260.00 504.00 504.00 0.00 286,756.00 0.18
153Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
154
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
South Park Phase II8540
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8540-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008540-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total South Park Phase II 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
154Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
155
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Stormwater/Urban Run-off Diversion Proj8542
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8542-4200 Contract Services
3,762,387.00 16,060.55 16,060.55 0.438542-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 3,746,326.45
Total Stormwater/Urban Run-off Diversion Proj 3,762,387.00 16,060.55 16,060.55 0.00 3,746,326.45 0.43
155Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
156
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Library Community Needs Assessment8668
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8668-4200 Contract Services
42,522.00 0.00 0.00 0.008668-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 42,522.00
Total Library Community Needs Assessment 42,522.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42,522.00 0.00
156Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
157
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Grants Fund150
Electric Vehicle, Bicycle Transportation8682
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8682-4200 Contract Services
162,977.00 6,927.20 6,927.20 4.258682-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 156,049.80
Total Electric Vehicle, Bicycle Transportation 162,977.00 6,927.20 6,927.20 0.00 156,049.80 4.25
Total Grants Fund 5,029,074.00 51,001.80 51,001.80 0.00 4,978,072.20 1.01
157Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
158
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Air Quality Mgmt Dist Fund152
Emission Control3701
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3701-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003701-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3701-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
28,000.00 1,890.00 1,890.00 6.753701-4327 AQMD Incentives 0.00 26,110.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 28,000.00 1,890.00 1,890.00 0.00 26,110.00 6.75
3701-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003701-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3701-5400 Equipment/Furniture
35,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.003701-5403 Vehicles 0.00 35,000.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 35,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35,000.00 0.00
Total Air Quality Mgmt Dist Fund 63,000.00 1,890.00 1,890.00 0.00 61,110.00 3.00
158Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
159
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Supp Law Enf Serv Fund (SLESF)153
C.O.P.S. Program2106
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2106-4200 Contract Services
58,456.00 17,105.35 17,105.35 29.262106-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 41,350.65
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002106-4251 Contract Services/Govt 0.00 0.00
Total Contract Services 58,456.00 17,105.35 17,105.35 0.00 41,350.65 29.26
2106-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002106-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002106-4314 Uniforms 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002106-4315 Membership 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002106-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002106-4350 Safety Gear 0.00 0.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2106-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002106-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2106-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 3,160.00 3,160.00 0.002106-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 -3,160.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002106-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002106-5403 Vehicles 0.00 0.00
182,192.00 61,751.50 61,751.50 33.892106-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 120,440.50
Total Equipment/Furniture 182,192.00 64,911.50 64,911.50 0.00 117,280.50 35.63
2106-5600 Buildings/Improvements
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002106-5601 Buildings 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002106-5602 Imprvmnts Other Than Bldgs 0.00 0.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Supp Law Enf Serv Fund (SLESF) 240,648.00 82,016.85 82,016.85 0.00 158,631.15 34.08
159Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
160
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Sewer Fund160
Administrative Charges1219
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1219-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001219-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Administrative Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
160Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
161
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Sewer Fund160
Sewers/Storm Drains3102
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3102-4100 Personal Services
75,768.00 31,061.74 31,061.74 41.003102-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 44,706.26
410.00 112.50 112.50 27.443102-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 297.50
7,125.00 2,517.42 2,517.42 35.333102-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 4,607.58
0.00 620.64 620.64 0.003102-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 -620.64
16,733.00 3,436.16 3,436.16 20.543102-4180 Retirement 0.00 13,296.84
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-4187 Uniform Allowance 0.00 0.00
11,982.00 4,846.58 4,846.58 40.453102-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 7,135.42
1,115.00 509.38 509.38 45.683102-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 605.62
3,626.00 1,510.85 1,510.85 41.673102-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 2,115.15
Total Personal Services 116,759.00 44,615.27 44,615.27 0.00 72,143.73 38.21
3102-4200 Contract Services
255,910.00 49,833.74 49,833.74 19.473102-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 206,076.26
4,231.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 4,231.00
Total Contract Services 260,141.00 49,833.74 49,833.74 0.00 210,307.26 19.16
3102-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
695.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-4303 Utilities 0.00 695.00
7,600.00 367.88 367.88 4.843102-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 7,232.12
267.00 110.00 110.00 41.203102-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 157.00
34,371.00 14,321.25 14,321.25 41.673102-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 20,049.75
23,110.00 9,630.00 9,630.00 41.673102-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 13,480.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 66,043.00 24,429.13 24,429.13 0.00 41,613.87 36.99
3102-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3102-5400 Equipment/Furniture
161Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
162
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Sewer Fund160
Sewers/Storm Drains3102
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Sewers/Storm Drains 442,943.00 118,878.14 118,878.14 0.00 324,064.86 26.84
162Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
163
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Sewer Fund160
Used Oil Block Grant3105
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3105-4200 Contract Services
12,181.00 575.67 575.67 4.733105-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 11,605.33
Total Used Oil Block Grant 12,181.00 575.67 575.67 0.00 11,605.33 4.73
163Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
164
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Sewer Fund160
Sewer Improvements Various Locations8403
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8403-4100 Personal Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008403-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008403-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008403-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008403-4180 Retirement 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008403-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 0.00
Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8403-4200 Contract Services
20,377.00 0.00 0.00 0.008403-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 20,377.00
Total Sewer Improvements Various Locations 20,377.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,377.00 0.00
164Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
165
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Sewer Fund160
Sewer Improvements Various Locations8416
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8416-4200 Contract Services
1,260,000.00 114,252.32 114,252.32 9.078416-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 1,145,747.68
Total Sewer Improvements Various Locations 1,260,000.00 114,252.32 114,252.32 0.00 1,145,747.68 9.07
165Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
166
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Sewer Fund160
14th Street Beach Restroom Rehab8692
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8692-4200 Contract Services
110,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008692-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 110,000.00
Total 14th Street Beach Restroom Rehab 110,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110,000.00 0.00
Total Sewer Fund 1,845,501.00 233,706.13 233,706.13 0.00 1,611,794.87 12.66
166Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
167
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Storm Drains Fund161
Storm Drain3109
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3109-4100 Personal Services
69,416.00 29,471.69 29,471.69 42.463109-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 39,944.31
1,500.00 112.50 112.50 7.503109-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 1,387.50
5,464.00 2,472.32 2,472.32 45.253109-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 2,991.68
0.00 3,103.10 3,103.10 0.003109-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 -3,103.10
13,884.00 3,249.46 3,249.46 23.403109-4180 Retirement 0.00 10,634.54
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003109-4187 Uniform Allowance 0.00 0.00
10,398.00 4,540.99 4,540.99 43.673109-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 5,857.01
1,022.00 521.52 521.52 51.033109-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 500.48
3,065.00 1,277.10 1,277.10 41.673109-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits/OPEB 0.00 1,787.90
Total Personal Services 104,749.00 44,748.68 44,748.68 0.00 60,000.32 42.72
3109-4200 Contract Services
154,100.00 13,443.90 13,443.90 8.723109-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 140,656.10
9,594.00 0.00 0.00 0.003109-4251 Contract Services/Gov't 0.00 9,594.00
Total Contract Services 163,694.00 13,443.90 13,443.90 0.00 150,250.10 8.21
3109-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003109-4303 Utilities 0.00 0.00
3,800.00 2,424.55 2,424.55 63.803109-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 1,375.45
400.00 165.00 165.00 41.253109-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 235.00
35,401.00 14,750.40 14,750.40 41.673109-4395 Equip Replacement Chrgs 0.00 20,650.60
11,079.00 4,615.00 4,615.00 41.663109-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 6,464.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 50,680.00 21,954.95 21,954.95 0.00 28,725.05 43.32
Total Storm Drain 319,123.00 80,147.53 80,147.53 0.00 238,975.47 25.11
167Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
168
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Storm Drains Fund161
Storm Drain Master Plan8415
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8415-4100 Personal Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008415-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008415-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008415-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008415-4180 Retirement 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008415-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 0.00
Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8415-4200 Contract Services
21,827.00 0.00 0.00 0.008415-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 21,827.00
Total Storm Drain Master Plan 21,827.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,827.00 0.00
168Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
169
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Storm Drains Fund161
Storm Drain Improvements- Various Locati8417
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8417-4200 Contract Services
645,090.00 0.00 0.00 0.008417-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 645,090.00
Total Storm Drain Improvements- Various Locati 645,090.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 645,090.00 0.00
Total Storm Drains Fund 986,040.00 80,147.53 80,147.53 0.00 905,892.47 8.13
169Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
170
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Asset Seizure/Forft Fund170
Special Investigations2103
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2103-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002103-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002103-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002103-4904 Depreciation/Improvements 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2103-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002103-5403 Vehicles 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002103-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Special Investigations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
170Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
171
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Asset Seizure/Forft Fund170
Police K-9 Program2105
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2105-4200 Contract Services
2,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.002105-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 2,500.00
Total Contract Services 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 0.00
2105-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
722.00 0.00 0.00 0.002105-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 722.00
3,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.002105-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 3,000.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 3,722.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,722.00 0.00
2105-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002105-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2105-5400 Equipment/Furniture
600.00 0.00 0.00 0.002105-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 600.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002105-5403 Vehicles 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002105-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 600.00 0.00
Total Police K-9 Program 6,822.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,822.00 0.00
171Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
172
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Asset Seizure/Forft Fund170
Mounted Patrol Unit2116
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2116-4200 Contract Services
4,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.002116-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 4,000.00
Total Mounted Patrol Unit 4,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 0.00
Total Asset Seizure/Forft Fund 10,822.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,822.00 0.00
172Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
173
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Fire Protection Fund180
Fire Protection2202
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2202-4200 Contract Services
56,596.00 23,581.70 23,581.70 41.672202-4251 Contract Services/Gov't 0.00 33,014.30
Total Fire Protection Fund 56,596.00 23,581.70 23,581.70 0.00 33,014.30 41.67
173Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
174
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
RTI Undersea Cable190
Parks6101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
6101-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Parks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
174Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
175
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
RTI Undersea Cable190
8th Street Improvements8173
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8173-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008173-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total 8th Street Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
175Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
176
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
RTI Undersea Cable190
Street Improvements Various Locations8174
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8174-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Street Improvements Various Locations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
176Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
177
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
RTI Undersea Cable190
Street Improvement Various Locations8186
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8186-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008186-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Street Improvement Various Locations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
177Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
178
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
RTI Undersea Cable190
Municipal Pier Structural Assess/Repair8629
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8629-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008629-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Municipal Pier Structural Assess /Repair 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
178Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
179
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
RTI Undersea Cable190
14Th. St. Beach Restroom Rehabilitation8631
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8631-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008631-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total RTI Undersea Cable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
179Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
180
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
RTI Tidelands191
Municipal Pier Structural Assess/Repair8629
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8629-4200 Contract Services
240,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008629-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 240,000.00
Total RTI Tidelands 240,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 240,000.00 0.00
180Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
181
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
2015 Lease Revenue Bonds201
Legal Settlements- E&B Resources1220
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1220-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001220-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1220-6700 Interest
333,712.00 172,606.29 172,606.29 51.721220-6701 Interest 0.00 161,105.71
Total Interest 333,712.00 172,606.29 172,606.29 0.00 161,105.71 51.72
1220-6800 Principal
460,000.00 459,825.50 459,825.50 99.961220-6801 Principal Payment 0.00 174.50
Total Principal 460,000.00 459,825.50 459,825.50 0.00 174.50 99.96
1220-6900 Lease Payments
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001220-6901 Principal Payment 0.00 0.00
Total Lease Payments 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 2015 Lease Revenue Bonds 793,712.00 632,431.79 632,431.79 0.00 161,280.21 79.68
181Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
182
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
City Manager1201
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1201-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001201-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1201-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001201-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total City Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
182Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
183
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Storm Drains3109
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3109-4200 Contract Services
80,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.003109-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 80,000.00
Total Storm Drains 80,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80,000.00 0.00
183Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
184
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Public Works Administration4202
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4202-4200 Contract Services
75,672.00 18,339.28 18,339.28 24.244202-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 57,332.72
Total Contract Services 75,672.00 18,339.28 18,339.28 0.00 57,332.72 24.24
4202-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Public Works Administration 75,672.00 18,339.28 18,339.28 0.00 57,332.72 24.24
184Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
185
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Pier Ave/Hermosa Ave to PCH8116
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8116-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008116-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Pier Ave/Hermosa Ave to PCH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
185Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
186
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Pier Avenue/PCH to Ardmore8129
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8129-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008129-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Pier Avenue/PCH to Ardmore 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
186Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
187
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Gould Avenue Street Improvements8141
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8141-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008141-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Gould Avenue Street Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
187Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
188
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
PCH Mobility Improvement Project8143
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8143-4200 Contract Services
263,437.00 0.00 0.00 0.008143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 263,437.00
Total PCH Mobility Improvement Project 263,437.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 263,437.00 0.00
188Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
189
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
St Imprv/Hillcrest & Rhodes8159
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8159-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008159-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total St Imprv/Hillcrest & Rhodes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
189Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
190
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
PCH Traffic Improvements8160
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8160-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008160-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total PCH Traffic Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
190Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
191
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Green Ally and Beach Quality Improvement8162
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8162-4200 Contract Services
187,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.008162-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 187,500.00
Total Green Ally and Beach Quality Improvement 187,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 187,500.00 0.00
191Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
192
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
8th Street Improvements8173
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8173-4200 Contract Services
308,438.00 0.00 0.00 0.008173-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 308,438.00
Total 8th Street Improvements 308,438.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 308,438.00 0.00
192Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
193
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Street Improvements Various Locations8174
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8174-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Street Improvements Various Locations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
193Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
194
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Street Improvement Various Locations8186
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8186-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008186-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Street Improvement Various Locations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
194Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
195
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Stamped Concrete Replacement -Strand8187
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8187-4200 Contract Services
140,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008187-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 140,000.00
Total Stamped Concrete Replacement -Strand 140,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 140,000.00 0.00
195Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
196
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Strand Bikeway/Walkway Improvments- 35th8188
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8188-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008188-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Strand Bikeway/Walkway Improvments - 35th 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
196Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
197
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
St Improvements/Myrtle Area8189
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8189-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008189-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total St Improvements/Myrtle Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
197Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
198
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Sewer Improvements- Various Locations8402
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8402-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008402-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Sewer Improvements- Various Locations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
198Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
199
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Greenbelt Root Barrier System8504
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8504-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008504-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Greenbelt Root Barrier System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
199Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
200
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Stormwater/Urban Run-Off Diversion Proj8542
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8542-4200 Contract Services
421,618.00 2,528.05 2,528.05 0.608542-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 419,089.95
Total Stormwater/Urban Run-Off Diversion Proj 421,618.00 2,528.05 2,528.05 0.00 419,089.95 0.60
200Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
201
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Feasibility. Greenbelt Path8544
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8544-4200 Contract Services
10,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008544-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 10,000.00
Total Feasibility. Greenbelt Path 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 0.00
201Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
202
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Pkg Lot Paving-75-14Th St8605
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8605-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008605-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Pkg Lot Paving-75-14Th St 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
202Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
203
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Downtown Strategic Plan Implementation8609
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8609-4200 Contract Services
559,055.00 0.00 0.00 0.008609-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 559,055.00
Total Downtown Strategic Plan Implementation 559,055.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 559,055.00 0.00
203Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
204
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
City Hall Replacement8611
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8611-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008611-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total City Hall Replacement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
204Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
205
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Police Facilities Improvements8614
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8614-4200 Contract Services
95,280.00 23,076.76 23,076.76 24.228614-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 72,203.24
Total Police Facilities Improvements 95,280.00 23,076.76 23,076.76 0.00 72,203.24 24.22
205Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
206
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
New Corporate Yard Facility8615
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8615-4200 Contract Services
173,142.00 2,212.00 2,212.00 1.288615-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 170,930.00
Total New Corporate Yard Facility 173,142.00 2,212.00 2,212.00 0.00 170,930.00 1.28
206Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
207
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Police Building Replacement8618
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8618-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008618-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Police Building Replacement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
207Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
208
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Fire Department Tower Demolition8632
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8632-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008632-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Fire Department Tower Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
208Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
209
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Community Center Gen Improv- Phase III8650
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8650-4200 Contract Services
149,039.00 535.32 535.32 0.368650-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 148,503.68
Total Community Center Gen Improv- Phase III 149,039.00 535.32 535.32 0.00 148,503.68 0.36
209Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
210
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Lawn Bowling Lighting8657
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8657-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008657-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Lawn Bowling Lighting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
210Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
211
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Municipal Pier Electrical Repairs8660
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8660-4200 Contract Services
259,711.00 0.00 0.00 0.008660-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 259,711.00
Total Municipal Pier Electrical Repairs 259,711.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 259,711.00 0.00
211Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
212
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
City Fac. Condition Assessm.& Asbesto Rp8664
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8664-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008664-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total City Fac. Condition Assessm.& Asbesto Rp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
212Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
213
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
City Park Restroom Renovations8669
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8669-4200 Contract Services
1,055,994.00 54,312.00 54,312.00 5.148669-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 1,001,682.00
Total City Park Restroom Renovations 1,055,994.00 54,312.00 54,312.00 0.00 1,001,682.00 5.14
213Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
214
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Tree Well Grates8670
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8670-4200 Contract Services
67,220.00 0.00 0.00 0.008670-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 67,220.00
Total Tree Well Grates 67,220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67,220.00 0.00
214Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
215
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Clark Field Restrooms8671
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8671-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008671-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Clark Field Restrooms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
215Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
216
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Breakroom Improvements City Hall/Yard8673
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8673-4200 Contract Services
11,227.00 8,997.63 8,997.63 80.148673-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 2,229.37
Total Breakroom Improvements City Hall/Yard 11,227.00 8,997.63 8,997.63 0.00 2,229.37 80.14
216Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
217
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Pier Plaza Lamp Post Replacement8675
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8675-4200 Contract Services
71,922.00 0.00 0.00 0.008675-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 71,922.00
Total Pier Plaza Lamp Post Replacement 71,922.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71,922.00 0.00
217Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
218
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
South Park Restroom Renovations8677
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8677-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008677-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total South Park Restroom Renovations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
218Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
219
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
CNG Slow-Fill Station8680
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8680-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008680-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total CNG Slow-Fill Station 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
219Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
220
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Facilities for Opportunities Study/Imp8681
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8681-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008681-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Facilities for Opportunities Study/Imp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
220Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
221
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Electrical Vehicle & Bicycle Transportat8682
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8682-4200 Contract Services
47,186.00 0.00 0.00 0.008682-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 47,186.00
Total Electrical Vehicle & Bicycle Transportat 47,186.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47,186.00 0.00
221Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
222
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Bard Street Closure8683
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8683-4200 Contract Services
55,000.00 150.00 150.00 0.278683-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 54,850.00
Total Bard Street Closure 55,000.00 150.00 150.00 0.00 54,850.00 0.27
222Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
223
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Emergency Op Center Renovations8684
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8684-4200 Contract Services
193,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.008684-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 193,500.00
Total Emergency Op Center Renovations 193,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 193,500.00 0.00
223Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
224
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Police Dept Report Writing Room8686
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8686-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008686-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Police Dept Report Writing Room 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
224Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
225
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Police Department Records & Jail Upgrade8688
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8688-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008688-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Police Department Records & Jail Upgrade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
225Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
226
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Clark Building Renovations8689
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8689-4200 Contract Services
423,554.00 0.00 0.00 0.008689-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 423,554.00
Total Clark Building Renovations 423,554.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 423,554.00 0.00
226Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
227
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Capital Improvement Fund301
Community Theater Needs Assessment8693
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8693-4200 Contract Services
30,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008693-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 30,000.00
Total Community Theater Needs Assessment 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00
Total Capital Improvement Fund 4,678,495.00 110,151.04 110,151.04 0.00 4,568,343.96 2.35
227Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
228
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Insurance Fund705
Liability Insurance1209
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1209-4100 Personal Services
42,268.00 16,894.93 16,894.93 39.971209-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 25,373.07
1,685.00 227.92 227.92 13.531209-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 1,457.08
11,740.00 2,105.60 2,105.60 17.941209-4180 Retirement 0.00 9,634.40
8,581.00 3,304.64 3,304.64 38.511209-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 5,276.36
648.00 262.81 262.81 40.561209-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 385.19
Total Personal Services 64,922.00 22,795.90 22,795.90 0.00 42,126.10 35.11
1209-4200 Contract Services
680,830.00 690,873.83 690,873.83 101.481209-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 -10,043.83
Total Contract Services 680,830.00 690,873.83 690,873.83 0.00 -10,043.83 101.48
1209-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001209-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001209-4315 Membership 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001209-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 0.00
400,000.00 135,097.51 135,097.51 33.771209-4324 Claims/Settlements 0.00 264,902.49
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 400,000.00 135,097.51 135,097.51 0.00 264,902.49 33.77
Total Liability Insurance 1,145,752.00 848,767.24 848,767.24 0.00 296,984.76 74.08
228Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
229
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Insurance Fund705
Auto/Property/Bonds1210
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1210-4200 Contract Services
65,330.00 62,173.80 62,173.80 95.171210-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 3,156.20
Total Contract Services 65,330.00 62,173.80 62,173.80 0.00 3,156.20 95.17
1210-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
10,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.001210-4324 Claims/Settlements 0.00 10,000.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 0.00
Total Auto/Property/Bonds 75,330.00 62,173.80 62,173.80 0.00 13,156.20 82.54
229Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
230
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Insurance Fund705
Unemployment1215
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1215-4100 Personal Services
10,000.00 7,481.00 7,481.00 74.811215-4186 Unemployment Claims 0.00 2,519.00
Total Unemployment 10,000.00 7,481.00 7,481.00 0.00 2,519.00 74.81
230Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
231
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Insurance Fund705
Workers' Compensation1217
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1217-4100 Personal Services
42,268.00 16,895.03 16,895.03 39.971217-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 25,372.97
1,685.00 227.92 227.92 13.531217-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 1,457.08
11,740.00 2,105.57 2,105.57 17.941217-4180 Retirement 0.00 9,634.43
8,582.00 3,304.42 3,304.42 38.501217-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 5,277.58
648.00 262.75 262.75 40.551217-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 385.25
Total Personal Services 64,923.00 22,795.69 22,795.69 0.00 42,127.31 35.11
1217-4200 Contract Services
332,129.00 253,606.00 253,606.00 76.361217-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 78,523.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001217-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 0.00
Total Contract Services 332,129.00 253,606.00 253,606.00 0.00 78,523.00 76.36
1217-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
100.00 4.86 4.86 4.861217-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 95.14
1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.001217-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 1,000.00
981,000.00 319,632.19 319,632.19 32.581217-4324 Claims/Settlements 0.00 661,367.81
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 982,100.00 319,637.05 319,637.05 0.00 662,462.95 32.55
Total Workers' Compensation 1,379,152.00 596,038.74 596,038.74 0.00 783,113.26 43.22
231Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
232
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Insurance Fund705
Interfund Transfers Out1299
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 0.00
Total Interfund Transfers Out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Insurance Fund 2,610,234.00 1,514,460.78 1,514,460.78 0.00 1,095,773.22 58.02
232Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
233
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
City Council1101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1101-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001101-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
5,437.00 0.00 0.00 0.001101-4903 Depreciation/Bldgs 0.00 5,437.00
Total Depreciation 5,437.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,437.00 0.00
1101-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001101-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1101-5600 Buildings/Improvements
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001101-5601 Buildings 0.00 0.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total City Council 5,437.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,437.00 0.00
233Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
234
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
City Clerk1121
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1121-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001121-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
Total City Clerk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
234Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
235
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
City Treasurer1141
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1141-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001141-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
Total City Treasurer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
235Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
236
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
City Manager1201
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1201-4200 Contract Services
147,385.00 39,605.20 39,605.20 26.871201-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 107,779.80
Total Contract Services 147,385.00 39,605.20 39,605.20 0.00 107,779.80 26.87
1201-5400 Equipment/Furniture
672.00 0.00 0.00 0.001201-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 672.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001201-5403 Vehicles 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 672.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 672.00 0.00
Total City Manager 148,057.00 39,605.20 39,605.20 0.00 108,451.80 26.75
236Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
237
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Finance Administration1202
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1202-5400 Equipment/Furniture
1,350.00 0.00 0.00 0.001202-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 1,350.00
Total Finance Administration 1,350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,350.00 0.00
237Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
238
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Human Resources1203
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1203-5400 Equipment/Furniture
1,558.00 0.00 0.00 0.001203-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 1,558.00
Total Human Resources 1,558.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,558.00 0.00
238Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
239
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Finance Cashier1204
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1204-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001204-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1204-5400 Equipment/Furniture
1,747.00 0.00 0.00 0.001204-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 1,747.00
Total Finance Cashier 1,747.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,747.00 0.00
239Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
240
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Information Technology1206
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1206-4200 Contract Services
550,979.00 139,528.56 139,528.56 25.321206-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 411,450.44
Total Contract Services 550,979.00 139,528.56 139,528.56 0.00 411,450.44 25.32
1206-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
30,200.00 16,086.17 16,086.17 53.271206-4304 Telephone 0.00 14,113.83
15,000.00 6,099.78 6,099.78 40.671206-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 8,900.22
71.00 30.00 30.00 42.251206-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 41.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 45,271.00 22,215.95 22,215.95 0.00 23,055.05 49.07
1206-4900 Depreciation
65,060.00 0.00 0.00 0.001206-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 65,060.00
Total Depreciation 65,060.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65,060.00 0.00
1206-5400 Equipment/Furniture
1,633.00 0.00 0.00 0.001206-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 1,633.00
54,966.00 -7,213.59 -7,213.59 13.121206-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 62,179.59
88,419.00 25,307.06 25,307.06 28.621206-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 63,111.94
Total Equipment/Furniture 145,018.00 18,093.47 18,093.47 0.00 126,924.53 12.48
Total Information Technology 806,328.00 179,837.98 179,837.98 0.00 626,490.02 22.30
240Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
241
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
General Appropriations1208
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1208-4200 Contract Services
12,108.00 4,675.41 4,675.41 38.611208-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 7,432.59
Total Contract Services 12,108.00 4,675.41 4,675.41 0.00 7,432.59 38.61
1208-4900 Depreciation
6,956.00 0.00 0.00 0.001208-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 6,956.00
Total Depreciation 6,956.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,956.00 0.00
1208-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001208-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001208-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
28,380.00 0.00 0.00 0.001208-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 28,380.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 28,380.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28,380.00 0.00
Total General Appropriations 47,444.00 4,675.41 4,675.41 0.00 42,768.59 9.85
241Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
242
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Police2101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2101-4200 Contract Services
24,923.00 30,886.71 30,886.71 123.932101-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 -5,963.71
Total Contract Services 24,923.00 30,886.71 30,886.71 0.00 -5,963.71 123.93
2101-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
81,402.00 24,188.29 24,188.29 29.712101-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 57,213.71
50,418.00 13,798.61 13,798.61 27.372101-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 36,619.39
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-4350 Safety Gear 0.00 0.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 131,820.00 37,986.90 37,986.90 0.00 93,833.10 28.82
2101-4900 Depreciation
82,821.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 82,821.00
125,932.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 125,932.00
Total Depreciation 208,753.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 208,753.00 0.00
2101-5400 Equipment/Furniture
25,835.00 365.92 365.92 1.422101-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 25,469.08
19,615.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 19,615.00
332,690.00 273.18 273.18 0.082101-5403 Vehicles 0.00 332,416.82
1,069,811.00 694,449.34 694,449.34 64.912101-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 375,361.66
Total Equipment/Furniture 1,447,951.00 695,088.44 695,088.44 0.00 752,862.56 48.00
2101-5600 Buildings/Improvements
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-5601 Buildings 0.00 0.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Police 1,813,447.00 763,962.05 763,962.05 0.00 1,049,484.95 42.13
242Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
243
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Fire2201
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2201-4200 Contract Services
0.00 8,500.00 8,500.00 0.002201-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 -8,500.00
Total Contract Services 0.00 8,500.00 8,500.00 0.00 -8,500.00 0.00
2201-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 0.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2201-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2201-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-5403 Vehicles 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fire 0.00 8,500.00 8,500.00 0.00 -8,500.00 0.00
243Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
244
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Fire Protection2202
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2202-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002202-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 0.00
Total Fire Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
244Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
245
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Lighting/Landscaping/Medians2601
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
2601-4200 Contract Services
5,400.00 0.00 0.00 0.002601-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 5,400.00
Total Contract Services 5,400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,400.00 0.00
2601-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
5,400.00 667.76 667.76 12.372601-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 4,732.24
1,300.00 16.34 16.34 1.262601-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 1,283.66
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 6,700.00 684.10 684.10 0.00 6,015.90 10.21
2601-4900 Depreciation
7,942.00 0.00 0.00 0.002601-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 7,942.00
10,036.00 0.00 0.00 0.002601-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 10,036.00
Total Depreciation 17,978.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,978.00 0.00
2601-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002601-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002601-5403 Vehicles 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Lighting/Landscaping/Medians 30,078.00 684.10 684.10 0.00 29,393.90 2.27
245Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
246
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Sewers/Storm Drains3102
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3102-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3102-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 1,000.00
4,500.00 108.88 108.88 2.423102-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 4,391.12
1,500.00 27,344.12 27,344.12 1,822.943102-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 -25,844.12
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 7,000.00 27,453.00 27,453.00 0.00 -20,453.00 392.19
3102-4900 Depreciation
14,052.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 14,052.00
9,539.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 9,539.00
Total Depreciation 23,591.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23,591.00 0.00
3102-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-5403 Vehicles 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Sewers/Storm Drains 30,591.00 27,453.00 27,453.00 0.00 3,138.00 89.74
246Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
247
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Street Maint/Traffic Safety3104
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3104-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
7,520.00 2,107.20 2,107.20 28.023104-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 5,412.80
5,977.00 876.90 876.90 14.673104-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 5,100.10
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 13,497.00 2,984.10 2,984.10 0.00 10,512.90 22.11
3104-4900 Depreciation
5,370.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 5,370.00
6,742.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 6,742.00
Total Depreciation 12,112.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,112.00 0.00
3104-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
46,000.00 9.78 9.78 0.023104-5403 Vehicles 0.00 45,990.22
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 46,000.00 9.78 9.78 0.00 45,990.22 0.02
Total Street Maint/Traffic Safety 71,609.00 2,993.88 2,993.88 0.00 68,615.12 4.18
247Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
248
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Storm Drains3109
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3109-4200 Contract Services
5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.003109-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 5,000.00
Total Contract Services 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.00
3109-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
600.00 0.00 0.00 0.003109-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 600.00
6,000.00 509.90 509.90 8.503109-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 5,490.10
1,430.00 0.00 0.00 0.003109-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 1,430.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 8,030.00 509.90 509.90 0.00 7,520.10 6.35
3109-4900 Depreciation
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003109-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003109-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3109-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003109-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003109-5403 Vehicles 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Storm Drains 13,030.00 509.90 509.90 0.00 12,520.10 3.91
248Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
249
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Downtown Enhancement3301
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3301-5400 Equipment/Furniture
22,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.003301-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 22,000.00
Total Downtown Enhancement 22,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,000.00 0.00
249Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
250
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Community Services3302
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
3302-4200 Contract Services
3,036.00 109,029.00 109,029.00 3,591.213302-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 -105,993.00
Total Contract Services 3,036.00 109,029.00 109,029.00 0.00 -105,993.00 3,591.21
3302-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
22,592.00 6,625.72 6,625.72 29.333302-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 15,966.28
8,000.00 1,077.50 1,077.50 13.473302-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 6,922.50
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 30,592.00 7,703.22 7,703.22 0.00 22,888.78 25.18
3302-4900 Depreciation
12,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 12,500.00
26,289.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 26,289.00
Total Depreciation 38,789.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38,789.00 0.00
3302-5400 Equipment/Furniture
140,949.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 140,949.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
131,374.00 15,529.88 15,529.88 11.823302-5403 Vehicles 0.00 115,844.12
9,460.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 9,460.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 281,783.00 15,529.88 15,529.88 0.00 266,253.12 5.51
Total Community Services 354,200.00 132,262.10 132,262.10 0.00 221,937.90 37.34
250Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
251
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Community Dev/Planning4101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4101-5400 Equipment/Furniture
7,790.00 6,124.16 6,124.16 78.624101-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 1,665.84
Total Community Dev/Planning 7,790.00 6,124.16 6,124.16 0.00 1,665.84 78.62
251Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
252
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Community Dev/Building4201
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4201-4200 Contract Services
384,669.00 30,291.37 30,291.37 7.874201-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 354,377.63
Total Contract Services 384,669.00 30,291.37 30,291.37 0.00 354,377.63 7.87
4201-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
1,320.00 46.22 46.22 3.504201-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 1,273.78
1,670.00 50.00 50.00 2.994201-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 1,620.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 2,990.00 96.22 96.22 0.00 2,893.78 3.22
4201-4900 Depreciation
3,321.00 0.00 0.00 0.004201-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 3,321.00
Total Depreciation 3,321.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,321.00 0.00
4201-5400 Equipment/Furniture
12,684.00 0.00 0.00 0.004201-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 12,684.00
1,419.00 0.00 0.00 0.004201-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 1,419.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004201-5403 Vehicles 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 14,103.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14,103.00 0.00
Total Community Dev/Building 405,083.00 30,387.59 30,387.59 0.00 374,695.41 7.50
252Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
253
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Public Works Administration4202
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4202-4200 Contract Services
1,930.00 8,400.00 8,400.00 435.234202-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 -6,470.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-4251 Contract Services/Gov't 0.00 0.00
Total Contract Services 1,930.00 8,400.00 8,400.00 0.00 -6,470.00 435.23
4202-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
200.00 1,877.07 1,877.07 938.544202-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 -1,677.07
2,200.00 56.20 56.20 2.554202-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 2,143.80
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 2,400.00 1,933.27 1,933.27 0.00 466.73 80.55
4202-4900 Depreciation
5,050.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 5,050.00
344.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 344.00
Total Depreciation 5,394.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,394.00 0.00
4202-5400 Equipment/Furniture
10,762.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 10,762.00
26,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-5403 Vehicles 0.00 26,000.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 0.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 36,762.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36,762.00 0.00
Total Public Works Administration 46,486.00 10,333.27 10,333.27 0.00 36,152.73 22.23
253Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
254
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Building Maintenance4204
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4204-4200 Contract Services
202,494.00 32,981.13 32,981.13 16.294204-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 169,512.87
Total Contract Services 202,494.00 32,981.13 32,981.13 0.00 169,512.87 16.29
4204-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
2,190.00 448.04 448.04 20.464204-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 1,741.96
500.00 16.34 16.34 3.274204-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 483.66
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 2,690.00 464.38 464.38 0.00 2,225.62 17.26
4204-4900 Depreciation
1,348.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 1,348.00
7,935.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 7,935.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-4904 Depreciation/Improvements 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 9,283.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,283.00 0.00
4204-5400 Equipment/Furniture
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
1,950.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 1,950.00
35,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-5403 Vehicles 0.00 35,000.00
25,373.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 25,373.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 62,323.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62,323.00 0.00
4204-5600 Buildings/Improvements
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-5602 Imprvmnts Other Than Bldgs 0.00 0.00
Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Building Maintenance 276,790.00 33,445.51 33,445.51 0.00 243,344.49 12.08
254Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
255
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Equipment Service4206
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4206-4100 Personal Services
164,432.00 68,122.39 68,122.39 41.434206-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 96,309.61
6,000.00 833.98 833.98 13.904206-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 5,166.02
2,343.00 692.22 692.22 29.544206-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 1,650.78
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004206-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 0.00
43,684.00 8,162.98 8,162.98 18.694206-4180 Retirement 0.00 35,521.02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004206-4187 Uniform Allowance 0.00 0.00
48,511.00 19,211.33 19,211.33 39.604206-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 29,299.67
2,392.00 1,013.78 1,013.78 42.384206-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 1,378.22
13,570.00 5,654.15 5,654.15 41.674206-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 7,915.85
Total Personal Services 280,932.00 103,690.83 103,690.83 0.00 177,241.17 36.91
4206-4200 Contract Services
6,259.00 2,496.50 2,496.50 39.894206-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 3,762.50
250.00 0.00 0.00 0.004206-4251 Contract Services/Govt 0.00 250.00
Total Contract Services 6,509.00 2,496.50 2,496.50 0.00 4,012.50 38.35
4206-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
3,700.00 1,734.71 1,734.71 46.884206-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 1,965.29
3,000.00 1,372.17 1,372.17 45.744206-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 1,627.83
1,300.00 460.14 460.14 35.404206-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 839.86
65,121.00 27,135.00 27,135.00 41.674206-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 37,986.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 73,121.00 30,702.02 30,702.02 0.00 42,418.98 41.99
4206-4900 Depreciation
394.00 0.00 0.00 0.004206-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 394.00
Total Depreciation 394.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 394.00 0.00
4206-5400 Equipment/Furniture
15,737.00 0.00 0.00 0.004206-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 15,737.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 15,737.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,737.00 0.00
255Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
256
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Equipment Service4206
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
Total Equipment Service 376,693.00 136,889.35 136,889.35 0.00 239,803.65 36.34
256Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
257
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Community Resources4601
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4601-4200 Contract Services
3,036.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 3,036.00
Total Contract Services 3,036.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,036.00 0.00
4601-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
1,000.00 386.47 386.47 38.654601-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 613.53
500.00 10.00 10.00 2.004601-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 490.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 1,500.00 396.47 396.47 0.00 1,103.53 26.43
4601-4900 Depreciation
6,934.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 6,934.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 0.00
Total Depreciation 6,934.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,934.00 0.00
4601-5400 Equipment/Furniture
5,951.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 5,951.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-5403 Vehicles 0.00 0.00
9,460.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 9,460.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 15,411.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,411.00 0.00
Total Community Resources 26,881.00 396.47 396.47 0.00 26,484.53 1.47
257Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
258
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Parks6101
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
6101-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
4,990.00 1,711.92 1,711.92 34.316101-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 3,278.08
1,300.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 1,300.00
Total Materials/Supplies/Other 6,290.00 1,711.92 1,711.92 0.00 4,578.08 27.22
6101-4900 Depreciation
7,868.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 7,868.00
Total Depreciation 7,868.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,868.00 0.00
6101-5400 Equipment/Furniture
35,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-5403 Vehicles 0.00 35,000.00
Total Equipment/Furniture 35,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35,000.00 0.00
Total Parks 49,158.00 1,711.92 1,711.92 0.00 47,446.08 3.48
258Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
259
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Fire Department Tower Demolition8632
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8632-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008632-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Fire Department Tower Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
259Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
260
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades8656
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8656-4200 Contract Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008656-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00
Total Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
260Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
261
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Equipment Replacement Fund715
Council Chambers Improvements8672
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
8672-4200 Contract Services
198,815.00 2,454.25 2,454.25 1.238672-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 196,360.75
Total Council Chambers Improvements 198,815.00 2,454.25 2,454.25 0.00 196,360.75 1.23
Total Equipment Replacement Fund 4,734,572.00 1,382,226.14 1,382,226.14 0.00 3,352,345.86 29.19
261Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
262
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Gen Fixed Assets Account Group905
Sale Of Fixed Assets1291
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
1291-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001291-4392 Loss On Sale Of Fixed Assets 0.00 0.00
Total Sale Of Fixed Assets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
262Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
263
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Gen Fixed Assets Account Group905
Infrastructure Purchases4209
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
4209-9000 Infrastructure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9001 Parking Meters - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9002 Monuments - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
Total Infrastructure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4209-9100 *** Title Not Found ***
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9101 Roadways, Major - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9102 Roadways, Minor - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9103 Roadways, Residential - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9104 Street Improvements - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
Total *** Title Not Found *** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4209-9200 *** Title Not Found ***
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9201 Signage - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
Total *** Title Not Found *** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4209-9300 *** Title Not Found ***
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9301 Storm Drains, Concrete - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9302 Storm Drains, Steel - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9303 Manholes & Ctch Bsns, Strm Drn-Infrstr 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9351 Traffic Signals - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9352 Traffic Flash Signals - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
Total *** Title Not Found *** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4209-9400 *** Title Not Found ***
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9401 Street Lights - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9451 Sidewalks - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
Total *** Title Not Found *** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4209-9500 *** Title Not Found ***
263Page:
12/13/2018
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
264
3:15PM
Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report
7/1/2018 through 11/30/2018
Periods: 0 through 5
Gen Fixed Assets Account Group905
Infrastructure Purchases4209
Prct
UsedBalance
Year-to-date
Encumbrances
Year-to-date
ExpendituresExpenditures
Adjusted
AppropriationAccount Number
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9501 Curbing - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9551 Alleys - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
Total *** Title Not Found *** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4209-9700 *** Title Not Found ***
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9701 Sewer Pipelines - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9702 Manholes, Sewer - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9703 Sewer Pump Stations - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9704 Sewer Line Improvements - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
Total *** Title Not Found *** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4209-9900 *** Title Not Found ***
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9901 Bike Path - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004209-9902 Bikeway Improvements - Infrastructure 0.00 0.00
Total Gen Fixed Assets Account Group 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grand Total 69,237,142.00 20,735,450.00 20,735,450.00 29.95 0.00 48,501,692.00
264Page:
Adjusted Year-to-date Year-to-date
Project Title/Account Number Appropriation Expenditures Expenditures Encumbrances Balance Prct Used
PCH- Aviation Mobility Project (12-143)
001-8143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 94,454.00 - - - 94,454.00 0.00%
115-8143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 34,581.00 - - - 34,581.00 0.00%
145-8143-4201 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
146-8143-4201 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
147-8143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 255,509.00 - - - 255,509.00 0.00%
301-8143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 263,437.00 - - - 263,437.00 0.00%
647,981.00 - - - 647,981.00 0.00%
PCH Traffic Improvements (12-160)
147-8160-4201 Contract Serv/Private 399,922.00 - - - 399,922.00 0.00%
301-8160-4201 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
399,922.00 - - - 399,922.00 0.00%
Beach Drive Green Alley (15-162)
301-8162-4201 187,500.00 - - - 187,500.00 0.00%
187,500.00 - - - 187,500.00 0.00%
Bike Friendly Street Improvements (14-168)
001-8168-4201 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
147-8168-4201 Contract Serv/Private 20,000.00 - - - 20,000.00 0.00%
20,000.00 - - - 20,000.00 0.00%
8th Street- Safe Route to School (14-173)
001-8173-4201 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
115-8173-4201 Contract Serv/Private 325,744.00 - 22,310.75 - 303,433.25 6.85%
122-8173-4201 Contract Serv/Private 67,825.00 39,506.25 39,506.25 - 28,318.75 58.25%
150-8173-4201 Contract Serv/Private 354,535.00 - - - 354,535.00 0.00%
301-8173-4201 Contract Serv/Private 308,438.00 - - - 308,438.00 0.00%
1,056,542.00 39,506.25 61,817.00 - 994,725.00 5.85%
Street Improvements - Various Locations
001-8174-4106 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
001-8174-4112 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
001-8174-4189 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
001-8174-4201 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
115-8174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 144,021.00 61,083.75 125,083.75 - 18,937.25 86.85%
122-8174-4201 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
145-8174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 274,892.00 - - - 274,892.00 0.00%
146-8174-4102 Regular Salaries - - 3,130.80 (3,130.80) 0.00%
146-8174-4112 Part Time Temporary - - 100.00 (100.00) 0.00%
146-8174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 799,333.00 15,413.93 138,957.25 - 660,375.75 17.38%
147-8174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 766,885.00 75,878.60 75,878.60 - 691,006.40 9.89%
148-8174-4201 Contract Serv/Private 282,875.00 - - - 282,875.00 0.00%
301-8174-4201 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
2,268,006.00 152,376.28 343,150.40 - 1,924,855.60 15.13%
CIP Report by Project
11/30/2018
Adjusted Year-to-date Year-to-date
Project Title/Account Number Appropriation Expenditures Expenditures Encumbrances Balance Prct Used
CIP Report by Project
11/30/2018
Street Improvement - 21st between PCH/Ardmore
150-8184-4201 Contract Serv/Private 98,152.00 - - - 98,152.00 0.00%
98,152.00 - - - 98,152.00 0.00%
ADA Improvements - PCH between 2nd & 21st Street (16-185)
150-8185-4201 Contract Serv/Private 287,260.00 504.00 504.00 - 286,756.00 0.18%
287,260.00 504.00 504.00 - 286,756.00 0.18%
Street Improvements - Various Locations (17-186)
001-8186-4201 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
115-8186-4201 Contract Serv/Private 144,995.00 - - - 144,995.00 0.00%
122-8186-4201 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
145-8186-4201 Contract Serv/Private 59,000.00 - - - 59,000.00 0.00%
146-8186-4201 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
147-8186-4201 Contract Serv/Private 89,551.00 - - - 89,551.00 0.00%
148-8186-4201 Contract Serv/Private 221,468.00 - - - 221,468.00 0.00%
301-8186-4201 Contract Serv/Private - - - - - 0.00%
515,014.00 - - - 515,014.00 0.00%
Stamped Concrete Replacement on the Strand (17-187)
301-8187-4201 Contract Serv/Private 140,000.00 - - - 140,000.00 0.00%
140,000.00 - - - 140,000.00 0.00%
Strand Bikeway and Walkway Improv at 35th St (17-188)
147-8188-4201 Contract Serv/Private 115,000.00 115,000.00 0.00%
115,000.00 - - - 115,000.00 0.00%
Sewer Improvements- Various Locations (15-403)
160-8403-4201 Contract Serv/Private 20,377.00 - - - 20,377.00 0.00%
20,377.00 - - - 20,377.00 0.00%
Storm Drain Master Plan
161-8415-4201 Contract Serv/Private 21,827.00 - - - 21,827.00 0.00%
21,827.00 - - - 21,827.00 0.00%
Sewer Improvements - Various Locations (17-416)
160-8416-4201 1,260,000.00 24,103.17 114,252.32 - 1,145,747.68 9.07%
1,260,000.00 24,103.17 114,252.32 - 1,145,747.68 9.07%
Storm Drain Improv - Various Locations (17-417)
161-8417-4201 645,090.00 - - - 645,090.00 0.00%
645,090.00 - - - 645,090.00 0.00%
Citywide Parks Master Plan (13-538)
001-8538-4201 Contract Serv/Private 42,065.00 - - - 42,065.00 0.00%
125-8538-4102 Regular Salaries 173,410.00 - - - 173,410.00 0.00%
215,475.00 - - - 215,475.00 0.00%
Adjusted Year-to-date Year-to-date
Project Title/Account Number Appropriation Expenditures Expenditures Encumbrances Balance Prct Used
CIP Report by Project
11/30/2018
Stormwater/Urban Runoff Diversion Project (16-542)
150-8542-4201 Contract Serv/Private 3,762,387.00 9,927.36 16,060.55 - 3,746,326.45 0.43%
301-8542-4201 Contract Serv/Private 421,618.00 1,562.64 2,528.05 - 419,089.95 0.60%
4,184,005.00 11,490.00 18,588.60 - 4,165,416.40 0.60%
Feasibility, Greenbelt Path (17-544)
301-8544-4201 Contract Serv/Private 10,000.00 - - - 10,000.00 0.00%
10,000.00 - - - 10,000.00 0.00%
Clark Stadium Bleachers (17-545)
125-8545-4201 Contract Serv/Private 30,000.00 - - - 30,000.00 0.00%
30,000.00 - - - 30,000.00 0.00%
Citywide Park Improvements (17-546)
125-8546-4201 Contract Serv/Private 56,359.00 4,613.37 30,732.31 - 25,626.69 54.53%
56,359.00 4,613.37 30,732.31 - 25,626.69 54.53%
Downtown Strategic Plan (12-609)
001-8609-4201 Contract Serv/Private 103,610.00 - - - 103,610.00 0.00%
301-8609-4201 Contract Serv/Private 559,055.00 - - - 559,055.00 0.00%
662,665.00 - - - 662,665.00 0.00%
Police Facility Improvements (14-614)
001-8614-4201 Contract Serv/Private 2,972.00 - 902.80 - 2,069.20 30.38%
301-8614-4201 Contract Serv/Private 95,280.00 - 23,076.76 - 72,203.24 24.22%
98,252.00 - 23,979.56 - 74,272.44 24.41%
City Yard Renovation (15-615)
001-8615-4201 Contract Serv/Private 56,102.00 393.75 1,181.25 - 54,920.75 2.11%
301-8615-4201 Contract Serv/Private 173,142.00 2,212.00 2,212.00 - 170,930.00 1.28%
229,244.00 2,605.75 3,393.25 - 225,850.75 1.48%
Municipal Pier Structural Assessment & Repairs (16-629)
122-8629-4201 Contract Serv/Private 177,380.00 - - - 177,380.00 0.00%
191-8629-4201 Contract Serv/Private 240,000.00 - - - 240,000.00 0.00%
417,380.00 - - - 417,380.00 0.00%
Adjusted Year-to-date Year-to-date
Project Title/Account Number Appropriation Expenditures Expenditures Encumbrances Balance Prct Used
CIP Report by Project
11/30/2018
Community Center Gen Improvements (15-650)
001-8650-4201 Contract Serv/Private 261,640.00 - 1,250.00 - 260,390.00 0.48%
301-8650-4201 Contract Serv/Private 149,039.00 - 535.32 - 148,503.68 0.36%
410,679.00 - 1,785.32 - 408,893.68 0.84%
Municipal Pier Structural Repairs Phase 3 (15-660)
122-8660-4201 Contract Serv/Private 275,473.00 - - - 275,473.00 0.00%
301-8660-4201 Contract Serv/Private 259,711.00 - - - 259,711.00 0.00%
535,184.00 - - - 535,184.00 0.00%
Library Community Needs Assessment (15-668)
150-8668-4201 Contract Serv/Private 42,522.00 - - - 42,522.00 0.00%
42,522.00 - - - 42,522.00 0.00%
City Park Restroom Renovations (15-669)
301-8669-4201 Contract Serv/Private 1,055,994.00 - 54,312.00 - 1,001,682.00 5.14%
1,055,994.00 - 54,312.00 - 1,001,682.00 5.14%
Tree Well Grates (15-670)
301-8670-4201 Contract Serv/Private 67,220.00 - - - 67,220.00 0.00%
67,220.00 - - - 67,220.00 0.00%
Council Chambers Improvements (15-672)
001-8672-4201 Contract Serv/Private 106,209.00 - - - 106,209.00 0.00%
715-8672-4201 Contract Serv/Private 198,815.00 - 2,454.25 - 196,360.75 1.23%
305,024.00 - 2,454.25 - 302,569.75 0.80%
Police Dept Substation Facility Improvement
301-8673-4201 Contract Serv/Private 11,227.00 541.33 8,997.63 - 2,229.37 80.14%
11,227.00 541.33 8,997.63 - 2,229.37 80.14%
Police Dept Substation Facility Improvement
001-8674-4201 Contract Serv/Private 5,755.00 - 902.81 - 4,852.19 15.69%
5,755.00 - 902.81 - 4,852.19 15.69%
Pier Plaza Lamp Post Replacement (16-675)
301-8675-4201 Contract Serv/Private 71,922.00 - - - 71,922.00 0.00%
71,922.00 - - - 71,922.00 0.00%
Electrical Vehicle and Bicycle Transportation (16-682)
150-8682-4201 Contract Serv/Private 162,977.00 5,516.63 6,927.20 - 156,049.80 4.25%
301-8682-4201 Contract Serv/Private 47,186.00 - - - 47,186.00 0.00%
210,163.00 5,516.63 6,927.20 - 203,235.80 3.30%
Adjusted Year-to-date Year-to-date
Project Title/Account Number Appropriation Expenditures Expenditures Encumbrances Balance Prct Used
CIP Report by Project
11/30/2018
Bard Street Closure (17-683)
301-8683-4201 Contract Serv/Private 55,000.00 - 150.00 - 54,850.00 0.27%
55,000.00 - 150.00 - 54,850.00 0.27%
Emergency Operations Center Renovations (17-684)
301-8684-4201 Contract Serv/Private 193,500.00 - - - 193,500.00 0.00%
193,500.00 - - - 193,500.00 0.00%
ADA Improvements - Various Locations (17-687)
140-8687-4201 Contract Serv/Private 150,000.00 - - - 150,000.00 0.00%
150,000.00 - - - 150,000.00 0.00%
Clark Building Renovations (17-689)
301-8689-4201 Contract Serv/Private 423,554.00 - - - 423,554.00 0.00%
423,554.00 - - - 423,554.00 0.00%
ADA Improvements - Various Locations (17-687)
140-8691-4201 Contract Serv/Private 120,000.00 - - - 120,000.00 0.00%
120,000.00 - - - 120,000.00 0.00%
14th Street Beach Restroom Rehab
160 8692-4201 Contract Serv/Private 110,000.00 - - - 110,000.00 0.00%
110,000.00 - - - 110,000.00 0.00%
Community Theater Needs Assessment
301 8693-4201 Contract Serv/Private 30,000.00 - - - 30,000.00 0.00%
30,000.00 - - - 30,000.00 0.00%
Grand Total 17,383,795.00 241,256.78 671,946.65 - 16,711,848.35 3.87%
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0002
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
CITY TREASURER’S REPORT AND CASH BALANCE REPORT
(City Treasurer Karen Nowicki)
Recommended Action:
City Treasurer recommends that the City Council receive and file the November 2018 City
Treasurer’s Report and Cash Balance Report.
Summary:
Investments in the report meet the requirements of the City of Hermosa Beach’s adopted investment
policy.
Attached is a report of all inactive Public Deposits for the month of November 2018.This is the most
current available investment information.
Attachments:
1.City Treasurer’s Report
2.Cash Balance Report
Respectfully Submitted by: Karen Nowicki, City Treasurer
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
INSTITUTIONS
RATE YELD
DATE OF DATE OF ORIGINAL MARKET COST/MARKET FACE/PAR OF TO
INVESTMENT TYPE/INSTITUTION CUSIP #BOOK VALUE INVESTMENT MATURITY COST VALUE DIFFERENCE VALUE INTEREST MATURITY
POOLED INVESTMENTS
LAIF (Local Agency Investment Fund)44,487.32$ $44,487.32 2.208%
LACPIF (Los Angeles County Pooled Investment Funds)26,090,897.26$ $26,090,897.26 1.910%Rate for October, November
publishes the first week of January.
Pooled Investments % of Total Investment 75.215%$26,135,384.58
AGENCIES
Federal Home Loan Mortgage 3137EADK2 $498,457.64 8/1/2014 8/1/2019 $500,000.00 $495,320.00 ($4,680.00)$500,000.00 1.260%1.260%
Agencies % of Total Investment 1.435%$498,457.64
NEGOTIABLE CDS
Sallie Mae Bank 795450UB9 $248,000.00 10/22/2014 10/22/2019 $248,000.00 $246,078.87 ($1,921.13)$248,000.00 2.170%2.170%
American Express Bank 02587CCC2 $247,000.00 10/23/2014 10/23/2019 $247,000.00 $245,190.76 ($1,809.24)$247,000.00 2.220%2.220%
Peoples UTD Bank 71270QLM6 $247,000.00 01/21/2015 01/21/2020 $247,000.00 $243,479.19 ($3,520.81)$247,000.00 1.880%1.880%
Private Bank and Trust 74267GUU9 $248,000.00 01/23/2015 01/23/2020 $248,000.00 $244,588.65 ($3,411.35)$248,000.00 1.930%1.930%
Capital One Bank 140420SH4 $248,000.00 06/17/2015 06/17/2020 $248,000.00 $244,593.39 ($3,406.61)$248,000.00 2.180%2.180%
Discover Bank 254672QE1 $248,000.00 06/17/2015 06/17/2020 $248,000.00 $244,404.83 ($3,595.17)$248,000.00 2.130%2.130%
Capital One Nat'l Assn 14042E5U08 $246,000.00 08/19/2015 08/19/2020 $246,000.00 $243,377.45 ($2,622.55)$246,000.00 2.430%2.430%
Everbank Jacksonville 29976DA59 $245,000.00 08/28/2015 08/28/2020 $245,000.00 $240,886.15 ($4,113.85)$245,000.00 2.090%2.090%
American Express Centurion 02587DF86 $247,000.00 11/04/2015 11/04/2020 $247,000.00 $243,519.70 ($3,480.30)$247,000.00 2.280%2.280%
Synchrony Bank 87164YKW3 $247,000.00 11/20/2015 11/20/2020 $247,000.00 $243,208.28 ($3,791.72)$247,000.00 2.230%2.230%
Comenity Capital Bank 20033ANX0 $249,000.00 01/19/2016 01/19/2021 $249,000.00 $243,336.47 ($5,663.53)$249,000.00 1.940%1.940%
EnerBank USA 29266NX51 $247,000.00 01/28/2016 01/28/2021 $247,000.00 $241,343.93 ($5,656.07)$247,000.00 1.940%1.940%
World Foremost Bank Sydney 981571CQ3 $200,000.00 06/09/2016 06/09/2021 $200,000.00 $193,665.89 ($6,334.11)$200,000.00 1.760%1.760%
Wells Fargo Bank NA Siouxfall 9497485W3 $249,000.00 06/17/2016 06/17/2021 $249,000.00 $241,357.33 ($7,642.67)$249,000.00 1.810%1.810%
First Bank of Puerto Rico 33767AZY09 $248,000.00 08/26/2016 08/26/2021 $248,000.00 $237,857.76 ($10,142.24)$248,000.00 1.510%1.510%
Beneficial Mutual Savings 08173QBR6 $248,000.00 09/12/2016 09/12/2021 $248,000.00 $238,062.16 ($9,937.84)$248,000.00 1.560%1.560%
Countryside Federal Credit Union 22239MAL2 $249,000.00 10/18/2016 10/18/2021 $249,000.00 $239,602.14 ($9,397.86)$249,000.00 1.710%1.710%
Venture Bank 92326XDE8 $249,000.00 12/02/2016 09/02/2021 $249,000.00 $239,075.76 ($9,924.24)$249,000.00 1.560%1.560%
Stearns Bank NA 857894SK6 $242,000.00 01/13/2017 01/13/2022 $242,000.00 $235,149.34 ($6,850.66)$242,000.00 2.110%2.110%
East Boston Savings Bank 27113PBM2 $248,000.00 01/20/2017 01/20/2022 $248,000.00 $240,597.21 ($7,402.79)$248,000.00 2.060%2.060%
Goldman Sachs Bank 38148PKT3 $246,000.00 06/14/2017 06/14/2022 $246,000.00 $240,709.67 ($5,290.33)$246,000.00 2.400%2.400%
Barclays Bank 06740KKD8 $246,407.20 07/22/2017 07/12/2022 $247,000.00 $240,304.76 ($6,695.24)$247,000.00 2.260%2.260%
Marlin Business Bank 57116APQ5 $249,000.00 08/22/2017 08/23/2022 $249,000.00 $240,680.68 ($8,319.32)$249,000.00 2.120%2.120%
Merrick Bank South Jordan 59013JC49 $249,000.00 10/19/2017 10/20/2022 $249,000.00 $240,818.58 ($8,181.42)$249,000.00 2.170%2.170%
Northfield Bank 66612ABX5 $247,000.00 10/24/2017 10/25/2022 $247,000.00 $239,355.95 ($7,644.05)$247,000.00 2.220%2.220%
Morgan Stanley Bank 61747MH95 $249,000.00 02/01/2018 02/01/2023 $249,000.00 $242,743.43 ($6,256.57)$249,000.00 2.690%2.690%
Allegiance Bank 01748DBA3 $246,000.00 02/07/2018 02/07/2023 $246,000.00 $245,187.70 ($812.30)$246,000.00 2.640%2.640%
CitiBank NA 17312QN39 $245,000.00 06/15/2018 06/15/2023 $245,000.00 $247,790.81 $2,790.81 $245,000.00 3.210%3.230%
BMW Bank North America 05580AMX9 $245,000.00 06/15/2018 06/15/2023 $245,000.00 $247,790.81 $2,790.81 $245,000.00 3.210%3.210%
Industrial & Commercial Bank of China 45581EAX9 $249,000.00 08/17/2018 06/30/2023 $249,000.00 $252,421.27 $3,421.27 $249,000.00 3.260%3.260%
Bank Midwest Spirit Lake 063615BM9 $244,408.24 09/17/2018 09/15/2023 $245,000.00 $246,274.84 $1,274.84 $245,000.00 3.080%3.080%
UBS Bank 90348JEJ5 $249,000.00 10/17/2018 10/17/2023 $249,000.00 $253,200.02 $4,200.02 $249,000.00 3.290%3.290%
Spring Bank 849430AY9 $249,000.00 10/24/2018 10/24/2023 $249,000.00 $252,066.78 $3,066.78 $249,000.00 3.210%3.210%
Negotiable CD % of Total Investment 23.351%$8,113,815.44
TOTAL ALL INVESTMENTS 34,747,657.66$ $8,615,000.00 $8,474,040.56 ($140,959.44)$34,750,384.58
Average Rate of Interest 2.240%
Average Yield to Maturity 2.251%
In compliance with the California Code Section 53646, the Treasurer of the City of Hermosa Beach hereby certifies that sufficient
investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the City's budgeted expenditure requirements for the next six months.
Investments in the report meet the requirements of the City of Hermosa Beach's adopted investment policy.
APPROVED: KAREN NOWICKI, CITY TREASURER
TREASURER'S REPORT-REVISED
NOVEMBER 2018
GENERAL ACCOUNT
FUND 10/31/2018 11/30/2018
NUMBER FUND NAME BALANCE CASH ADJUSTMENTS CHECKS ADJUSTMENTS BALANCE
001 GENERAL $4,872,470.37 $1,812,418.55 ($1,545,328.49)($1,127,814.74)($179,133.31)$3,832,612.38
105 LIGHTING/LANDSCAPING ($61,669.70)$2,947.21 $3,062.29 ($33,473.69)(1,214.24)($90,348.13)
115 STATE GAS TAX $288,529.36 ($15,524.74)($61,083.75)$211,920.87
117 AB939 $55,172.27 $7,559.57 ($814.92)(108.13)$61,808.79
121 PROP A OPEN SPACE ($5,139.00)($3,426.00)($8,565.00)
122 TYCO $1,136,298.38 ($32,080.88)(39,506.25)$1,064,711.25
125 PARK REC FAC TAX $299,392.16 $13,206.00 $869.32 (4,613.37)$308,854.11
135 BAYVIEW DRIVE DISTRICT ADMIN EXPENSE $1,386.26 ($381.18)$1,005.08
136 LOWER PIER ADMIN EXPENSE ($561.00)($374.00)($935.00)
137 MYRTLE DISTRICT ADMIN EXPENSE $3,710.74 ($870.03)$2,840.71
138 LOMA DISTRICT ADMIN EXPENSE $13,005.89 ($918.09)$12,087.80
139 BEACH DRIVE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ADMIN EXPENSE $1,879.45 ($311.60)$1,567.85
140 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT $0.00 $0.00
145 PROPOSITION A $1,487,517.11 $22,637.03 $3,932.51 ($10,311.25)(22.74)$1,503,752.66
146 PROPOSITION C $1,166,520.75 $20,868.70 $3,307.83 ($15,413.93)$1,175,283.35
147 MEASURE R $1,086,734.70 $15,661.47 $2,897.32 ($75,878.60)$1,029,414.89
148 MEASURE M $309,323.93 $16,580.86 $919.75 $326,824.54
150 GRANTS $977,241.76 $15,000.00 ($19,283.37)$972,958.39
152 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT $4,877.65 ($407.92)(28.40)$4,441.33
153 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES $247,620.96 $679.64 ($6,842.84)$241,457.76
160 SEWER MAINTENANCE $5,917,475.58 $6,567.07 ($491.95)($57,627.22)(940.84)$5,864,982.64
161 STORM DRAIN FUND $937,228.84 $101,157.54 ($4,680.02)(960.85)$1,032,745.51
170 ASSET SEIZURE/FORFEITURE $530,076.00 $1,496.19 $531,572.19
180 FIRE PROTECTION $69,464.13 $1,443.84 $186.84 ($4,716.34)$66,378.47
190 RTI UNDERSEA CABLE $332,520.06 $938.57 $333,458.63
191 RTI UNDERSEA CABLE TIDELANDS $241,832.71 $682.60 $242,515.31
201 2015 LEASE REVENUE BONDS $0.00 $0.00
301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $7,294,077.17 $20,522.97 ($23,142.01)$7,291,458.13
302 ARTESIA BLVD RELINQUISHMENT $0.00 $0.00
609 BAYVIEW DRIVE REDEMPTION $84,788.95 $238.50 $85,027.45
610 LOWER PIER DISTRICT REDEMPTION $2,977.86 $8.38 $2,986.24
611 BEACH DRIVE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT REDEMPTION $42,026.32 $118.24 $42,144.56
612 BEACH DRIVE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT RESERVE $4,374.00 $12.31 $4,386.31
617 MYRTLE AVE ASSESSMENT $35,105.70 $586.01 $100.42 $35,792.13
618 LOMA DRIVE ASSESSMENT $71,071.83 $1,008.78 $202.79 $72,283.40
619 BAYVIEW DRIVE DISTRICT RESERVE $14,362.00 $40.41 $14,402.41
705 INSURANCE $6,214,710.90 $427,197.06 (141,194.80)(1,015.18)$6,499,697.98
715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $5,885,005.06 $8,986.78 $241,776.48 ($851,476.86)($2,029.01)$5,282,262.45
TOTAL GENERAL ACCOUNT $39,561,409.15 $1,945,471.87 ($790,581.84)($2,477,059.04)($185,452.70)$38,053,787.44
TRUST BALANCE BALANCE
ACCOUNTS 10/31/2018 DEPOSITS CHARGES 11/30/2018
PAYROLL $44,297.43 $1,211,384.34 ($1,204,699.57)$50,982.20
CABLE TV DEPOSIT $16,603.81 $16,603.81
$60,901.24 $1,211,384.34 ($1,204,699.57)$67,586.01
TOTAL ALL ACCOUNTS $38,121,373.45
BANK BALANCES
INVESTMENTS GENERAL $3,698,673.43
$34,747,657.66 TRUST ACCOUNTS $116,989.13
$3,815,662.56
OUTSTANDING CHECKS ($441,946.77)
INTEREST COLLECTED $3,373,715.79
TO DATE FOR FY 18/19 INVESTMENTS $34,747,657.66
$246,754.65 BALANCE $38,121,373.45
APPROVED : KAREN NOWICKI, CITY TREASURER
CASH BALANCE REPORT
NOVEMBER 2018
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0001
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT CLAIM
(Human Resources Manager Vanessa Godinez)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council reject the following claim and refer it to the City’s Liability
Claims Administrator.
Claimant: Brian Anstey
Date of Loss: June 26, 2018
Date Filed: November 19, 2018
Allegation: Police officers from an outside agency were chasing a suspect. The suspect damaged
the claimant’s fence while trying to escape.
Attachments:
1.Claim Report for Brian Anstey
Respectfully Submitted: Vanessa Godinez, Human Resources Manager
Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0005
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
ORDINANCE NO. 18-1389 - “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 5.78 TO THE
HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (TOBACCO RETAILERS)
REQUIRING LICENSURE OF TOBACCO RETAILERS AND LIMITING
SALE OF ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICES AND FLAVORED
TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO REDUCE THE ILLEGAL SALE OF
TOBACCO TO YOUTH AND AMENDING SECTION 1.10.040 TO
MAKE VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 5.78 SUBJECT TO
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY PROCEDURES”
(City Clerk Elaine Doerfling)
Recommended Action:
The City Clerk recommends that the City Council waive full reading and adopt by title Ordinance No.
18-1389.
Background:
At the December 11, 2018 City Council meeting, staff presented the draft ordinance for Council
consideration. Following the public hearing, the Council introduced the ordinance, with the following
revisions, by a 3-1 vote (Armato dissented, Duclos absent):
1.Section 5.78.100 D should now read: Minimum age for Persons selling tobacco. No Person
who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age shall engage in Tobacco Retailing.
2.The effective date of this ordinance is June 1, 2019.
General Plan Consistency:
This Ordinance, associated reports and recommendations have been evaluated for their consistency
with the City’s General Plan. Relevant policies are listed below:
Governance Element:
3.6 Healthy Air Hermosa. Maintain high quality outdoor and public spaces in Hermosa Beach through
the Healthy Air Hermosa program, or subsequent programs which aim to reduce cigarette smoke.
7.3 Health in all policies. Integrate health, livability, and sustainability principles when adopting new
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0005
policies and periodically review and evaluate adopted policies for their impact or opportunity to
improve health, livability, and sustainability.
Attachments:
1.Ordinance No. 18-1389
Respectfully Submitted by: Linda Abbott, Deputy City Clerk
Concur: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk
Noted: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Page 1 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 18-1389
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
ADDING CHAPTER 5.78 TO THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE (TOBACCO RETAILERS) REQUIRING LICENSURE OF
TOBACCO RETAILERS AND LIMITING SALE OF ELECTRONIC
SMOKING DEVICES AND FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO
REDUCE THE ILLEGAL SALE OF TOBACCO TO YOUTH AND
AMENDING SECTION 1.10.040 TO MAKE VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER
5.78 SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY PROCEDURES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A new Chapter 5.78, entitled “Tobacco Retailers” and containing Sections
5.78.010 through 5.78.150, is added to Title 5 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (the “Code”)
to read as follows:
Chapter 5.78 TOBACCO RETAILERS
Sections:
5.78.010 Title
5.78.020 Purpose
5.78.030 Definitions
5.78.040 Tobacco Retailer license required
5.78.050 Limits on eligibility and location
5.78.060 License application procedure
5.78.070 Issuance of Tobacco Retailer license
5.78.080 Term and renewal
5.78.090 License nontransferable
5.78.100 Operating requirements and prohibitions
5.78.110 Compliance monitoring and enforcement
5.78.120 Violations
5.78.130 Tobacco Retailing Without a Valid License
5.78.140 New license after revocation
Page 2 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.78.150 Implementing rules and regulations
5.78.010 Title.
This Chapter shall be known as the “Tobacco Retailer Ordinance” of the City of Hermosa Beach.
5.78.020 Purpose.
In enacting this Chapter, it is the intent of the City Council to encourage responsible Tobacco
Retailing and to discourage violations of tobacco-related laws, especially those involving the sale
or distribution of tobacco and nicotine products to youth.
5.78.30 Definitions.
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this Chapter, shall have the meanings
defined in this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
“Arm’s Length Transaction” means a Sale in good faith and for valuable consideration that
reflects the fair market value in the open market between two informed and willing parties, neither
of which is under any compulsion to participate in the transaction. A Sale between relatives, related
companies or partners, or a Sale for which a significant purpose is avoiding the effect of the
violations of this Chapter is not an Arm’s Length Transaction.
“Consumer” means a person who purchases a Tobacco Product for consumption and not for
Sale to another.
“Electronic Smoking Device” has the same meaning as the term is defined in Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code Section 8.40.010.
“Enforcement Official” means any member of the Hermosa Beach Code Enforcement
Department, the Hermosa Beach Police Department, the California Department of Health Services,
the California Alcohol Beverage Control Department, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department, or their designees.
“Flavored Tobacco Product” means a Tobacco Product containing an additive with an
artificial or natural flavor or an herb or spice, including but not limited to a characterizing flavor
such as mint, menthol, wintergreen, strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla,
coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee. A public statement or claim made or
disseminated by the manufacturer of a Tobacco Product, or by any person authorized or permitted
Page 3 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
by the manufacturer to make or disseminate public statements concerning such Tobacco Product,
that such Tobacco Product has or produces such a characterizing flavor shall constitute presumptive
evidence that the Tobacco Product is a Flavored Tobacco Product.
“Little Cigar” means any roll of tobacco other than a cigarette wrapped entirely or in part in
tobacco or any substance containing tobacco and weighing no more than three pounds per thousand.
“Little Cigar” includes, but is not limited to, any Tobacco Product known or labeled as “small cigar”
or “little cigar.”
“Package” means a pack, box, carton, or container of any kind or, if no other container, any
wrapping (including cellophane) in which a Tobacco Product is sold or offered for Sale to a
Consumer.
“Person” means any individual, partnership, co-partnership, firm, association, joint stock
company, corporation, or combination of the above in whatever form or character.
“Pharmacy” means any retail establishment in which the profession of pharmacy is practiced
by a pharmacist licensed by the State of California in accordance with the Business and Professions
Code and where prescription pharmaceuticals are offered for Sale, regardless of whether the retail
establishment sells other retail goods in addition to prescription pharmaceuticals.
“Restaurant” means a place where people payto sit and eat meals that are cooked and served
on the premises. “Restaurant” does not include a deli where prepared foods are ordered, purchased,
and picked up by a Person to be eaten outside or off the premises without service.
“Sale” means any transfer, exchange, barter, gift, offer for sale, or distribution for a
commercial purpose, in any manner or by any means whatsoever.
“Self-Service Display” means the open display or storage of Tobacco Products in a manner
that is physically accessible in any way to the general public without the assistance of the retailer or
employee of the retailer and a direct Person-to-Person transfer between the purchaser and the retailer
or retailer’s agent or employee. A vending machine is a form of Self-Service Display.
“Smoking” means the combustion, electrical ignition or vaporization and/or inhaling,
exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted, heated, or ignited cigar, cigarette, cigarillo, pipe, hookah,
Page 4 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Electronic Smoking Device, or any plant product intended for human inhalation that facilitates the
release of gases, particles, or vapors into the air.
“Tobacco Paraphernalia” means any item designed for the consumption, use, or preparation
of Tobacco Products.
“Tobacco Product” means:
(1) Any product containing, made, or derived from tobacco or nicotine that is intended
for human consumption, whether smoked, heated, chewed, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted,
sniffed, or ingested by any other means, including, but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, little cigars,
chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, snuff, snus;
(2) Any Electronic Smoking Device, with or without nicotine.
(3) Notwithstanding any provision of subsections (1), (2) and (3) to the contrary,
“Tobacco Product” includes any component, part, or accessory of a Tobacco Product, whether or
not sold separately. “Tobacco Product” does not include any product that has been approved by the
United States Food and Drug Administration for Sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other
therapeutic purposes where such product is marketed and sold solely for such an approved purpose.
“Tobacco Retailer” means any Person who sells, offers for Sale, or does or offers to
exchange for any form of consideration, tobacco, Tobacco Products or Tobacco Paraphernalia.
“Tobacco Retailing” shall mean the doing of any of these things. This definition is without regard
to the quantity of Tobacco Products or Tobacco Paraphernalia sold, offered for Sale, exchanged, or
offered for exchange.
5.78.040 Tobacco Retailer license required.
It shall be unlawful for any Person to engage in Tobacco Retailing in the City without first obtaining
and maintaining a valid Tobacco Retailer license pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter for each
location at which that activity is to occur.
5.78.050 Limits on eligibility and location.
A. No license may be issued under this Chapter to authorize Tobacco Retailing at other
than a fixed location, such as on foot or from vehicles.
Page 5 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. No license may be issued under this Chapter to authorize Tobacco Retailing at a
temporary or recurring temporary event, such as farmers’ markets, special events, or mobile carts.
C. No license may be issued under this Chapter to authorize Tobacco Retailing at any
location that violates any provision of the Hermosa Beach zoning ordinance.
D. Pharmacies. No license may be issued to authorize Tobacco Retailing in a
Pharmacy.
E. Schools and Youth-Populated Areas. Tobacco Retailing is prohibited near schools
and areas with youth populations as follows:
(1) No license may issue to authorize Tobacco Retailing within 500 feet of a Youth-
Populated Area as measured by a straight line from the nearest point of the property line of the
parcel on which the Youth-Populated Area is located to the nearest point of the property line of the
parcel on which the applicant’s business is located.
For the purposes of this subsection, a “Youth-Populated Area” means a parcel in the
City that is occupied by:
(i)a private or public kindergarten, elementary, middle, junior high, or high
school;
(ii) a library open to the public;
(iii)a playground or sandbox area open to the public, as defined by California
Health & Safety Code § 104495; or
(iv)a youth center, defined as a facility where children, ages 6 to 17, inclusive,
come together for programs and activities.
F. Premises Furnishing Alcohol and/or Food for On-Site Consumption. No license may
issue to authorize Tobacco Retailing at any of the following locations: (i) a place that is licensed
under state law to serve alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises (e.g., an “on-Sale”
license issued by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control); or (ii) a Restaurant, as
the term is defined in this Chapter.
G. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Tobacco Retailer operating lawfully on the
effective date of this ordinance that otherwise would be eligible for a Tobacco Retailer license for
Page 6 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the location for which a license is sought may receive or renew a license for that location so long
as: (i) the license is timely obtained and is renewed without lapse or permanent revocation (as
opposed to temporary suspension); (ii) the Tobacco Retailer is not closed for business or otherwise
suspends Tobacco Retailing for more than sixty (60) consecutive days; (iii) the Tobacco Retailer
does not substantially change the business premises or business operation; and (iv) the Tobacco
Retailer retains the right to operate under other applicable laws, including without limitation the
zoning ordinance, building codes, and business license tax ordinance.
5.78.060 License application procedure.
A.Any Person seeking a license pursuant to this Chapter shall submit a completed
application, on a City-approved form, to the Finance Department.
B. The application for a license under this Chapter shall be submitted in the name of
each and every business owner proposing to conduct retail tobacco Sales for each location at which
retail tobacco Sales are being proposed and shall be signed by each business owner or an authorized
agent thereof.
C. Said application shall contain the following information:
1. The name, address, and telephone number of each business owner seeking a
license.
2. The business name, address, and telephone number of the single, fixed location
for which a license is sought.
3. A single name and mailing address of an agent authorized by each business
owner to receive all communications and notices required by, authorized by, or convenient to the
enforcement of this Chapter. If an authorized agent is not supplied, each business owner shall be
understood to consent to the provision of notice at the business address specified in subparagraph 2
above.
4. Proof that the location for which a Tobacco Retailer license is sought has been
issued a valid state Tobacco Retailer’s license by the California Department of Tax and Fee
Administration.
Page 7 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. Whether any business owner or any agent of the business owner was previously
issued a license pursuant to this Chapter which was at any time suspended or revoked, and, if so,
the dates of the suspension period or the date of the revocation.
6. Whether any business owner or any agent of the business owner has been
determined to have violated any provision of this Chapter or any State or Federal tobacco-related
law, and, if so, the dates of all such violations within the preceding five (5) years.
7. Such other information as the Finance Department deems necessary for the
administration or enforcement of this Chapter as specified on the application form required by this
Chapter.
D. The City Council may establish by resolution the amount of an application fee for
the Tobacco Retailer license in an amount not to exceed the City’s reasonable cost of providing the
services required by this Chapter, in which case the City shall accept no application unless
accompanied by payment of such fee.
E. An applicant or agent thereof shall inform the Finance Department in writing of any
change in the information submitted on an application for a Tobacco Retailer registration within ten
(10) business days of a change.
5.78.070 Issuance of Tobacco Retailer license.
A. Upon the receipt of a completed application for a Tobacco Retailer license and the
corresponding application fee, if any, the Finance Department, with consultation of Community
Development Department for location requirements, shall issue a license unless substantial evidence
demonstrates that one or more of the following bases for denial exists:
1. The information presented in the application is inaccurate or false. Intentionally
supplying inaccurate or false information shall be a violation of this Chapter.
2. The application seeks authorization for Tobacco Retailing at a location
prohibited by Section 5.78.050 of this Chapter.
3. The applicant has had a license issued pursuant to this Chapter revoked within
the preceding twelve (12) months.
Page 8 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. The application seeks authorization for Tobacco Retailing that is otherwise
prohibited pursuant to this Chapter, that is unlawful pursuant to this Code (including without
limitation the Hermosa Beach zoning ordinance and business license regulations), or that is unlawful
pursuant to any other law.
5. The applicant is indebted to the City for any unpaid fee or fine.
B. Any applicant aggrieved by a decision denying a license pursuant to this
Chapter may contest the decision by appealing the decision to the City Council by filing with the
City Manager a written notice of appeal within ten (10) business days of the date of receipt of the
license denial. Upon receipt of a timely, written request for an appeal, the City Clerk shall set a
hearing to occur within forty-five (45) days before the Council or its designated hearing officer and
shall provide written notice of same by first class mail to the appellant. The City Council shall
sustain or overrule with conditions, the denial or intended revocation upon written findings within
thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the hearing.
5.78.080 Term and renewal.
A. A Tobacco Retailer license issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be valid for
one (1) year after the date of issuance, unless it is revoked earlier in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter. The expiration date of each Tobacco Retailer license shall be shown on the license
itself and each Tobacco Retailer license shall expire at midnight on the expiration date.
B. Each Tobacco Retailer who seeks to renew a license issued pursuant to this
Chapter shall submit a renewal application on a City-approved form and tender any applicable fees
to the Finance Department no later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the expiration of the
license. Any license issued pursuant to this Chapter that is not timely renewed shall expire and
become null and void at the end of its term.
C. An application to renew a license issued pursuant to this Chapter may be
denied by the Finance Department upon the grounds set forth in Section 5.78.070 of this Chapter.
5.78.090 License nontransferable.
A. No Person shall operate under a name, or conduct business under a
designation, not specified on the license.
Page 9 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. A license issued pursuant to this Chapter may not be transferred from one
Person to another or from one location to another. A change in business owner, business name, or
location shall render the license null and void, and shall require a new license to be obtained in
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
5.78.100 Operating requirements.
The following operating requirements shall be deemed conditions of any Tobacco Retailer
license issued pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, and failure to comply with any such
requirement shall be grounds for suspension, revocation, or the imposition of administrative fines
in accordance with Section 5.78.120 of this Chapter.
A. Posting of license. Each license issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be
prominently displayed in a publicly visible location at the permitted location.
B. Retail Sales to Persons under twenty one prohibited. No Person engaged in
Tobacco Retailing shall sell or offer to sell, give or offer to give, or transfer or offer to transfer any
Tobacco Product to any Person who is under the legal age under state law to purchase and possess
Tobacco Products, which is age twenty-one (or eighteen if active military).
C. Positive identification required. No Tobacco Retailer shall sell or transfer a
Tobacco Product to any Person who appears to be under the age of thirty (30) years old without first
examining the identification of that Person to confirm that Person is at least the minimum age under
state law to purchase and possess the product. The Tobacco Retailer or agent thereof shall refuse
the Sale or transfer of any Tobacco Product to any Person who appears to be under the age of thirty
(30) years old, who fails to present valid, legal photo identification prior to the Sale or transfer.
D. Minimum age for Persons selling tobacco. No Person who is younger than
eighteen (18) years of age shall engage in Tobacco Retailing.
E. Self-Service Displays prohibited. Tobacco Retailing by means of a self-
service display is prohibited.
F. Electronic Smoking Device. No retailer shall sell an Electronic Smoking
Device or any product used in an Electronic Smoking Device. The prohibition in the preceding
sentence shall not apply to a retailer that permits only patrons 21 years of age or older, or active
Page 10 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
duty military personnel who are eighteen (18) years of age or older, to enter the location where the
Tobacco Product is sold.
G. Flavored Tobacco Products. No retailer shall sell Flavored Tobacco
Products. The prohibition in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a retailer that permits only
patrons twenty-one (21) years of age or older, or active duty military personnel who are eighteen
(18) years of age or older, to enter the location where the Tobacco Product is sold.
H. Packaging and Labeling. No Tobacco Retailer shall Sell any Tobacco
Product to any Consumer unless such product: (1) is sold in the original manufacturer’s Package
intended for Sale to Consumers; and (2) conforms to all applicable federal labeling requirements.
I. Minimum Package Size for Little Cigars. No Tobacco Retailer shall Sell to a
Consumer any Little Cigar unless it is sold in a Package of at least twenty Little Cigars.
J. False and misleading advertising prohibited. A Tobacco Retailer who does
not have a valid license pursuant to this Chapter or whose license has been suspended or revoked
shall not display any item or advertisement relating to Tobacco Products that promotes the Sale or
distribution of such products from the premises or that could lead a reasonable Consumer to believe
that Tobacco Products can be obtained at that location. Such display or advertisement in violation
of this provision shall constitute Tobacco Retailing without a valid license.
5.78.110 Compliance monitoring and enforcement.
A. Compliance checks shall be conducted so as to allow Enforcement Officials
to determine, at a minimum, if a Tobacco Retailer is complying with laws regulating youth access
to tobacco. The Chief of Police may also conduct compliance checks to determine compliance with
other laws applicable to Tobacco Retailing.
B. During business hours, Enforcement Officials shall have the right to enter
any place of business for which a license is required by this Chapter for the purpose of making
reasonable inspections to observe and enforce compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and
any other applicable regulations, laws, and statutes.
Page 11 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. The Hermosa Beach Police Department (or designee thereof) may
promulgate and adopt policies, procedures, and guidelines for the participation of Persons under the
minimum legal age for tobacco purchases in compliance checks pursuant to this Chapter (“Youth
Decoys”).
D. Enforcement Officials shall inspect each Tobacco Retailer at least one (1)
time per every twelve (12) month period. Nothing in this paragraph shall create a right of action in
any licensee or other Person against the City or its agents.
5.78.120 Violations.
A. Administrative fine. In addition to any other penalty authorized by law,
violations of this Chapter are subject to the administrative citations and penalties provisions in Title
1, Chapter 1.10 of this Code.
B. Suspension or revocation.
1. In addition to any other penalty authorized by law, a Tobacco Retailer’s
license shall be suspended or revoked if the City finds based on a preponderance of the evidence,
after the licensee is afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard, that any of the following has
occurred:
a. The licensee or his/her agent or employee has violated any provision
of this Chapter;
b. The licensee or his/her agent or employee has continued to operate as
a Tobacco Retailer after a license issued pursuant to this Chapter has been suspended; or
c. The retailer violates any provision of this Chapter twice within any
thirty-six (36) month period.
2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a license may be revoked if it is
determined that one or more grounds for denial of a license under Section 5.78.070 of this Chapter
existed at the time the application was made or at any time before the license was issued. No
administrative fine shall accompany a revocation of a wrongly issued license.
Page 12 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. Any applicant aggrieved by a decision revoking or suspending a license
pursuant to this Chapter may contest the decision in the same manner as a challenge of an
administrative citation, pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 5.78.070(B).
5.78.130 Tobacco Retailing Without a Valid License.
In addition to any other penalty authorized by law, if the City based on a preponderance of evidence,
after notice and an opportunity to be heard, determines that any Person has engaged in Tobacco
Retailing at a location without a valid Tobacco Retailer’s license, either directly or through the
Person’s agents or employees, the Person shall be ineligible to apply for, or to be issued, a Tobacco
Retailer’s license as follows:
1. After a first violation of this section at a location, no new license may be issued for the
Person or the location (unless ownership of the business at the location has been transferred in an
Arm’s Length Transaction), until thirty (30) days have passed from the date of the violation.
2. After a second violation of this section at a location within any thirty-six (36) month
period, no new license may issue for the Person or the location (unless ownership of the business at
the location has been transferred in an Arm’s Length Transaction), until ninety (90) days have
passed from the date of the violation.
3. After of a third or subsequent violation of this section at a location within any thirty-six
(36) month period, no new license may be issued for the Person or the location (unless ownership
of the business at the location has been transferred in an Arm’s Length Transaction), until three (3)
years have passed from the date of the violation.
5.78.140 New license after revocation.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, no Tobacco Retailer’s license shall be issued
to a Tobacco Retailer (or business owner thereof) whose license has previously been revoked
pursuant to this Chapter for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the prior revocation,
unless ownership of the business at the location has been transferred in an Arm’s Length
Transaction.
5.78.150 Implementing rules and regulations.
Page 13 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The City Manager is hereby authorized to make and promulgate any rules and regulations necessary
to implement the requirements of this Chapter. The rules and regulations shall be in addition to the
requirements set forth in this Chapter. In the event of a conflict between a provision set forth in this
Chapter and a rule or regulation promulgated by the City Manager pursuant to this section, the more
stringent or restrictive requirement or condition shall apply.
Section 2. Administrative Citations and Penalties. Section 1.10.040 of Chapter 1.10 of Title 1 the
HBMC is hereby amended to add subparagraph (A)(19) to read as follows:
“19. Chapter 5.78: Tobacco Retailer License”
SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,
clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any Person or circumstance, is for any reason
held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity
or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences,
clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other Person or circumstance. The
City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach hereby declares that it would have adopted each section,
subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that
any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases
hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect on June
1, 2019.
SECTION 5. The City Council designated the City Attorney to prepare a summary of this
ordinance to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c)(1) in lieu of the full text
of said Ordinance. The City Clerk caused said summary to be published on January 3, 2019 [five
(5) days before the adoption of the Ordinance] in the Easy Reader, a weekly adjudicated newspaper
of general circulation, published and circulated in Hermosa Beach. Prior to the expiration of fifteen
(15) days after the date of adoption of the Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be
re-published in The Easy Reader.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance, shall enter the
same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and
Page 14 of 14 18-1389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed
and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th day of January, 2019 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________________________________________________
City Clerk City Attorney
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0015
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AND REGULATE
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CORRESPONDING DESIGN STANDARDS,
AND UPDATE ON AT&T’S PROPOSAL FOR MULTIPLE
INSTALLATIONS OF SMALLER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES TO PROVIDE REPLACEMENT COVERAGE TO
EXISTING SITES LOCATED AT 20TH AND 29TH COURT
(Continued from meeting of September 25, 2018)
(Assistant City Attorney Lauren Langer,
Community Development Director Ken Robertson,
and Public Works Director Glen Kau)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1.Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance (Exhibit A) to amend Municipal Code, Title 12
to regulate wireless telecommunication facilities in the public right of way, and determine the
project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act;
2.Adopt the attached Resolution to approve the corresponding Design Standards for wireless
telecommunication facilities in the public right of way;
3.Direct staff to bring back a master license agreement with a standard lease rate for use of any
public property for these facilities; and
4.Direct Public Works staff to bring back an amendment to the master fee schedule to establish
application fees and penalty fees.
Executive Summary:
The demand for wireless broadband is expected to grow exponentially over the next several years.
This growth is a result of the implementation of the tremendous amount of digital content such as
streaming video, social media, Smart City applications, robots, drones, self-driving cars, artificial
intelligence, and many more Internet of Things (IoT), applications.
Traditionally, wireless antennas and equipment were primarily installed on large towers on private
land and on the rooftops of buildings. These deployments are subject to conditional use permit
approval under the Zoning Code and are currently prohibited in residential zones.
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 1 of 9
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0015
In recent years, companies increasingly seek to install wireless facilities in the City’s public right of
way (“ROW”) on utility poles, streetlights and new poles. To accommodate the ever-growing demand,
the wireless broadband telecommunications industry is starting to look for small cell 5G (fifth
generation of cellular mobile communications) technology, which is a tenfold improvement in capacity
over existing broadband. 5G technology is distinguished from the present 4G based wireless service
by use of low power transmitters with coverage radius of approximately 400 feet - 5G thus requires
close spacing of antennas and more of them. Street light poles and other poles are, therefore, ideally
suited for 5G antenna placement due to their sheer numbers and locations where they are deployed
throughout municipalities. Current predictions indicate that the next wave of wireless facility
deployment (5G) will involve $275 billion in investment over the next decade, with the vast majority of
these new facilities anticipated to be placed in the ROW. Historically, telecommunications
installations in the ROW are typically addressed through encroachment permits. However, the City’s
existing Municipal Code contains very minimal and outdated standards or regulations designed to
address the unique aesthetic, safety, operational and locational issues in connection with the
installation of wireless facilities in the ROW.
This report introduces an ordinance to provide the regulatory framework and standards for permitting
the installation of small wireless facilities within the City’s public right of way. Staff has been working
with the City Attorney’s office to draft an ordinance following City Council direction on November 28,
2017. As staff was finalizing the ordinance to present to the City Council over the summer, the
Federal Communications Commission issued an order concerning small wireless facilities in the
ROW. The draft ordinance and corresponding design standards have been revised in response. The
proposed ordinance provides two benefits: (1) it updates the City’s outdated regulations allowing the
City to respond to an increased interest in locating small wireless facilities in the ROW (as opposed
to private property); and (2) it provides a mechanism to allow two existing wireless facilities to re-
locate to other locations in the ROW, which will resolve longstanding issues surrounding the facilities
located in narrow residential alleys at 29th Court and 20th Court.
Background:
City’s Current Rules and Regulations:
The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is outdated and ambiguous as to whether the ROW is subject
to the prohibition of wireless communication facilities (WCFs) in residential zones. The regulations
governing the ROW date back to 1994 and were originally drafted for traditional telephone
corporations. It should be noted that the City’s ROWs are not zoned and are considered
“unclassified” property under the Zoning Ordinance. Yet to implement the intent of the City’s wireless
regulations in the Zoning Code, and because the Code is ambiguous, the prohibition against WCFs
in the residential zones has typically been extended to the ROW adjacent to the residentially zoned
areas. Since so much of the City is residential, it is becoming more challenging for wireless carriers
to find feasible locations only in the City’s commercial zones. The City has heard at least one
argument from a carrier that not allowing any wireless in the ROW in residential zones effectively
prohibits service, which could create problems under Federal and State law. The City must be careful
not to “effectively prohibit” wireless service by preventing a carrier from closing a “significant gap” in
service coverage. The effective prohibition inquiry involves a two-pronged analysis requiring (1) the
showing of a ‘significant gap’ in service coverage and (2) some inquiry into the feasibility of
alternative facilities or site locations.
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 2 of 9
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0015
Limits of City Authority and Regulatory Setting:
The City’s role in the siting and design of WCFs is generally limited to aesthetics. Essentially, the
Federal Telecommunications Act is intended to ensure that the public has sufficient access to
telecommunication services. Based on this Federal law, a local government shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Further, no State or local
government may regulate cell tower placement based on “the environmental (health) effects of radio
frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations
concerning such emissions.” A zoning authority’s consideration of health effects, including potential
effects on property values due to potential radio frequency emissions, may not serve as “substantial
evidence” for purposes of denying a WCF.
As utilities, telephone companies, which include wireless telecommunications providers, may use the
ROW to deploy facilities under their State franchise conferred in California Public Utilities Code
Section 7901. That right does have some limitations. Specifically, Section 7901 provides that such
use must be “in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road….”
The phrase “incommode the public use” in Section 7901 means “to unreasonably subject the public
use to inconvenience or discomfort; to unreasonably trouble, annoy, molest, embarrass,
inconvenience; to unreasonably hinder, impede, or obstruct the public use.” “Incommode” is “broad
enough ‘to be inclusive of concerns related to the appearance of a facility’”, and therefore, Section
7901 does not prohibit local governments from conditioning the approval of a particular permanent
siting permit on aesthetic concerns.
In addition to Section 7901, Public Utilities Code Section 2902 also protects a local government’s
right “to supervise and regulate the relationship 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, the location of the poles, wires, mains, or
conduits of any public utility, on, under, or above any public streets…within the limits of the municipal
corporation.” This provision is a further basis for a local government to restrict the location of
proposed facilities due to public safety reasons or other local concerns or even deny applications in
appropriate circumstances.
Further, a local government has the right under Section 7901.1 “to exercise reasonable control as to
the time, place, and manner in which roads…are accessed [by telephone companies].” The “time,
place and manner” of temporary access refers to “when, where, and how telecommunications service
providers gain entry to the public rights-of-way.” This includes a requirement for obtaining
encroachment permits. There are other tangential constraints on local regulation from State and
Federal law. At the State level, the CPUC may have authority to invoke the statewide interest in
telecommunications services to take action to preempt a local ordinances for particular
telecommunications projects.
Recent FCC Orders:
In addition, recent changes in Federal law place shortened time frames and other requirements on
local review of wireless facility installations in the ROW. Under a Federal Communications
Commission (“FCC”) declaratory order and regulations1 that are expected to go into effect on January
14, 2019, if a city does not render a decision on a small wireless facility application within a specified
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 3 of 9
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0015
time period (60 days for installations on existing structures, and 90 days for new structures), the
failure to meet the deadline for action will be presumed to violate federal law (both a failure to act
within a reasonable period of time and an effective prohibition of wireless services). On aesthetics
and undergrounding, the FCC declares that such requirements will not be preempted if they are
reasonable, no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments,
and objective and published in advance. Further, another FCC order that was released in August
prohibits cities from imposing a moratorium on wireless installations, which means that there can be
no pause in accepting or processing applications to allow a city to study and address potential
issues.2
While the legal validity of both of these FCC orders is being litigated, the effectiveness of the orders
has not been stayed pending the resolution of the litigation.3 Staff therefore is taking steps discussed
in this report to address wireless deployments in the ROW consistent with the new Federal
regulations, and among them, recommends Council adopt an ordinance setting out the permitting
procedures for these facilities in the ROW. Should the City Council approve the proposed ordinance,
staff will bring back the Master License Agreement for use of City-owned infrastructure in the ROW
and fee resolutions at a future meeting. Additionally, staff has prepared draft design standards that
will provide the industry direction on the City’s aesthetic, location and design requirements. This draft
document is provided as an attachment to this report and once approved by the Council, will be
published by mid-January, as required by the FCC order.
Discussion:
Summary of Proposed Ordinance:
The ordinance would add a new Chapter 12.18 to the Municipal Code, Wireless Facilities in the
Public Right of Way. For all wireless facility installations in the ROW, the ordinance provides, among
other regulations, the permit and review procedures as well as the operation and maintenance
standards. The ordinance treats wireless installations in the ROW similar to other installations in the
ROW by requiring an encroachment permit. Specifically, the ordinance sets additional standards and
requirements for obtaining an encroachment permit to install wireless facilities. The ordinance
balances the community’s need for wireless services, the industry’s need to deploy quickly, and the
City’s obligation to maintain safety and protect the aesthetic qualities of our neighborhoods. Finally,
the ordinance allows for necessary adaptability, by allowing the Director to publish administrative
regulations to help implement the ordinance. Once the encroachment permit is issued, the carrier
may still need to obtain traffic control plans, construction permits and if necessary, a license to attach
to City infrastructure.
____________________
1 See In re Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment , Federal
Communications Commission, FCC 18-133, WT Docket 17-79, WC Docket 17-84 (rel. Sept. 27, 2018).
2 See In re Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, FCC 18-111, WC Docket
17-84, WT Docket 17-79 (rel. Aug. 3, 2018).
3 Local governments and associations filed a petition to the FCC to stay the effectiveness of the FCC order pending
resolution of the appeals. As of the time of writing, the FCC had not acted on the petition.
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 4 of 9
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0015
Under the ordinance, wireless encroachment permits are approved by the Public Works Director and
may be appealed to a hearing officer. Given the short time that the City has to act on these
applications under Federal law, having two days to process appeals, staff recommends that the
appeals be heard by an independent hearing officer, who can hold hearings on short notice within the
short time frame. Doing so also provides an independent level of oversight over the decisions before
they become final and subject to challenge in court.
The ordinance contains a comprehensive list of permit conditions that will apply to wireless
encroachment permits, including insurance requirements, indemnity, performance bond for removal
upon abandonment, and maintenance and inspection requirements. The permits are in effect for a
term of 10 years, which stems from a State law that allows the City to limit the permits to 10 years;
compared to utility poles, for example, which are erected in perpetuity.
During the November 28, 2017 City Council meeting, the Council agreed that the siting of WCFs
within Open Space zones should be avoided due to their more intrusive height and bulk, use of
ground space for support equipment and higher power output. Small cell sites in the ROW were
favorable due to their less intrusive scale, lower output and distribution throughout the City. The
ordinance responds to that direction and only covers small wireless facilities in the ROW.
The Council also stressed the importance of public awareness and involvement for WCFs. The
ordinance also requires applicants to provide mailed notices to owners, occupants and multi-family
building property managers within 300 feet of the proposed facility before they are approved.
Design Standards:
The ordinance provides that design and development standards will be established separately. Given
how fast this technology is changing, staff recommends having these standards be adopted by
separate resolution and not placing them in the Municipal Code. Given the frequent and often
important changes to the law and technology of wireless installations, especially the pending litigation
surrounding the FCC Order, administrative design standards affords the City the flexibility to readily
adapt and tailor its regulations to these changes and the concerns of the City. Many cities follow this
format. The draft Design Standards are attached to this report for City Council approval. The FCC
order also requires that cities have design standards published by mid-January. The intent of these
design standards is to establish objective camouflage and concealment elements for small wireless
facilities in the ROW. The Public Works Director may waive or impose additional standards if doing so
is conducive to site being the least intrusive, maximally blending with the natural and built
environment of the City, and protecting the aesthetic character of the City, or if a standard creates a
prohibition on service.
Siting these facilities is a difficult task for the carriers, as they try to meet the City’s goals while
providing the coverage they need to serve their customers. The design standards require a pre-
application meeting during which City staff can discuss the proposal with the carrier and confirm
whether the proposal meets the standards. This also provides the carriers an opportunity to discuss
location with staff and attempt to site the facilities in a way that best meets the City’s aesthetic and
safety goals. The standards also try to balance the unique land use characteristics in Hermosa
Beach. For example, staff proposes that in the City’s narrow alleys adjacent to residential properties,
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 5 of 9
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0015
the facilities be placed above roof lines, to avoid facilities next to residential windows and decks. On
walk streets, staff proposes that the facilities be located lower to avoid a major disruption in the
aesthetics and views. Wireless facilities are generally required to be as small, short and unobtrusive
as possible. The tradeoff of having smaller and shorter facilities is that it may result in more facilities
in the ROW to achieve the coverage demands that the carriers desire. Staff believes that with
required concealment elements this is an appropriate tradeoff. Staff also recommends that when
there is a choice in location, carriers should choose to site on a pole or street light that is between
structures and not immediately adjacent to a structure. The proposed standards include that WCFs
be prohibited on The Strand and Pier Plaza, and that lighting be prohibited unless required by the
Federal Aviation Administration. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the design standards
with the Ordinance.
Update on AT&T’s Proposal:
Two WCFs located in narrow residential alleys at 29th Court and 20th Court have been the subject of
longstanding complaints and concerns of nearby residents due to the proximity of these antennas
next to and viewable from private homes. Federal law prevents the City from making regulatory
decisions based on concerns from the residents of alleged health impacts from these facilities.
Nevertheless, the City has been working closely and collaboratively with AT&T since July 2014 to find
relocation sites.
For comprehensive background information on these two specific facilities, please refer to the
attachment section which includes links to previous City Council and Planning Commission reports.
Relocation options for both sites have been limited based on topography of the area and the City’s
wireless regulations that currently prohibit wireless in the residential zones and in the ROW. Since
November of 2017, AT&T has been working on preparing applications for a series of small cell sites
in the ROW to provide replacement coverage for the removal and replacement of the existing 20th
and 29th Court facilities and to address its growing coverage needs. AT&T expects to submit its
applications shortly after ordinance adoption, but will need an ordinance to reference to ensure that
their applications are complete prior to submittal. AT&T intends to submit applications for 16 sites.
Twelve sites are required to provide replacement coverage for the 29th and 20th Court facilities and 4
additional sites to fill remaining gaps in coverage, which currently exist.
Next Steps:
Once the details of the ordinance are approved by the City Council, staff will bring to City Council a
proposed Master License Agreement (MLA) for use of City infrastructure in the ROW and a fee
resolution for any fees associated with these applications. Given the short timing to approve these
applications, the MLA would be a template that once approved by the Council, could be issued by the
Public Works Director with the wireless encroachment permit. Any material changes to the template
would need to be approved by the Council and would not be approved at the Director level. In
addition to the ordinance, design standards resolution, MLA and fee resolution, City staff is
developing a standard application for wireless facility installations in the ROW, all of which together
will serve as the City’s framework for addressing applications for wireless facility installations in the
ROW. As envisioned under Federal and State law, the framework promotes swift processing of
simple and routine attachments of small wireless facilities in the ROW. Adoption of the proposed
framework will help the City meet the strict requirements of Federal law with the necessary flexibility
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 6 of 9
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0015
to adapt as the law and the technology changes.
General Plan Consistency:
This report and associated recommendations have been evaluated for their consistency with the
City’s General Plan. Chapter 7 of the City’s General Plan Infrastructure element states that
telecommunication systems support advanced and innovative communication methods between
residents, businesses, visitors, and the City. Telecommunications infrastructure and services are
critical to businesses for economic growth and job creation. Residents rely on telecommunications for
quality of life, education, research, and access to health care and government services.
Telecommunications services in Hermosa Beach include cable television, high speed Internet, and
wireless and ground-line telephone services. A variety of private companies provides these services
and have infrastructure located throughout the City to provide consistent and reliable
telecommunication services to the community. In August 2015, Hermosa Beach had a total of 5
mobile providers.
The ordinance is consistent with General Plan Infrastructure Goal 1 which aims to ensure
infrastructure systems are functional, safe, and well maintained through implementing the following
policies:
Infrastructure, Goal 1 Policies
·1.1 Infrastructure systems plan. Establish and adopt an integrated, holistic systems
approach to guide infrastructure development, improvement, maintenance, and resilience.
·1.3 Right-of-way coordination. Ensure infrastructure maintenance and repair projects within
the public right-of-way are coordinated with utilities and agencies to minimize additional
roadway repaving or accelerated deterioration.
·1.4 Fair share assessments. Require new development and redevelopment projects to pay
their fair share of the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to serve the project, and
ensure that needed infrastructure is available prior to or at the time of project completion.
·1.5 New technologies.When feasible, utilize emerging technologies and funding strategies
that improve infrastructure efficiency, sustainability, and resiliency.
·1.6 Utility Infrastructure Siting. Ensure new infrastructure is sited in a manner to minimize
negative impacts to the community and prioritize projects to address the greatest deficiencies.
·1.7 Aesthetic and urban form. Require infrastructure and infrastructure improvements that
are aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the scenic character of the surrounding area.
The Ordinance is also consistent with General Plan Infrastructure Goal 7 which aims to ensure a
reliable and efficient telecommunications network is available to every resident, business, and
institution through implementing the following policies:
Infrastructure, Goal 7 Policies
·7.1 Accommodate future technologies. Encourage telecommunications providers and
building developments to size infrastructure and facilities to accommodate future expansion
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 7 of 9
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0015
and changes in the need for technology.
·7.2 Appropriate siting of telecommunications infrastructure.Design and site all facilities
to minimize their visibility, prevent visual clutter, and reduce conflicts with surrounding land
uses while recognizing that the entire community can have access to communication
infrastructure.
·7.3 Co-location of facilities. Encourage telecommunications facilities located adjacent to, on,
or incorporated into existing or proposed buildings, towers, or other structures.
·7.4 Emergency services technology. Prioritize telecommunications services used for the
safety and well-being of the community.
·7.5 Access for all.Encourage the installation and availability of facilities that provide free
telecommunication access at key activity and business centers throughout the community.
Environmental Analysis:
The ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical
change in the environment, directly or indirectly. Most of the terms and scope of city discretion are
guided by existing State and Federal law. The ordinance creates an administrative process to
process requests for wireless facilities in the ROW and the City’s discretion with these applications is
limited. The ordinance does not authorize any specific development or installation on any specific
piece of property within the City’s boundaries, most of which will be placed on existing infrastructure.
Alternatively, even if the ordinance is a “project” within the meaning of State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15378, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA on multiple grounds. First, the ordinance is
exempt CEQA because the City Council’s adoption of the ordinance is covered by the general rule
that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3)). The ordinance creates an administrative
procedure for wireless carriers to apply to place facilities in the ROW, often on existing infrastructure.
Moreover, in the event that the ordinance is interpreted so as to permit installation of wireless
facilities on a particular site, the installation would be exempt from CEQA review in accordance with
either State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (replacement or reconstruction), State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures), and/or State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15304 (minor alterations to land), as these facilities are allowed under Federal
and State law, are by their nature smaller when placed in the ROW and subject to various siting and
design preferences to prevent aesthetic impact to the extent feasible. The design guidelines are
required under Federal law and describe the design preferences and location priorities that the City
desires. The guidelines are aesthetic in nature and help to conceal and make these facilities more
compatible. They do not result in changes to the physical environment, as the authority to place
these facilities in the ROW is governed by State and Federal law.
Fiscal Impact:
No fiscal impacts are associated with the ordinance. However, installation of wireless facilities would
be subject to fees and yield potential lease revenue. Staff will bring to City Council a proposed
Master License Agreement for use of City infrastructure in the ROW and a fee resolution for any fees
associated with these applications at a later date.
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 8 of 9
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0015
Summary:
Much of Hermosa Beach is zoned for residential use, where WCFs are prohibited, leaving fewer
options for carriers to locate. Allowing and regulating WCFs in the ROW, subject to reasonable time,
place and manner restrictions, will strike the balance between allowing carriers to improve their
service in a manner that is less intrusive on the community, while balancing the wireless providers’
and their customers’ rights for coverage while taking into account Hermosa’s unique characteristics.
Many carriers are considering smaller wireless facilities in the ROW in lieu of large macro facilities,
which tend to generate significant public opposition. These facilities are small, unobtrusive and are
often attached to light poles and utility poles. Other carriers and neutral hosts are currently waiting on
adoption of an ordinance which allows and regulates wireless telecommunication facilities within the
ROW.
Attachments:
1.Draft Ordinance (Exhibit A)
2.Draft Design Standards (Exhibit B)
3.Photos of sample wireless facility designs - prohibited and allowed
4.Link to November 28, 2017, City Council staff report and attachments (Page 8 of Agenda,
Municipal Matters Item c)
5.Link to January 26, 2016, City Council staff report and attachments (Page 11 of Agenda,
Municipal Matters Item d)
6.Link to October 20, 2015, Planning Commission staff report and attachments (Section II Public
Hearing Item 6)
7.Link to July 21, 2015, Planning Commission staff report and attachments (Section II Public
Hearing Item 6)
8.Link to January 27, 2015, City Council staff report
Respectfully Submitted by: Lauren Langer, Assistant City Attorney
Nicole Ellis, Associate Planner
Kim Chafin, Planning Manager
Concur: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director
Concur : Glen W.C. Kau, P.E., Director of Public Works/ City Engineer
Legal Review: Lauren Langer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 9 of 9
powered by Legistar™
ORDINANCE NO. [__]
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO
AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 12, TO ADD CHAPTER 12.18, “WIRELESS
FACILITIES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY” TO REGULATE WIRELESS
FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A new Chapter 12.18 of Title 12 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is
hereby added to regulate wireless facilities in the public right of way (ROW) to read as follows:
CHAPTER 12.18
WIRELESS FACILITIES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
Section 12.18.010 Applicability.
The siting and construction of wireless facilities in the ROW are subject to the provisions
of this Chapter 12.18. The siting and construction of wireless facilities on all other property are
subject to the provisions in Title 17 of this code (the Zoning Ordinance).
Section 12.18.020 Purpose.
a) The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a process for managing, and uniform standards
for acting upon, requests for the placement of wireless facilities within the ROW of the
City consistent with the City’s obligation to promote the public health, safety, and
welfare, to manage the ROW, and to ensure that the use and enjoyment of the ROW is
not inconvenienced by the use of the ROW for the placement of wireless facilities. The
City recognizes the importance of wireless facilities to provide high-quality
communications service to the residents and businesses within the City, and the City also
recognizes its obligation to comply with applicable Federal and State law regarding the
placement of personal wireless services facilities in its ROW. This Ordinance shall be
interpreted consistent with those provisions.
Section 12.18.030 Definitions. The terms used in this Chapter shall have the following
meanings. In the event of any conflict between these definitions and applicable definitions in
Federal law, the applicable provisions of Federal law shall control over these definitions.
Application: A formal request, including all required and requested documentation and
information, submitted by an applicant to the City for a wireless encroachment permit.
Applicant means a person filing an application for placement or modification of a
wireless facility in the ROW.
Page 2 of 16
Base Station shall have the meaning as set forth in Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations
(C.F.R.) Section 1.40001(b)(1), or any successor provision.
Director means the City’s Director of Public Works or designee.
Eligible Facilities Request shall have the meaning as set forth in Title 47 C.F.R. Section
1.40001(b)(3), or any successor provision.
FCC: means the Federal Communications Commission or its lawful successor.
Hearing Officer means a person designated by the City Council to conduct hearings.
Municipal Infrastructure means City-owned or controlled property structures, objects,
and equipment in the ROW, including, but not limited to, street lights, traffic control
structures, banners, street furniture, bus stops or other poles, lighting fixtures, or electroliers
located within the ROW.
Permittee means any person or entity granted a wireless encroachment permit pursuant
to this Chapter.
Personal Wireless Services shall have the same meaning as set forth in 47 United States
Code Section 332(c)(7)(C)(i).
Personal Wireless Services Facility means a wireless facility used for the provision of
personal wireless services.
Public Right of Way (ROW) means any public street, alley, sidewalk, street island,
median or parkway that is owned or granted by easement, operated, or controlled by the City.
Small Cell Facility: means (and is intended to be consistent with and declaratory of the
definition of “small wireless facility” in Title 47 C.F.R. 1.6002(l), or any successor
provision), a personal wireless services facility that meets any of the following conditions:
1) The facility—
(i) is mounted on an existing or proposed structure 50 feet or less in height,
including antennas, as defined in Title 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1320(d), or
(ii) is mounted on an existing or proposed structure no more than 10 percent taller
than other adjacent structures, or
(iii) does not extend an existing structure 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 the definition of antenna in Title 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1320(d)), 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;
Page 3 of 16
4) The facility does not require antenna structure registration under Title 47 C.F.R. Part
17;
5) The facility is not located on Tribal lands, as defined under Title 36 C.F.R. Section
800.16(x); and
6) The facility does not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of
the applicable safety standards specified in Title 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1307(b).
Structure: means an apparatus located in the ROW which is in any way attached to,
constructed on, or built into the ground, either directly or indirectly. This term includes,
without limitation, street lights, traffic signals, and utility poles, but it does not include
towers.
Support Structure: Any structure capable of supporting a base station.
Tower: Any apparatus built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC-
licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities, including those that are
constructed for personal wireless 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. This definition does not include utility
poles.
Underground areas: Those areas where there are no electrical facilities or facilities of
the incumbent local exchange carrier in the ROW; or where the wires associated with the
same are or are required to be located underground; or where the same are scheduled to be
converted from overhead to underground. Electrical facilities are distribution facilities owned
by an electric utility and do not include transmission facilities used or intended to be used to
transmit electricity at nominal voltages in excess of 35,000 volts.
Utility Pole: A structure in the ROW designed to support electric, telephone and similar
utility lines. A tower is not a utility pole.
Wireless Encroachment Permit: A permit issued pursuant to this Chapter authorizing
the placement or modification of a wireless facility of a design specified in the permit at a
particular location within the ROW; and the modification of any existing support structure to
which the wireless facility is proposed to be attached.
Wireless Facility, or Facility: The transmitters, antenna structures and other types of
installations used for the provision of wireless services at a fixed location, including, without
limitation, any associated tower(s), support structure(s), and base station(s).
Wireless Service Provider: An entity that provides personal wireless services to end
users.
Wireless Infrastructure Provider: A person that owns, controls, operates or manages a
wireless facility or portion thereof within the ROW.
Page 4 of 16
Wireless Regulations: Those regulations adopted by the City Council or Director
implementing the provisions of this Chapter.
Section 12.18.040 Scope.
a) In general. There shall be a type of encroachment permit entitled a “wireless
encroachment permit,” which shall be subject to all of the same requirements as an
encroachment permit would under Chapter 12.16 in addition to all of the requirements of this
Chapter. Unless exempted, every person who desires to place a wireless facility in the ROW
or modify an existing wireless facility in the ROW must obtain a wireless encroachment
permit authorizing the placement or modification in accordance with this Chapter. Except
for small cell facilities, facilities qualifying as eligible facilities requests, or any other type of
facility expressly allowed in the ROW by State or Federal law, no other wireless facilities
shall be permitted pursuant to this Chapter.
b) Exemptions. This Chapter does not apply to:
1) The placement or modification of facilities by the City or by any other agency of
the State solely for public safety purposes.
2) Installation of a "cell on wheels," “cell on truck” or a similar structure for a
temporary period in connection with an emergency or event, but no longer than
required for the emergency or event, provided that installation does not involve
excavation, movement, or removal of existing facilities.
c) Other applicable requirements. In addition to the wireless encroachment permit
required herein, the placement of a wireless facility in the ROW requires the persons who
will own or control those facilities to obtain all permits required by applicable law, and to
comply with applicable law, including, but not limited, applicable law governing radio
frequency (RF) emissions and all requirements for encroachments under HBMC Chapter
12.16.
d) Pre-existing Facilities in the ROW. Nothing in this Chapter shall validate any existing
illegal or unpermitted wireless facilities. All existing wireless facilities shall comply with
and receive a wireless encroachment permit, when applicable, to be considered legal and
conforming.
e) Public use. Except as otherwise provided by California law, any use of the ROW
authorized pursuant to this Chapter will be subordinate to the City’s use and use by the
public.
Section 12.18.050 Administration.
a) Review Authority. The Director is responsible for administering this Chapter. As part of
the administration of this Chapter, the Director may:
1) Interpret the provisions of this Chapter;
2) Develop and implement standards governing the placement and modification of
wireless facilities consistent with the requirements of this Chapter, including
regulations governing collocation and resolution of conflicting applications for
placement of wireless facilities;
Page 5 of 16
3) Develop and implement acceptable design, location and development standards for
wireless facilities in the ROW, taking into account the zoning districts bounding the
ROW;
4) Develop forms and procedures for submission of applications for placement or
modification of wireless facilities, and proposed changes to any support structure
consistent with this Chapter;
5) Collect, as a condition of the completeness of any application, any fee established
by this Chapter;
6) Establish deadlines for submission of information related to an application, and
extend or shorten deadlines where appropriate and consistent with Federal laws and
regulations;
7) Issue any notices of incompleteness, requests for information, or conduct or
commission such studies as may be required to determine whether a permit should
be issued;
8) Require, as part of, and as a condition of completeness of any application, that an
applicant for a wireless encroachment permit send notice to members of the public
that may be affected by the placement or modification of the wireless facility and
proposed changes to any support structure;
9) Subject to appeal as provided herein, determine whether to approve, approve
subject to conditions, or deny an application; and
10) Take such other steps as may be required to timely act upon applications for
placement of wireless facilities, including issuing written decisions and entering
into agreements to mutually extend the time for action on an application.
b) Appeal.
1) Any person claiming to be adversely affected by the decision of the Director
pursuant to this Chapter may appeal the Director’s decision. The appeal will be
considered by a Hearing Officer appointed by the City Manager. The Hearing
Officer may decide the issues de novo and whose written decision will be the final
decision of the City. An appeal by a wireless infrastructure provider must be taken
jointly with the wireless service provider that intends to use the wireless facility. As
Section 332(c)(7) of the Telecommunications Act preempts local decisions
premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF)
emissions, appeals of the Director’s decision premised on the environmental effects
of radio frequency emissions will not be considered.
2) Where the Director grants an application based on a finding that denial would result
in a prohibition or effective prohibition under applicable Federal law, the decision
shall be automatically appealed to the Hearing Officer. All appeals must be filed
within two (2) business days of the written decision of the Director, unless the
Director extends the time therefore. An extension may not be granted where
extension would result in approval of the application by operation of law.
3) Any appeal shall be conducted so that a timely written decision may be issued in
accordance with applicable law. The appeal shall be conducted in accordance with
any procedures adopted in the Wireless Regulations.
Section 12.18.060 General Standards for Wireless Facilities in the Public Right of Way.
Page 6 of 16
a) Generally. Wireless facilities in the ROW shall meet the minimum requirements set
forth in this Ordinance and the Wireless Regulations, in addition to the requirements of
any other applicable law.
b) Regulations. The wireless regulations and decisions on applications for placement of
wireless facilities in the ROW shall, at a minimum, ensure that the requirements of this
section are satisfied, unless it is determined that the applicant has established that denial
of an application would, within the meaning of Federal law, prohibit or effectively
prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, or otherwise violate applicable laws
or regulations. If that determination is made, the requirements of this Chapter may be
waived, but only to the minimum extent required to avoid the prohibition or violation.
c) Minimum Standards. Wireless facilities shall be installed and modified in a manner
that minimizes risks to public safety, utilizes installation of new support structures or
equipment cabinets in the ROW only after all existing and replacement structure options
have been exhausted, and where feasible, places equipment underground, and otherwise
maintains the integrity and character of the neighborhoods and corridors in which the
facilities are located; ensures that installations are subject to periodic review to minimize
the intrusion on the ROW; and ensures that the City bears no risk or liability as a result of
the installations, and that such use does not inconvenience the public, interfere with the
primary uses of the ROW, or hinder the ability of the City or other government agencies
to improve, modify, relocate, abandon, or vacate the ROW or any portion thereof, or to
cause the improvement, modification, relocation, vacation, or abandonment of facilities
in the ROW.
d) Location and Design Standards. All applicants shall locate the facilities in accordance
with the Design Standards and Wireless Regulations. All applicants shall, to the extent
feasible, incorporate specific concealment elements to minimize visual impacts and
incorporate design requirements in accordance with the Design Standards adopted by
resolution of the City Council and Wireless Regulations and ensure compliance with all
standards for noise emissions, unless it is determined that another design is less intrusive
or placement is required under applicable law.
Section 12.18.070 Applications.
a) Submission. Unless the Wireless Regulations provide otherwise, the applicant shall
submit a paper copy and an electronic copy of any application, amendment s, or
supplements to an application, or responses to requests for information regarding an
application to the Director.
b) Content. An application must contain:
1) Any information required pursuant to the Wireless Regulations;
2) The name of the applicant, its telephone number and contact information, and if the
applicant is a wireless infrastructure provider, the name and contact information for
the wireless service provider that will be using the wireless facility;
3) The name of the owner of the structure, if different from the applicant, and a signed
and notarized owner’s authorization for use of the structure.
4) A complete description of the proposed wireless facility and any and all work that
will be required to install or modify it, including, but not limited to, detail regarding
proposed excavations, if any; detailed site plans showing the location of the
Page 7 of 16
wireless facility, and dimensioned drawings with specifications for each element of
the wireless facility, clearly describing the site and all structures and facilities at the
site before and after installation or modification; and a dimensioned map identifying
and describing the distance to the nearest residential dwelling unit and any
historical structure within 500 feet of the facility. Before and after 360 degree
photo simulations must be provided.
5) Documentation sufficient to show that the proposed facility will comply with
generally-applicable health and safety provisions of the Municipal Code and the
FCC’s radio frequency emissions standards.
6) A copy of the lease or other agreement between the applicant and the owner of the
property to which the proposed facility will be attached.
7) If the application is for a small cell facility, the application shall state as such and
shall explain why the proposed facility meets the definition of small cell facility in
this Chapter.
8) If the application is for an eligible facilities request, the application shall state as
such and must contain information sufficient to show that the application qualifies
as an eligible facilities request, which information must show that there is an
existing wireless facility that was approved by the City. Before and after 360
degree photo simulations must be provided, as well as documentation sufficient to
show that the proposed facility will comply with generally-applicable health and
safety provisions of the Municipal Code and the FCC’s radio frequency emissions
standards.
9) Proof that notice of the application has been mailed to owners and occupants of real
property, and the resident manager for any multi-family dwelling unit that includes
ten (10) or more units, within 300 feet of the proposed wireless s facility.
10) If the applicant contends that denial of the application would prohibit or effectively
prohibit the provision of service in violation of Federal law, or otherwise violate
applicable law, the application must provide all information on which the applicant
relies on in support of that claim. Applicants are not permitted to supplement this
showing if doing so would prevent the City from complying with any deadline for
action on an application.
11) The electronic version of an application must be in a standard format that can be
easily uploaded on a web page for review by the public.
12) Any required fees.
c) Fees. Application fee(s) shall be required to be submitted with any application for a
wireless encroachment permit, as established by City Council resolution. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, no application fee shall be refundable, in whole or in part, to an applicant for a
wireless encroachment permit unless paid as a refundable deposit.
d) Waivers. Requests for waivers from any application requirement of this section shall be
made in writing to the Director or his or her designee. The Director may grant or deny a
request for a waiver pursuant to this subsection. The Director may grant a request for waiver
if it is demonstrated that, notwithstanding the issuance of a waiver, the City will be provided
all information necessary to understand the nature of the construction or other activity to be
conducted pursuant to the permit sought. All waivers approved pursuant to this subsection
shall be (1) granted only on a case-by-case basis, and (2) narrowly-tailored to minimize
deviation from the requirements of the Municipal Code.
Page 8 of 16
e) Rejection for Incompleteness. Wireless facility applications will be processed, and
notices of incompleteness provided, in conformity with State, local, and Federal law. If such
an application is incomplete, it may be rejected by the Director by notifying the applicant and
specifying the material omitted from the application.
Section 12.18.080 Findings; Decisions; Consultants.
a) Findings Required for Approval.
1) Except for eligible facilities requests, the Director or Hearing Officer, as the case
may be, shall approve an application if, on the basis of the application and other
materials or evidence provided in review thereof, all of the following findings can
be made:
(i) The facility is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and
(ii) The facility complies with this Chapter and all applicable design and
development standards; and
(iii) The facility qualifies as a small cell facility; and
(iv) The facility meets applicable requirements and standards of State and Federal
law.
2) For eligible facilities requests, the Director or Hearing Officer, as the case may be,
shall approve an application if, on the basis of the application and other materials or
evidence provided in review thereof, it finds the following:
(i) That the application qualifies as an eligible facilities request; and
(ii) That the proposed facility will comply with all generally-applicable laws.
b) Decisions. Decisions on an application by the Director or Hearing Officer shall be in
writing and include the reasons for the decision.
c) Independent Consultants. The Director or Hearing Officer, as the case may be, is
authorized, in its discretion, to select and retain independent consultant(s) with expertise
in telecommunications in connection with the review of any application under this
Chapter, at the expense of the applicant. Such independent consultant review may be
retained on any issue that involves specialized or expert knowledge in connection with an
application, including, but not limited to, application completeness or accuracy, structural
engineering analysis, or compliance with FCC radio frequency emissions standards.
Section 12.18.090 Conditions of Approval.
a) Generally. In addition to any supplemental conditions imposed by the Director or
Hearing Officer, as the case may be, all permits granted pursuant to this Chapter shall be
subject to the following conditions, unless modified by the approving authority:
1) Code Compliance. The Permittee shall at all times maintain compliance with all
applicable Federal, State and local laws, regulations and other rules, including,
without limitation, those applying to use of the ROW.
2) Permit Duration. A wireless encroachment permit shall be valid for a period of ten
(10) years, unless pursuant to another provision of the Code or these conditions, it
expires sooner or is terminated. At the end of ten (10) years from the date of issuance,
such Permit shall automatically expire, unless an extension or renewal has been
granted. A person holding a wireless encroachment permit must either (1) remove the
Page 9 of 16
facility within thirty (30) days following the permit’s expiration (provided that
removal of support structure owned by City, a utility, or another entity authorized to
maintain a support structure in the ROW need not be removed, but must be restored
to its prior condition, except as specifically permitted by the City); or (2) at least
ninety (90) days prior to expiration, submit an application to the Director to renew the
permit, which application must, among all other requirements, demonstrate that the
impact of the wireless facility cannot be reduced. The wireless facility must remain
in place until it is acted upon by the City and all appeals from the City’s decision
exhausted.
3) Timing of Installation. The installation and construction authorized by a wireless
encroachment permit shall begin within one (1) year after its approval, or it will
expire without further action by the City. The installation and construction
authorized by a wireless encroachment permit shall conclude, including any
necessary post-installation repairs and/or restoration to the ROW, within thirty (30)
days following the day construction commenced.
4) Commencement of Operations. The operation of the approved facility shall
commence no later than ninety (90) days after the completion of installation, or the
wireless encroachment permit will expire without further action by the City. The
Permittee shall provide Director notice that operations have commenced by the same
date.
5) As-Built Drawings. The Permittee shall submit an as-built drawing within ninety (90)
days after installation of the facility. As-builts shall be in an electronic format
acceptable to the City.
6) Inspections; Emergencies. The City or its designee may enter onto the facility area to
inspect the facility upon 24 hours prior notice to the Permittee. The Permittee shall
cooperate with all inspections and may be present for any inspection of its facility by
the City. The City reserves the right to enter or direct its designee to enter the facility
and support, repair, disable, or remove any elements of the facility in emergencies or
when the facility threatens imminent harm to persons or property. The City shall
make an effort to contact the Permittee prior to disabling or removing any facility
elements, but in any case shall notify Permittee within 24 hours of doing so.
7) Inspections and Reporting. The Permittee, when directed by the City, must perform
an inspection of the facility and submit a report to the Director on the condition of the
system to include any identified concerns and corrective action taken. Additionally,
as the City performs maintenance on Municipal Infrastructure additional maintenance
concerns may be identified. These will be reported to the owner of the facility. The
City shall give the Permittee 30 days to correct the identified maintenance concerns
after which the City reserves the right to take any action it deems necessary, which
could include revocation of the permit. The burden is on the Permittee to demonstrate
that it complies with the requirements herein. Prior to issuance of a permit under this
Chapter, the owner of the facility shall sign an affidavit attesting to understanding the
City’s requirement for performance of annual inspections and reporting.
8) Contact. The Permittee shall at all times maintain accurate contact information for all
parties responsible for the facility, which shall include a phone number, street mailing
address and email address for at least one natural person.
Page 10 of 16
9) Insurance. The Permittee shall obtain and maintain throughout the term of the permit
a type and amount of insurance as specific in the Wireless Regulations. The relevant
policy(ies) shall name the City, its elected/appointed officials, commission members,
officers, representatives, agents, and employees as additional insured. The Permittee
shall use its best efforts to provide thirty (30) days prior notice to the Director of to
the cancellation or material modification of any applicable insurance policy.
10) Indemnities. The Permittee and, if applicable, the owner of the property upon which
the wireless facility is installed shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City,
its agents, officers, officials, and employees (i) from any and all damages, liabilities,
injuries, losses, costs, and expenses, and from any and all claims, demands, law suits,
writs of mandamus, and other actions or proceedings brought against the City or its
agents, officers, officials, or employees to challenge, attack, seek to modify, set aside,
void or annul the City’s approval of the permit, and (ii) from any and all damages,
liabilities, injuries, losses, costs, and expenses, and any and all claims, demands, law
suits, or causes of action and other actions or proceedings of any kind or form,
whether for personal injury, death or property damage, arising out of or in connection
with the activities or performance of the Permittee or, if applicable, the private
property owner or any of each one’s agents, employees, licensees, contractors,
subcontractors, or independent contractors. In the event the City becomes aware of
any such actions or claims the City shall promptly notify the Permittee and, if
applicable, the private property owner and shall reasonably cooperate in the defense.
The City shall have the right to approve, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and the property owner
and/or Permittee (as applicable) shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses
directly and necessarily incurred b y the City in the course of the defense.
11) Performance Bond. Prior to issuance of a wireless encroachment permit, the
Permittee shall file with the City, and shall maintain in good standing throughout the
term of the approval, a performance bond or other surety or another form of security
for the removal of the facility in the event that the use is abandoned or the permit
expires, or is revoked, or is otherwise terminated. The security shall be in the amount
equal to 100% of the cost of removal of the facility as specified in the application for
the permit or as that amount may be modified by the Director in in the permit based
on the characteristics of the installation. The Permittee shall reimburse the City for
staff time associated with the processing and tracking of the bond, based on the
hourly rate adopted by the City Council. Reimbursement shall be paid when the
security is posted and during each administrative review.
12) Adverse Impacts on Adjacent Properties. Permittee shall undertake all reasonable
efforts to avoid undue adverse impacts to adjacent properties and/or uses that may
arise from the construction, operation, maintenance, modification, and removal of the
facility.
13) Interference.
(a) The Permittee shall not move, alter, temporarily relocate, change, or interfere
with any existing structure, improvement, or property without the prior
consent of the owner of that structure, improvement, or property. No structure,
improvement, or property owned by the City shall be moved to accommodate
a permitted activity or encroachment, unless the City determines that such
Page 11 of 16
movement will not adversely affect the City or any surrounding businesses or
residents, and the Permittee pays all costs and expenses related to the
relocation of the City's structure, improvement, or property. Prior to
commencement of any work pursuant to a wireless encroachment permit, the
Permittee shall provide the City with documentation establishing to the City's
satisfaction that the Permittee has the legal right to use or interfere with any
other structure, improvement, or property within the ROW or City utility
easement to be affected by Permittee's facilities.
(b) The facility shall not damage or interfere in any way with City property, the
City’s operations or the operations of prior-existing, third party installations.
The City will reasonably cooperate with the Permittee and/or carrier to carry
out such activities as are necessary to correct the interference.
(i) Signal Interference – The Permittee shall correct any such interference
within 24 hours of written notification of the interference. Upon the
expiration of the 24-hour cure period and until the cause of the
interference is eliminated, the Permittee shall cease operation of any
facility causing such interference until such interference is cured.
(ii) Physical Interference - The City shall give the Permittee 30 days to correct
the interference after which the City reserves the right to take any action it
deems necessary, which could include revocation of the permit.
(c) The City at all times reserves the right to take any action it deems necessary,
in its sole discretion, to repair, maintain, alter, or improve the sites. Such
actions may temporarily interfere with the operation of the facility. The City
will in all cases, other than emergencies, give the applicant 30 days written
notification of such planned, non-emergency actions.
14) No Right, Title, or Interest. The permission granted by a wireless encroachment
permit shall not in any event constitute an easement on or an encumbrance against the
ROW. No right, title, or interest (including franchise interest) in the ROW, or any part
thereof, shall vest or accrue in Permittee by reason of a wireless encroachment permit
or the issuance of any other permit or exercise of any privilege given thereby.
15) No Possessory Interest. No possessory interest is created by a wireless encroachment
permit. However, to the extent that a possessory interest is deemed created by a
governmental entity with taxation authority, the Permittee acknowledges that the City
has given to the Permittee notice pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code
Section 107.6 that the use or occupancy of any public property pursuant to a wireless
encroachment permit may create a possessory interest which may be subject to the
payment of property taxes levied upon such interest. Permittee shall be solely liable
for, and shall pay and discharge prior to delinquency, any and all possessory interact
taxes or other taxes, fees, and assessments levied against Permittee’s right to
possession, occupancy, or use of any public property pursuant to any right of
possession, occupancy, or use created by this permit.
16) General Maintenance.
(a) The site and the facility, including, but not limited to, all landscaping, fencing,
and related transmission equipment, must be maintained in a neat, safe and
clean manner and in accordance with all approved plans. All graffiti on
facilities must be removed at the sole expense of the Permittee within forty
Page 12 of 16
eight (48) hours after notification from the City. 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 permit.
(b) The Permittee shall repair, at its sole cost and expense, any damage including,
but not limited to subsidence, cracking, erosion, collapse, weakening, or loss
of lateral support to City streets, sidewalks, walks, curbs, gutters, trees,
parkways, street lights, traffic signals, improvements of any kind or nature, or
utility lines and systems, underground utility line and systems (water, sewer,
storm drains, gas, oil, electrical, etc.) that result from any activities performed
in connection with the installation and/or maintenance of a wireless facility in
the ROW. The Permittee shall restore such areas, structures and systems to the
condition in which they existed prior to the installation or maintenance that
necessitated the repairs. In the event the Permittee fails to complete such
repair within the number of days stated on a written notice by the Director the
City will engage resources at the Permittee’s sole cost and expense to
complete such repairs. Such time period for correction shall be based on the
facts and circumstances, danger to the community and severity of the
disrepair. Should the Permittee not make said correction within the time
period allotted the Director shall cause such repair to be completed at
Permittee's sole cost and expense.
(c) The Permittee shall keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all
times. Each year after the Permittee installs the wireless facility, the Permittee,
if requested by the Director, shall submit a written report to the satisfaction of
the Director, documenting the then-current site condition.
17) RF Exposure Compliance. All facilities must comply with all standards and
regulations of the FCC and any other State or Federal government agency with the
authority to regulate RF exposure standards. After transmitter and antenna system
optimization, but prior to unattended operations of the facility, the Permittee or its
representative must conduct on-site post-installation RF emissions testing to
demonstrate actual compliance with the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology
Bulletin 65 RF emissions safety rules for general population/uncontrolled RF
exposure in all sectors. For this testing, the transmitter shall be operating at maximum
operating power, and the testing shall occur outwards to a distance where the RF
emissions no longer exceed the uncontrolled/general population limit.
18) Testing. Testing of any equipment shall take place on weekdays only, and only
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., except that testing is prohibited on
holidays that fall on a weekday. In addition, testing is prohibited on weekend days.
19) Modifications. No changes shall be made to the approved plans without review and
approval in accordance with this Chapter.
20) Agreement with City. If not already completed, the Permittee shall enter into the
appropriate agreement with the City, as determined by the City, prior to constructing,
attaching, or operating a facility on Municipal Infrastructure. This permit is not a
substitute for such agreement.
Page 13 of 16
21) Conflicts with Improvements. For all facilities located within the ROW, the Permittee
shall remove or relocate, at its expense and without expense to the City, any or all of
its facilities when such removal or relocation is deemed necessary by the City by
reason of any change of grade, alignment, or width of any ROW, for installation of
services, water pipes, drains, storm drains, power or signal lines, traffic control
devices, ROW improvements, or for any other construction, repair, or improvement
to the ROW.
22) Abandonment. If a facility is not operated for a continuous period of 6 months, the
wireless encroachment permit and any other permit or approval therefor shall be
deemed abandoned and terminated automatically, unless before the end of the 6
month period (i) the Director has determined that the facility has resumed operations,
or (ii) the City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service
provider. No later than thirty (30) days from the date the facility is determined to
have ceased operation or the Permittee has notified the Director of its intent to vacate
the site, the Permittee shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with
the use and shall restore the site to its original condition to the satisfaction of the
Director. The Permittee shall provide written verification of the removal of the
facilities within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. If the facility is
not removed within thirty (30) days after the permit has been discontinued pursuant to
this subsection, the site shall be deemed to be a nuisance, and the City may cause the
facility to be removed at Permittee’s expense or by calling any bond or other financial
assurance to pay for removal. If there are two (2) or more users of a single facility or
support structure, then this provision shall apply to the specific elements or parts
thereof that were abandoned, but will not be effective for the entirety thereof until all
users cease use thereof.
23) Encourage Co-location. Where the facility site is capable of accommodating a co-
located facility upon the same site in a manner consistent with the permit conditions
for the existing facility, the owner and operator of the existing facility shall allow co-
location of third party facilities, provided the parties can mutually agree upon
reasonable terms and conditions.
24) Records. The Permittee must maintain complete and accurate copies of all permits
and other regulatory approvals issued in connection with the facility, which includes
without limitation this approval, the approved plans and photo simulations
incorporated into this approval, all conditions associated with this approval and any
ministerial permits or approvals issued in connection with this approval. In the event
that the Permittee does not maintain such records as required in this condition or fails
to produce true and complete copies of such records within a reasonable time after a
written request from the City, any ambiguities or uncertainties that would be resolved
through an inspection of the missing records will be construed against the Permittee.
25) Attorney’s Fees. In the event the City determines that it is necessary to take legal
action to enforce any of these conditions, or to revoke a permit, and such legal action
is taken, the Permittee shall be required to pay any and all costs of such legal action,
including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by the City, even if the matter is not
prosecuted to a final judgment or is amicably resolved, unless the City should
otherwise agree with Permittee to waive said fees or any part thereof. The foregoing
shall not apply if the Permittee prevails in the enforcement proceeding.
Page 14 of 16
26) The Permittee is responsible for obtaining power to the facility and for the cost of
electrical usage,
27) Failure to comply with the City’s adopted noise standard after written notice and
opportunity to cure have been given shall be grounds for the City to revoke the
permit.
b) Eligible Facilities Requests. In addition to the conditions provided in Section 12.18.090
of this Chapter and any supplemental conditions imposed by the Director or Hearing
Officer as the case may be, all permits for an eligible facility requests granted pursuant to
this Chapter shall be subject to the following additional conditions, unless modified by
the approving authority:
1) Permit subject to conditions of underlying permit. Any permit granted in response to
an application qualifying as an eligible facilities request shall be subject to the terms
and conditions of the underlying permit.
2) No permit term extension. The City’s grant or grant by operation of law of an eligible
facilities request permit constitutes a federally-mandated modification to the
underlying permit or approval for the subject tower or base station. Notwithstanding
any permit duration established in another permit condition, the City’s grant or grant
by operation of law of a eligible facilities request permit will not extend the permit
term for the underlying permit or any other underlying regulatory approval, and its
term shall have the same term as the underlying permit or other regulatory approval
for the subject tower or base station.
3) No waiver of standing. The City’s grant or grant by operation of law of an eligible
facilities request does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by
the City to challenge Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act, any FCC rules that
interpret Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act, or any modification to Section 6409(a)
of the Spectrum Act.
c) Small Cell Facilities Requests. In addition to the conditions provided in 12.18.090 of
this Chapter and any supplemental conditions imposed by the Director or Hearing
Officer, as the case may be, all permits for a small cell facility granted pursuant to this
Chapter shall be subject to the following condition, unless modified by the approving
authority:
1) No waiver of standing. The City’s grant of a permit for a small cell facility request
does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the City to
challenge any FCC orders or rules related to small cell facilities, or any modification
to those FCC orders or rules.
Section 12.18.100 Breach; Termination of Permit.
a) For breach. A wireless encroachment permit may be revoked for failure to comply
with the conditions of the permit or applicable law. Upon revocation, the wireless
facility must be removed within thirty (30) days; provided that removal of a support
structure owned by City, a utility, or another entity authorized to maintain a support
structure in the ROW need not be removed, but must be restored to its prior condition,
except as specifically permitted by the City. All costs incurred by the City in connection
Page 15 of 16
with the revocation and removal shall be paid by entities who own or control any part of
the wireless facility.
b) For installation without a permit. A wireless facility installed without a wireless
encroachment permit (except for those exempted by this Chapter) must be removed
within thirty (30) days of notification by the City; provided that removal of support
structure owned by City, a utility, or another entity authorized to maintain a support
structure in the ROW need not be removed, but must be restored to its prior condition,
except as specifically permitted by the City. All costs incurred by the City in connection
with the revocation and removal shall be paid by entities who own or control any part of
the wireless facility.
c) Violation. Any violation of this Chapter will be subject to the same penalties as a
violation of Chapter 12.16.
Section 12.18.110 Infrastructure Controlled By City. The City, as a matter of policy, will
negotiate agreements for use of Municipal Infrastructure. The placement of wireless facilities on
those structures shall be subject to the agreement. The agreement shall specify the compensation
to the City for use of the structures. The person seeking the agreement shall additionally
reimburse the City for all costs the City incurs in connection with its review of, and action upon
the person’s request for, an agreement.
Section 12.18.120 Nondiscrimination. In establishing the rights, obligations and conditions
set forth in this Chapter, it is the intent of the City to treat each applicant or ROW user in a
competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory manner, to the extent required by law, and with
considerations that may be unique to the technologies, situation and legal status of each
particular applicant or request for use of the ROW.
SECTION 2: The Director or his or her designee, is directed to execute all documents
and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement the effect this Ordinance, including
the promulgation of regulations to implement this Ordinance.
SECTION 3: CEQA. This Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section
15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, because it
has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly. Most
of the terms and scope of City discretion are guided by existing State and Federal law. This
Ordinance creates an administrative process to process requests for wireless facilities in the
ROW and the City’s discretion with these applications is limited. The Ordinance does not
authorize any specific development or installation on any specific piece of property within the
City’s boundaries, most of which will be placed on existing infrastructure. Alternatively, even if
the Ordinance is a “project” within the meaning of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, the
Ordinance is exempt from CEQA on multiple grounds. First, the Ordinance is exempt from
CEQA because the City Council’s adoption of the Ordinance is covered by the general rule that
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3)). This Ordinance creates an
administrative procedure for wireless carriers to apply to place facilities in the ROW, often on
existing infrastructure. Moreover, in the event that the Ordinance is interpreted so as to permit
installation of wireless facilities on a particular site, the installation would be exempt from
Page 16 of 16
CEQA review in accordance with either State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (replacement or
reconstruction), State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (new construction or conversion of
small structures), and/or State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (minor alterations to land), as
these facilities are allowed under Federal and State law, are by their nature smaller when placed
in the ROW and subject to various siting and design preferences to prevent aesthetic impact to
the extent feasible.
SECTION 4: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full
force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its passage and adoption.
SECTION 5: The City Council designates the City Attorney to prepare a summary
of this ordinance to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c)(1) in-lieu of
the full text of the ordinance. The City Clerk caused said summary to be published on ________
[five (5) days before the adoption of the ordinance] in the Easy Reader, a weekly adjudicated
newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in Hermosa Beach. Prior to the
expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall
cause the summary to be re-published in the Easy Reader.
SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
Ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make
minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council
at which the same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ______ day of ______________, 2019, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk City Attorney
1
RESOLUTION NO. ____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS
FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, AS
AUTHORIZED BY HBMC Chapter 12.18
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
1. Upon adoption of the corresponding ordinance, Chapter 12.18 of the Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code will govern the permitting, installation, and regulation of wireless
facilities in the City’s public right of way (ROW).
2. Chapter 12.18 authorizes the City to develop and implement acceptable design,
location and development standards for wireless facilities in the ROW, taking into account the
zoning districts bounding the ROW.
3. The City’s ROW is a uniquely valuable public resource, closely linked with the
City’s character, making the regulation of wireless installations in the ROW necessary to protect
and preserve the aesthetics in the community.
4. Being authorized to do so, the City wishes to establish design and development
standards applicable to wireless installations in the ROW.
5. On January 8, 2018, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public meeting
and received testimony from City staff and all interested parties regarding the design and
development standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 2. APPLICATIONS.
A. Pre-application meeting. Prior to filing an application for a wireless
encroachment permit, an applicant is required to schedule a pre-application
meeting with the Director to discuss the proposed facility, the requirements of
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Chapter 12.18 and this Resolution and
any potential impacts of the proposed facility. Following the meeting, City staff
should provide the applicant with a list of items/changes needed to deem the
application complete. If the applications comply, the City staff may accept the
applications for processing. All other application submittals shall be made by
appointment only.
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS. The definitions set forth in Chapter 12.18 of the HBMC
are incorporated by reference into this Resolution. For purposes of this Resolution, the term
“pole-mounted facility” means a wireless facility that is, or is proposed to be, attached to,
contained in or on, or otherwise mounted to, in, or on a pole.
2
SECTION 4. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL
FACILITIES. The following design and development standards shall apply to all wireless
facilities in the ROW:
B. Visual Criteria.
1. Generally. Wireless facilities shall be designed in the least visible
means possible and to be compatible with support
structure/surroundings.
2. Height. Wireless facilities shall be located no higher than 10% or
10 feet, whichever is greater, than the height otherwise permitted
in the immediately adjacent zoning district.
3. Size. Wireless facilities shall be as small, short and unobtrusive as
possible.
4. Concealment. The wireless facility and accessory equipment shall
be camouflaged with use of one or more concealment elements to
blend the facility with surrounding materials and colors of the
adjacent street light or utility pole to which it is mounted.
Concealment elements include:
a. Radio frequency transparent screening;
b. Approved, specific colors;
c. Use of non-reflective material(s);
d. Minimizing the size of the site;
e. Integrating the installation into existing or replacement
utility infrastructure;
f. Installing new infrastructure that matches existing
infrastructure in the area surrounding the proposed site.
g. Antennas, brackets (mounting), PVC or steel risers and
cabling shall match the color of the adjacent structure.
h. Paint shall be of durable quality.
5. Materials. Materials shall be non-flammable and non-reflective.
6. Any modifications to existing facilities or collocations shall not
defeat the concealment elements of the existing structure/facility.
C. Location and Placement.
3
1. Generally. All wireless facilities in the ROW, including each piece
of equipment, shall be located and placed in a manner so as to not
interfere with the use of the ROW; impede the flow of vehicular or
pedestrian traffic; impair the primary use and purpose of
poles/signs/traffic signals or other infrastructure; interfere with
outdoor dining areas or emergency facilities; or otherwise obstruct
the accessibility of the ROW.
2. Allowable Locations.
a. Allowable locations for wireless facilities, including
distributed antenna system (DAS) nodes, are on existing or
replacement infrastructure such as street lights and utility
poles.
b. When locating in an alley, the wireless facility shall be
placed at a height above the roof line of adjacent buildings
to avoid being placed adjacent to a window. When locating
in a walk-street, the facility shall be placed below the roof
line of the adjacent buildings.
c. When choosing locations, choose locations in between
occupiable buildings rather than immediately adjacent to
occupiable buildings, and not adjacent to a window.
d. If the wireless facility 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 feasible.
c. When all other allowable infrastructure sites such as street lights or utility
poles have been exhausted and new infrastructure is not feasible, the
applicant may request the installation of a new tower, camouflaged by
City approved methods as set forth in this resolution.
3. Artificial Trees. Installation of monopalms or other artificial trees
or plants in the ROW are prohibited.
4. Prohibited Locations/Zones include The Strand as defined in
HBMC 12.20 and the Pier Plaza.
5. Strand-Mounted Facilities are prohibited.
D. Equipment.
1. Antennas. Antennas shall be as small, short and unobtrusive as
possible.
4
2. Accessory Equipment. Wireless equipment associated with the
antenna shall be enclosed in replacement poles or placed
underground where feasible, and if not feasible, shall be as small,
short and unobtrusive as possible.
3. Generators and Batteries. Generators are prohibited in the ROW. If
backup batteries are proposed, they must be located underground
where feasible.
E. Electric Service.
1. Utilize unmetered (flat rate) electric service, if allowed by the
utility company, or use the narrowest electric meter and disconnect
available. Ensure meter and other enclosures are well maintained,
including regular painting, and the use of a graffiti-resistant paint.
Stack the disconnect switch above/below the meter, instead of
attached to the side of the meter.
2. Electrical meters, vaults and fans shall be located underground
where feasible.
F. Safety. The facility shall not interfere with the use of the ROW; impede
the flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic; impair the primary use and
purpose of poles/signs/traffic signals or other infrastructure; interfere with
outdoor dining areas or emergency facilities; or otherwise obstruct the
accessibility of the ROW.
G. Noise. All wireless facilities, shall be designed to be compliant with the
City Noise Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 8.24 of the HBMC and all other
applicable laws.
H. Lighting. Lighting is prohibited unless required by the Federal Aviation
Administration or other applicable law.
I. Signs.
1. The facility shall contain a site identification sticker provided on
the base station or pole with a valid wireless encroachment permit
number.
2. The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other
than the site identification sticker with a valid wireless
encroachment permit number, certification, public safety warning,
or other required seals or required signage.
3. Remove or paint over unnecessary equipment manufacturer decals
and fill-in any visibly depressed manufacturer logos on equipment.
5
4. Utilize the smallest and lowest visibility stickers required by
government or electric utility regulations. Use sticker colors that
are more muted.
5. Signage shall be maintained in legible condition and the carrier
will be required to replace any faded signage within 30 days of
receiving written notification from the City that it is in need of
replacing.
J. Landscaping. If there is ground mounted equipment surrounded by
permeable surface, the permeable surfaces must be landscaped to the
maximum extent feasible, including associated irrigation systems, in a
manner that screens the facility/equipment. Any existing landscaping
proposed to be removed must be replaced with like kind/size or better in a
ROW location deemed acceptable by the Director of Public Works or
designee.
K. Cabling. Cabling and wiring shall be run internally within all poles to the
maximum extent feasible. Where it is not feasible to run cabling and
wiring internally, then all cabling and wiring shall be contained in conduit,
affixed directly to the face of the pole, for as long as it is technically
feasible. Exposed slack or extra cable is prohibited.
SECTION 5. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR POLE-
MOUNTED FACILITIES. In addition to the generally applicable standards set forth in
Section 4 of this Resolution, the design and development standards for pole-mounted
facilities in the ROW are as follows:
A. Poles, Generally. For facilities installed on any pole:
1. Certain Types Prohibited. No historic resource or decorative
and/or unique street lights or decorative structures are eligible for
wireless facility installations. Installations on traffic poles are
prohibited.
2. Placement. A minimum five (5) foot horizontal radius from the
base of the pole shall remain clear of obstructions to maintain
pedestrian passage.
3. Wind and seismic load requirements shall comply with applicable
sections of the City’s Building Code (Title 15) and any applicable
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Orders.
B. Street Light Poles.
1. Equipment shall be installed in a pole-top shroud and shall be of a
tubular/cylindrical form factor, the streetlight pole shall be equipped with top-
of-pole mounting bracket to accommodate the wireless facility and base
6
shrouds and shrouds mounted to the side of the pole are prohibited.
C. Utility Poles.
1. Joint-Use Poles. No antenna owner or operator shall install an antenna or any
related facility on a joint-use pole unless such installation is designed and constructed
to comply with the current edition of CPUC General Order 95 rules and regulation,
and is installed and designed to the satisfaction of the Director.
2. Accessory Equipment.
a. Antennas, brackets (mounting), PVC or steel risers and cabling
shall match the color of the adjacent pole. Paint shall be of durable
quality.
b. The use of equipment enclosures that are nearly the same width as
the pole, even if they need to be slightly longer as a result, is
required. Narrow enclosures that are less likely to impair views of
buildings and scenic resources or to detract from streetscapes are
required. Utilize equipment mounting base plates that are no wider
than the pole.
c. While equipment orientation may be limited due to operating
requirements, utility, or State rules; depending on pole type,
orienting equipment facing away from nearby residential windows,
and/or the primary travel direction, is required.
d. Stack equipment close together and on the same side of the pole. If
a long rectangular disconnect switch is used, rotate the enclosure
so the elements can be stacked closer together on the pole. Wide
offsets (more than 4 inches) of equipment enclosure brackets from
the pole are prohibited.
D. Replacement Poles and Street Lights. If an applicant proposes a
replacement pole or street light to accommodate the facility:
1. Placement. The replacement shall be in the same location as the
street light or pole being replaced; unless the replacement will not
meet all applicable standards, then replacement may be located in
an alternative location that complies with the requirements herein.
E. New Poles.
1. In the event that a waiver is issued under HBMC Section
12.18.070(d), a new pole may be authorized in accordance with the
following standards:
7
a. The new pole must actually function for a purpose other
than placement of a wireless facility (e.g. street light, utility
pole, etc.).
b. Design. The design must match the dimensions and design
of existing and similar types of poles and antennas in the
surrounding areas.
SECTION 6. The Director of Public Works is authorized is make interpretations of this
Resolution and to promulgate regulations to implement HBMC Chapter 12.18 and this
Resolution.
SECTION 7. If any provision of this Resolution or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications
of the Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this
extent, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. The City Council declares that it would
have adopted this Resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any portion thereof.
SECTION 8. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage and
adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. This Resolution will
become effective immediately upon adoption.
SECTION 9. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The City Clerk shall certify
to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, shall cause the original of the same to be entered
among the original resolutions of the City Council, and shall make a minute of the p assage and
adoption thereof in the minutes of the City Council meeting at which the same is passed and
adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________, 2019
______________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk City Attorney
Illustration of How Wireless Systems Function
The City Ordinance is ONLY Related to Small Wireless Facilities (including oDAS) in the Right of Way (ROW)
Prohibited Wireless Facility Designs on Utility Poles Allowed Wireless Facility Designs on Utility Poles
Exposed cables and antennas not painted to match pole Cables are flush mounted and all equipment is painted to match pole
Bulky equipment not flush mounted or painted to match pole Cables and equipment are flush mounted and painted to match pole
Prohibited Wireless Facility Designs on Street Lights Allowed Wireless Facility Designs on Street Lights
Exposed slack on cables and bulky
equipment
Lineal designed equipment and flush mounted on pole with colors to match pole
The Ordinance is NOT Related to the Following Types of Wireless Facilities
Cell on Wheels (COW) Macro Cell Sites
City of Hermosa Beach Sample Street Light Poles, Utility Poles and Traffic Signals (Prohibited and Allowed)
Prohibited on decorative street light poles Allowed on standard street light poles
Prohibited on all traffic signals Allowed on utility poles extending above adjacent buildings
From: noreply@granicusideas.com <noreply@granicusideas.com>
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 12:49 PM
To: Ann Yang <anny@hermosabch.org>
Subject: New eComment for City Council Meeting (Closed Session - 6:00 PM and Regular Meeting - 7:00
PM)=0A
New eComment for City Council Meeting (Closed
Session - 6:00 PM and Regular Meeting - 7:00 PM)
Jim Sullivan submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: City Council Meeting (Closed Session - 6:00 PM and Regular Meeting - 7:00 PM)
Item: 5a. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M.
eComment: I support the upgrade of cell service in HB to provide residents access to 5G service.
I understand the ordinance applies only to antenna placements in public rights-of-way. What
rules/ordinances, existing or new, will apply to antennas located on private property e.g.
commercial bldg roof tops. Thank you.
View and Analyze eComments
From: Pam T <pamtatr@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 6, 2019 1:58 PM
Subject: January 8 Agenda
1.G5 - I understand that the City Council will be considering an ordinance to allow and
regulate wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way...
and update on AT&T’s proposal for multiple installations of smaller wireless
communication facilities... (Small Cell Towers - SCT). Note that the towers are not so
small. The towers need to be placed every 200'. We worked hard to put our wires
underground and get rid of those unsightly poles. This is like a giant step backwards. Just
say NO to G5 cell towers. There is concern about health issues. While the radiation may
be similar to that of an airport scanner, one is not exposed to airport scanners on a daily
basis 24/7.
2.Infiltration project. I commented earlier on this so won't bore you. Like the "oil"
project, you need to back peddle out of this as fast as you can. Nobody wants a cesspool in
their back yard. I hate to see the removal of trees on the green belt as they do help to clean
the air. I also worry about spills and our beautiful beaches. Keep Hermosa beautiful and
say NO to the "big dig".
Thank you for your time.
Pam Tatreau
Hermosa Beach
1/8/19 AGENDA, ITEM 5a - WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
SUPPLEMENTAL EMAIL SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY PAM TATREAU ON 1/6/19 AT 1:58 P.M.
Wireless Resolutions and Standards- City Council - 8 Jan 2019 - D. Grethen
The following comments are submitted for your consideration based on review of the
Staff report, proposed resolution/ordinance, and proposed design standards. Please
consider whether these comments identify any substantive shortcomings in the
code/standards, or the effectiveness with which they are being specified.
The comments are organized mainly by topic area rather than by document, with
associated proposed documentation for each topic cited within each section.
Public Health and Safety
The Staff report seems to emphasize interpretation of the law in a way that restricts the
City’s regulatory powers to aesthetics and use of the public right-of-way (ROW). Health
and safety considerations (e.g. radiation) are deferred to higher levels of government
(e.g. FCC rules). I highlight this due to the likelihood of public health and safety
concerns (e.g. about radiation emissions), and associated correspondence or oral input
you may receive.
In anticipation of potential discussion of this subject, I would like to share an observation
about the Staff report analysis of the law. It is curious how the cited CPUC codes 7901
and 2902 may appear to be in potential conflict since Code 2902 seems to bestow
some responsibility or authority to the City.
Proposed Code 12.18.080 a) 1) i) states an approval condition that the City must find
that the proposed facility “is not detrimental to public health, safety…”. In trying to
reconcile this with City regulatory limitations, and understand the extent to which the
City is able to make such a finding, it seems like a primary vehicle would be
enforcement of proposed Code 12.19.090 17) for testing to meet FCC emissions rules.
Note that certain design standards might also indirectly provide some degree of
assurance as well, e.g., proximity of facility locations and heights relative to building
windows, even if those standards are primarily driven by aesthetics.
Facility Height Constraints
The proposed Design Standards include maximum height limits. Please consider
whether there is a need to specify any minimum limits as well. This might be needed
under conditions where it is desired to assure that a facility is not placed near a second-
1/8/19 AGENDA, ITEM 5a - WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
SUPPLEMENTAL EMAIL SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY DAVID GRETHEN
ON 1/8/19 AT 10:58 A.M.
or third-story window of a residence or other building, where the solution may be to
assure the facility is placed above window level.
This notion and concern is touched upon in the proposed Design Standards, with
respect to alleys in 2b, and there is discussion of adjacency to buildings in 2c. Walk
streets are also identified as a special case However, these standards may need to be
augmented or strengthened more to more generally address residences/buildings in all
City locations, with inclusion of potential height minimums as applicable.
Design Standard Specificity
Many of the proposed Design Standards seem rather subjective, e.g. “shall be as small,
short, and unobtrusive as possible”. Perhaps this is intentional, striving to provide
flexibility while effectively communicating desired guidelines. But if there are
opportunities to be more specific or quantitative in the code, without requiring excessive
analysis, I would encourage such code enhancements.
Pole Availability
Flexibility to meet wireless system objectives and satisfy City aesthetic, ROW, usage
and (potentially) safety objectives depends on the availability of poles throughout the
City that are eligible to accommodate wireless facilities. Comments here strive to
assure eligibility based on specified pole ownership and clearance requirements.
It was not absolutely clear to me whether the SCE-owned utility poles are included as
eligible for facility accommodation per proposed Code 12.18.030 Definitions, where
Municipal Infrastructure means “City-owned or controlled property”. Hopefully the SCE
poles are clearly deemed City-”controlled”. My recollection is that there are roughly 900
SCE poles and 400 City poles. Since exclusion of the SCE poles could impose a
substantial limitation, these should be included.
We should also consider whether an excessive limitation would be associated with the
proposed 5-feet pole clearance requirements per Resolution Section 5.A.2. (“A
minimum five (5) foot horizontal radius from the base of the pole shall remain clear of
obstructions to maintain pedestrian passage.”). While this requirement is not exactly
the same type of specification as our ADA requirements for passage on sidewalks, we
should consider whether there might similarly occur a number of challenges for
compliance in our City. If so, then a relaxed value such as four (4) foot might be more
appropriate to maximize flexibility.
David Grethen
Hermosa Beach
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 | Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
Telephone: 213.622.5555 | Facsimile: 213.620.8816
www.allenmatkins.com
Emily L. Murray
E-mail: emurray@allenmatkins.com
Direct Dial: 213.955.5584 File Number: 370622-00147/LA1148321.02
Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco
Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
January 8, 2019
City Council
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: AT&T's Initial Comments on Proposed Ordinance to Allow and
Regulate Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-
Way and Corresponding Design Standards
Dear Mayor Armato and Councilmembers,
I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility ("AT&T"), to
provide initial comments on the City of Hermosa Beach ("City") Proposed Ordinance to Allow and
Regulate Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (the "Proposed
Ordinance") and Corresponding Design Standards (the "Proposed Design Standards"). The
Proposed Ordinance is set for a first reading before the City Council tonight, January 8, 2018. The
Proposed Ordinance and the Proposed Design Standards were first made available for public review
by AT&T and other wireless service providers just last Thursday, January 4, 2019. Accordingly,
these comments are preliminary and AT&T reserves the right to submit further comment.
As set forth herein, while AT&T commends the City on the effort to update its wireless
regulations in light of recent developments in technology and applicable laws, there are numerous
issues with the Proposed Ordinance and the Proposed Design Standards that should be considered
and addressed before the Proposed Ordinance and the Proposed Design Standards are adopted by
the City. AT&T therefore is requesting that the hearing on the Proposed Ordinance the Proposed
Design Standards be continued, in order to permit AT&T and others to complete a more thorough
review and comment on the Proposed Ordinance and the Proposed Design Standards, and provide
staff with time to address those comments in the draft.
A.Introduction
AT&T commends the City for recognizing the importance of fostering provision of high-
quality communications services to its residents and businesses. With more than 70% of Americans
relying exclusively or primarily on wireless telecommunications, it is especially important to
1/8/19 AGENDA, ITEM 5a - WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER FROM AT&T SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
ON 1/8/19 AT 2:13 P.M.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City Council
January 8, 2019
Page 2
encourage responsible deployments. And with AT&T's selection by FirstNet as the wireless service
provider to build and manage the nationwide first responder wireless network, each new or
modified facility will strengthen first responder communications.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996, enacted in part to streamline wireless deployments on
a national basis, establishes key limitations on local regulations. Section 6409(a) of the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 requires the City to approve certain eligible facilities
requests to modify existing wireless facilities. The FCC recently issued its small cell deployment
order and promulgated regulations, which goes into effect next week, Accelerating Wireless
Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and
Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (September 27, 2018) (the "FCC Order"). Under the FCC
Order, local regulations of small cell siting must be (1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than
those applied to other infrastructure deployments, (3) objective, and (4) published in advance.
AT&T has a statewide franchise right to place facilities in the public rights-of-way, so long as they
do not incommode public use. AT&T's state law right is subject only to the City's reasonable and
nondiscriminatory time, place, and manner regulations.
As set forth herein, certain provisions of the Proposed Ordinance and the Proposed Design
Standards are in conflict with these federal and state laws, and require revision on that basis.
Certain other provisions require revision because of a lack of clarity or consistency between the
Proposed Ordinance and the Proposed Design Standards.
B. Comments on Proposed Ordinance
The City should make clear in the Proposed Ordinance that wireless facilities that are
compliant with the Proposed Ordinance and the Proposed Design Standards are permitted in
the right-of way adjacent to residential districts. The City had previously interpreted its
existing Wireless Ordinance to prohibit wireless installations in the right-of way adjacent to
residential districts. AT&T has argued that this interpretation is erroneous and in conflict
with federal law. AT&T's understanding is that the Proposed Ordinance is intended in part
to address this by permitting such installations, and, while the issue is addressed in the staff
report, it is not clearly addressed in the Proposed Ordinance.
It appears that the City proposes to adopt the FCC's definition for "small wireless facility,"
which AT&T supports. The City also should adopt accompanying definitions for "antenna,"
"antenna equipment," "antenna facility," "collocation," "facility" and "structure." AT&T can
supply the appropriate definition language upon request.
Section 12.18.040(a) of the Proposed Ordinance improperly prohibits all but small cell
facilities and facilities qualifying as eligible facility requests ("EFRs") in the public rights-
of-way. Section 12.18.080(a)(1)(iii) requires a finding that the facility is a small cell. These
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City Council
January 8, 2019
Page 3
provisions must be revised to avoid violating state and federal laws. Specifically, distributed
antenna system ("DAS") facilities should also be included and permitted. AT&T believes
the City does not intend to prohibit DAS since the Proposed Design Standards concern DAS
(see Section 4(C)(2)(a)), but the language of the Proposed Ordinance is inconsistent in this
regard.
The City must be able to act within applicable FCC shot clocks, including two new shot
clocks specific to small cells as set forth in the FCC Order. AT&T encourages the City to
evaluate its processes to ensure it will be able to comply.
Requirements for wireless siting applications must be specific and published in advance. It
is not appropriate to include open-ended catchall provisions such as proposed in Section
12.18.070(b)(1).
Section 12.18.070(e) must be revised or eliminated. The City may not reject an application
due to incompleteness. The FCC has made clear that the City cannot prohibit filings.
Instead, the City should codify (or at least refer to) the applicable shot clock procedure for
handling incomplete applications.
Section 12.18.080(c) authorizes the City to engage a consultant. The City should not
delegate its authorit y to consultants. AT&T's experience is that consultants often drive up
City costs (which may not be passed through to applicants under the FCC Order to the
extent they exceed reasonable costs). If consultants are needed, the City should limit
engagements to review of technical matters such as structural analysis and review of
compliance with FCC radio frequency exposure standards.
Section 12.18.090 provides that facility operation shall commence no later than ninety (90)
days after the completion of installation, or the wireless encroachment permit will expire
without further action by the City. This requirement may be impractical in that AT&T may
have to wait for Edison to provide power to the facility in order to commence operation.
This is outside of AT&T's control, and could take months from the time of application in
order to receive power. This requirement should be eliminated.
C. Comments on Proposed Design Standards
Section 2 of the Proposed Design Standards requires a pre-application meeting. While
certainly AT&T sees value in working with City staff, the City cannot mandate such a
meeting. The FCC made clear that mandatory pre-application procedures do not toll the
shot clocks. Under the FCC Order, the City would violate the Telecommunications Act's
requirement for action within a reasonable period of time by taking more than 60 or 90 days
to review a small cell siting application inclusive of any required pre-application process.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City Council
January 8, 2019
Page 4
Section 4(B)(1) requires wireless facilities to be "designed in the least visible means
possible and to be compatible with support structure/surroundings." These standards are too
subjective to be enforced.
Section 4(B)(4) requires concealment. The City must take care not to impose discriminatory
requirements. To the extent the City does not require other infrastructure deployments (e.g.,
electric distribution facilities) to be concealed, this provision must be revised.
Under Section 4(C), the City prohibits wireless facilities in certain locations. Such blanket
bans violate AT&T's state and federal rights. The City may prefer certain locations, but
cannot prohibit facilities in portions of the City.
Section 4(C)(2)(b) provides that, when locating in an alley, the wireless facility shall be
placed at a height above the roof line of adjacent buildings, and when locating in a walk-
street, the facility shall be placed below the roof line of the adjacent buildings. However,
Section 4(B)(2) limits the facility height to no more than 10% or 10 feet, whichever is
greater, above the height otherwise permitted in the adjacent zoning district. Where
facilities are places on utility poles, for example, there would likely be insufficient area
between the adjacent roofline and the existing equipment on the pole to locate the wireless
facilities. This renders this provision unreasonable and discriminatory.
Section 4(C)(5) prohibits strand-mounted facilities. This provision should be eliminated. It
is unreasonable, discriminatory, and subjective.
Section 4(J) requires landscaping. This provision should be eliminated. It is unreasonable,
discriminatory, and subjective, and not logical for right-of-way facilities.
Section 5(A) prohibits attachments to decorative poles and traffic poles. The City should
reevaluate these prohibitions. The FCC Order clearly applies to all government owned or
controlled structures within the right-of-way. Many jurisdictions favor decorative pole
designs for small cells. It makes sense to allow traffic light installations that permit the
wireless provider to cover multiple directions from one location, which a mid-block location
may not support. And concerns of interference are separately addressed.
Section 5(A)(2) requires a minimum five (5) foot horizontal radius from the base of the pole
shall remain clear of obstructions. This amount of space is not available at every location.
This provision should be eliminated or modified to account for feasibility.
Section 5(B)(1) prohibits shrouds mounted to the side of the pole. This provision should be
eliminated. It is unreasonable, discriminatory, and subjective.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City Council
January 8, 2019
Page 5
Section 5(C)(1) limits attachments to joint-use poles to facilities "designed to the satisfaction
of the Director." This clause should be deleted. It is entirely subjective and discriminatory.
Section 5(E)(1)(a) requires new poles to function for another purpose. This must be
eliminated as it is discriminatory and unreasonable.
D. Conclusion
AT&T understands and appreciates the City's desire to develop its wireless regulations. As
technologies advance and the types of facilities needed to meet increasing demands change, the City
and wireless providers will be better served by policies that foster flexibility in siting wireless
technologies.
AT&T is confident that the City can, after thoughtful consideration of the issues, develop a
lawful ordinance, and we welcome the opportunity to work with the City to that end. However, at
this juncture, in light of the substantial revisions needed to the Proposed Ordinance and the
Proposed Design Standards, and in order to provide AT&T and others with sufficient time to review
and comment, AT&T requests that the hearing be continued and staff be directed to work with
AT&T and the wireless industry to revise the Proposed Ordinance and the Proposed Design
Standards to be consistent with federal and state law.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Emily L. Murray
Emily L. Murray
ELM
cc: Kim Chafin, Planning Manager
Nicole Ellis, Associate Planner
Lauren Langer, Associate City Attorney
MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP
155 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 800
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000
FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010
January 8, 2019
VIA EMAIL
Mayor Stacey Armato
Mayor Pro Tempore Mary Campbell
Councilmembers Hany Fangary,
Justin Massey and Jeff Duclos
City Council
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Re: Draft Ordinance and Design Standards
Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way
Council Agenda Item 5(a), January 8, 2019
Dear Mayor Armato, Mayor Pro Tempore Campbell and Councilmembers:
We write on behalf of Verizon Wireless to provide comment on the draft
ordinance regarding wireless facilities in the right-of-way (the “Draft Ordinance”) and
related design standards (the “Draft Standards”). Verizon Wireless is concerned that
numerous provisions contradict a recent Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)
order addressing approval criteria for small cell wireless facilities. For example, certain
subjective standards contradict the FCC’s direction to evaluate small cells under
objective criteria. Other standards, including strict equipment placement and
undergrounding requirements, may be technically infeasible or unnecessary for small
equipment components. We urge the Council to decline adoption of the Draft Ordinance
and Draft Standards, and direct staff to make needed revisions.
To expedite deployment of small cells and new 5G technology, the FCC adopted
an order in September that provides guidance on appropriate approval criteria for small
cells. See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to
Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133
(September 27, 2018) (the “Infrastructure Order”).1 Among other topics, the FCC
addressed aesthetic criteria for approval of qualifying small cells, concluding that they
must be: “(1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of
1 While the Infrastructure Order and Code of Federal Regulations referenced in this letter were released on
September 27, 2018, they will not be effective until January 14, 2019.
1/8/19 AGENDA, ITEM 5a - WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER FROM VERIZON WIRELESS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK'S
OFFICE ON 1/8/19 AT 11:57 A.M.
Hermosa Beach City Council
January 8, 2019
Page 2 of 5
infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective and published in advance.” Infrastructure
Order, ¶ 86. “Reasonable” standards are “technically feasible and reasonably directed to
avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character
deployments.” Id., ¶ 87. Objective standards must “incorporate clearly-defined and
ascertainable standards, applied in a principled manner.” Id., ¶ 88. Numerous provisions
of the Draft Ordinance and Draft Standards contradict the Infrastructure Order, as we
explain.
Public Notice and Appeals Are Inappropriate For Evaluation under
Objective Standards.
While administrative approval of qualifying small cells is appropriate, public
notice is not. Draft Ordinance §§ 12.18.050(a)(8), 12.18.070(b)(9). Public input
introduces subjectivity to decision-making for applications which must be reviewed
under objective criteria. Soliciting public comment frustrates both the public and
decision-makers. The public’s subjective personal concerns simply cannot be addressed
by decision-makers implementing what must be an objective process. The public notice
requirement is irrelevant to administrative approval of small cells under the FCC’s
criteria, and it should be stricken.
Because appeals involve de novo hearings and potentially notice, they also
introduce subjectivity to final decisions. Draft Ordinance § 12.18.050(b). At a
minimum, any appeal record should be restricted to the materials that were considered by
the Director, and the scope of Hearing Officer review should be limited to confirming
whether the Director’s decision was based on reasonable, objective criteria.
Subjective Standards Are Inappropriate and Must Be Eliminated.
Under objective criteria, either a facility complies, or it does not. Standards that
invite discretion or opinions are inappropriate and preempted by the Infrastructure Order.
The Draft Ordinance includes a several subjective general standards, including
“maintains the integrity and character of the neighborhoods,” “minimize the intrusion on
the rights-of-way” and “minimize visual impacts.” Draft Ordinance §§ 12.18.060(c),
12.18.060(d). The Draft Standards require facilities designed “in the least visible means
possible” that is “compatible with surroundings” and as “unobtrusive as possible.” Draft
Standards §§ 4(B)(1), 4(B)(3), 4(D)(1), 4(D)(2). Such subjective standards must be
stricken.
The requirement for “concealment elements” is subjective and will pose
complications for subsequent modifications submitted as eligible facilities requests under
federal law. Draft Ordinance § 12.18.060(d). Requirements for “minimizing the size”
and integrating facilities into utility infrastructure are subjective, and, for eligible
facilities requests, these will be preempted by the FCC’s objective substantial change
thresholds for height, protrusion and volume. Draft Standards § 4(B)(4), 47 C.F.R. §
1.40001(b)(7)(i-iii). Mandating new infrastructure that “matches” surrounding
Hermosa Beach City Council
January 8, 2019
Page 3 of 5
infrastructure is a subjective and unreasonable requirement that ignores the rights granted
to telephone corporations to use the right-of-way, including joint utility poles. The City
does not have unlimited discretion over “concealment elements” under either the
Infrastructure Order or FCC rules for eligible facilities requests. Requirements to
incorporate concealment elements must be stricken.
Unreasonable Standards Must Be Removed or Revised To Accommodate
Typical Small Cell Designs.
The draft regulations suggests that wireless carriers must place small cell
equipment underground where feasible. Draft Ordinance § 12.18.060(c), Draft Standards
§ 4(D)(2). The FCC determined that undergrounding requirements, similar to aesthetic
requirements, must be reasonable, non-discriminatory and objective. Infrastructure
Order, ¶¶ 86, 90. There is no reason to require undergrounding of small pole-mounted
equipment components. Small equipment boxes on poles are not “out-of-character”
among typical infrastructure in the right-of-way. If overly strict standards force certain
wireless carriers to underground equipment, they are unreasonable and may be
discriminatory in contradiction of the FCC’s directives. The alternative to place
equipment “enclosed in replacement poles” suggests an integrated design, but this is
infeasible for wood utility poles, and certain radio units used by Verizon Wireless may
not fit within the typical integrated pole models. This alternative to undergrounding is
infeasible and unreasonable.
For small cells on street light poles owned by the City or Southern California
Edison (“SCE”), the requirement to place all equipment in a tubular pole-top shroud may
be infeasible due to the size of Verizon Wireless’s radio units, absent a very large and
bulky pole-top deployment. Draft Standards § 5(B)(1). For utility poles, limiting
equipment (and any concealment) to pole width may also preclude some radio models.
Draft Standards § 5(C)(2)(b). Verizon Wireless may require larger radio units for new
technologies or to provide adequate service to its sizable customer base. Where standards
impose technically infeasible requirements that prohibit typical small cells required for
service, they are unreasonable. SCE approves only a few designs for its street light poles,
and the City must ensure that design criteria accommodate these designs.
Some new 5G small cells consists of antennas and radios integrated in one box.
Further, 5G facilities, including integrated antennas, generally cannot be enclosed within
a shroud because the shroud impedes 5G signal propagation. Draft Standards § 5(B)(1).
Shrouding requirements may be technically infeasible and therefore unreasonable.
The Draft Standards limit small cells in the right-of-way to 10 feet or 10 percent
over adjacent zone height limits, whichever greater. Draft Standards § 4(B)(2). This
may pose complications for small cell antennas on utility poles, which generally are
placed on top of a pole. Typically, a four-foot antenna is used, placed on top of a one-to-
two-foot mounting bracket that conceals cables, with this equipment elevated six feet
above pole-top electric supply conductors as required by Public Utilities Commission
General Order 95 Rule 94. Where the proposed height limit precludes this placement, it
Hermosa Beach City Council
January 8, 2019
Page 4 of 5
is technically infeasible and therefore unreasonable. We suggest that for small cells on
utility poles, the City grant a height of increase up to 12 feet. When well-elevated, the
narrow cylindrical antenna of a typical small cell poses little visual impact on the
streetscape, and with increased height, coverage improves and fewer small cells are
required to serve and area.
Standards for New Poles Must Align with the Infrastructure Order and State
Law.
Requiring a waiver to place a new pole imposes an additional permit hurdle that
contradicts Public Utilities Code Section 7901, which grants telephone corporations the
right to place new poles in the right-of-way along with other telephone equipment. Draft
Ordinance § 12.18.070(d), Draft Standards § 5(E)(1). New poles should be authorized
with a wireless encroachment permit only, as with any small cell. While it is appropriate
to require that applicants demonstrate that no existing infrastructure can support a small
cell, the scope of this review should be limited to structures within 200 feet along the
subject right-of-way. Draft Standards § 4(C)(2)(d). For new poles, the City should
provide objective standards rather than imposing vague, subjective camouflage or
matching requirements to be determined. Draft Standards §§ 4(C)(c), 5(E)(1)(b).
The City cannot require Verizon Wireless to install a street light or other non-
wireless equipment on a new pole. Draft Standards § 5(E)(1)(a). This clearly contradicts
Verizon Wireless’s right under Public Utilities Code Section 7901 to erect new poles in
the right-of-way solely to elevate telephone equipment. The City’s limited aesthetic
review extends to wireless facility equipment, but lighting is not a functional requirement
for wireless service.
The City Must Comply with New FCC Shot Clock Rules, and the
Construction Period Should Be Extended.
The Director cannot reject applications that they may consider to be incomplete
because this contradicts the FCC’s new “Shot Clock” rules regarding timely application
processing. Draft Ordinance § 12.18.070(e). If a local jurisdiction finds a small cell
application to be incomplete, it must notify the applicant within 10 days after submittal,
and the Shot Clock time period will restart at day zero when the applicant responds. 47
C.F.R. § 1.6003(d)(1). If the City outright rejects or closes a duly-filed though possibly
incomplete application, it would run afoul of federal Shot Clock rules.
We note that as the FCC confirmed that the Shot Clock commences upon any
mandatory pre-application procedure, Verizon Wireless will calculate the Shot Clock to
commence upon the day it requests a required pre-application meeting or submittal
appointment. Draft Standards § 2(A), 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(e).
One condition of approval requires that a facility be constructed entirely within a
30-day period. Draft Ordinance § 12.18.090(a)(3). This unrealistic timeframe does not
Hermosa Beach City Council
January 8, 2019
Page 5 of 5
account for the multiple components of facility construction, which starts with required
make-ready work on an existing pole, any required pole replacement or installation of a
new pole. The facility itself must be built, inspected, tested and adjusted, and the right-
of-way restored if necessary. Multiple contractors may be involved. To ensure proper
installation and thorough inspection, Verizon Wireless requests a 90-day build-out period
to complete this work.
Numerous provisions of the Draft Ordinance and Draft Standards require removal
or revision to avoid conflict with FCC’s new Infrastructure Order. The City Council
should decline adoption of these proposed regulations, and direct staff to work with
industry on needed revisions.
Very truly yours,
Paul B. Albritton
cc: Lauren Langer, Esq.
Glen Kau
Nicole Ellis
Kim Chafin
1/8/19 AGENDA, ITEM 5a - WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER FROM CROWN CASTLE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
ON 1/8/19 AT 3:21 P.M.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
1
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by
Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment
Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by
Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 17-79
WC Docket No. 17-84
DECLARATORY RULING AND THIRD REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted: September 26, 2018 Released: September 27, 2018
By the Commission: Chairman Pai and Commissioners O’Rielly and Carr issuing separate statements;
Commissioner Rosenworcel approving in part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I.INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................1
II.BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................14
A.Legal Background ...........................................................................................................................14
B.The Need for Commission Action ..................................................................................................23
III.DECLARATORY RULING .................................................................................................................30
A.Overview of the Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7) Framework Relevant to Small
Wireless Facilities Deployment ......................................................................................................34
B.State and Local Fees .......................................................................................................................43
C.Other State and Local Requirements that Govern Small Facilities Deployment ............................81
D.States and Localities Act in Their Regulatory Capacities When Authorizing and Setting
Terms for Wireless Infrastructure Deployment in Public Rights of Way.......................................92
E.Responses to Challenges to Our Interpretive Authority and Other Arguments ..............................98
IV.THIRD REPORT AND ORDER ........................................................................................................103
A.New Shot Clocks for Small Wireless Facility Deployments ........................................................104
1.Two New Section 332 Shot Clocks for Deployment of Small Wireless Facilities ................105
2.Batched Applications for Small Wireless Facilities ...............................................................113
B.New Remedy for Violations of the Small Wireless Facilities Shot Clocks ..................................116
C.Clarification of Issues Related to All Section 332 Shot Clocks ...................................................132
1.Authorizations Subject to the “Reasonable Period of Time” Provision of Section
332(c)(7)(B)(ii).......................................................................................................................132
2.Codification of Section 332 Shot Clocks ...............................................................................138
3.Collocations on Structures Not Previously Zoned for Wireless Use .....................................140
4.When Shot Clocks Start and Incomplete Applications ..........................................................141
V.PROCEDURAL MATTERS ...............................................................................................................148
VI.ORDERING CLAUSES ......................................................................................................................151
APPENDIX A -- Final Rules
APPENDIX B -- Comments and Reply Comments
APPENDIX C -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
2
I.INTRODUCTION
1.America is in the midst of a transition to the next generation of wireless services, known
as 5G. These new services can unleash a new wave of entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic
opportunity for communities across the country. The FCC is committed to doing our part to help ensure
the United States wins the global race to 5G to the benefit of all Americans. Today’s action is the next
step in the FCC’s ongoing efforts to remove regulatory barriers that would unlawfully inhibit the
deployment of infrastructure necessary to support these new services. We proceed by drawing on the
balanced and commonsense ideas generated by many of our state and local partners in their own small
cell bills.
2.Supporting the deployment of 5G and other next-generation wireless services through
smart infrastructure policy is critical. Indeed, upgrading to these new services will, in many ways,
represent a more fundamental change than the transition to prior generations of wireless service. 5G can
enable increased competition for a range of services—including broadband—support new healthcare and
Internet of Things applications, speed the transition to life-saving connected car technologies, and create
jobs. It is estimated that wireless providers will invest $275 billion1 over the next decade in next-
generation wireless infrastructure deployments, which should generate an expected three million new jobs
and boost our nation’s GDP by half a trillion dollars.2 Moving quickly to enable this transition is
important, as a new report forecasts that speeding 5G infrastructure deployment by even one year would
unleash an additional $100 billion to the U.S. economy.3 Removing barriers can also ensure that every
community gets a fair shot at these deployments and the opportunities they enable.
3.The challenge for policymakers is that the deployment of these new networks will look
different than the 3G and 4G deployments of the past. Over the last few years, providers have been
increasingly looking to densify their networks with new small cell deployments that have antennas often
no larger than a small backpack. From a regulatory perspective, these raise different issues than the
construction of large, 200-foot towers that marked the 3G and 4G deployments of the past. Indeed,
estimates predict that upwards of 80 percent of all new deployments will be small cells going forward.4
To support advanced 4G or 5G offerings, providers must build out small cells at a faster pace and at a far
greater density of deployment than before.
4.To date, regulatory obstacles have threatened the widespread deployment of these new
services and, in turn, U.S. leadership in 5G. The FCC has lifted some of those barriers, including our
decision in March 2018, which excluded small cells from some of the federal review procedures designed
for those larger, 200-foot towers. But as the record here shows, the FCC must continue to act in
partnership with our state and local leaders that are adopting forward leaning policies.
5.Many states and localities have acted to update and modernize their approaches to small
cell deployments. They are working to promote deployment and balance the needs of their communities.
At the same time, the record shows that problems remain. In fact, many state and local officials have
urged the FCC to continue our efforts in this proceeding and adopt additional reforms. Indeed, we have
1 See Accenture Strategy, Accelerating Future Economic Value from the Wireless Industry at 2 (2018) (Accelerating
Future Economic Value Report), https://www.ctia.org/news/accelerating-future-economic-value-from-the-wireless-
industry, attached to Letter from Scott K. Bergmann, Senior Vice Pres., Reg. Affairs, CTIA to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed July 19, 2018).
2 See Accenture Strategy, Smart Cities: How 5G Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities, (2017)
http://www.ctia.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/how-5g-can-help-municipalities-become-
vibrantsmart-cities-accenture.pdf; attached to Letter from Scott Bergmann, Vice Pres. Reg. Affairs, CTIA to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 16-421, (filed Jan. 13, 2017).
3 Accelerating Future Economic Value Report at 2.
4 Letter from John T. Scott, Counsel for Mobilitie, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-
79 at 2-3 (filed Sept. 12, 2018).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
3
heard from a number of local officials that the excessive fees or other costs associated with deploying
small scale wireless infrastructure in large or otherwise “must serve” cities are materially inhibiting the
buildout of wireless services in their own communities.
6.We thus find that now is the appropriate time to move forward with an approach geared
at the conduct that threatens to limit the deployment of 5G services. In reaching our decision today, we
have benefited from the input provided by a range of stakeholders, including state and local elected
officials.5 FCC leadership spent substantial time over the course of this proceeding meeting directly with
local elected officials in their jurisdictions. In light of those discussions and our consideration of the
record here, we reach a decision today that does not preempt nearly any of the provisions passed in recent
state-level small cell bills. We have reached a balanced, commonsense approach, rather than adopting a
one-size-fits-all regime. This ensures that state and local elected officials will continue to play a key role
in reviewing and promoting the deployment of wireless infrastructure in their communities.
7.Although many states and localities support our efforts, we acknowledge that there are
others who advocated for different approaches.6 We have carefully considered these views, but
nevertheless find our actions here necessary and fully supported. By building on state and local ideas,
today’s action boosts the United States’ standing in the race to 5G. According to a study submitted by
Corning, our action would eliminate around $2 billion in unnecessary costs, which would stimulate
around $2.4 billion of additional buildouts.7 And that study shows that such new service would be
5 See, e.g., Letter from Brian D. Hill, Ohio State Representative, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC,
WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Aug. 31, 2018) (“While the FCC and the Ohio Legislature have worked to
reduce the timeline for 5G deployment, the same cannot be said for all local and state governments. Regulations
written in a different era continue to dictate the regulatory process for 5G infrastructure”); Letter from Maureen
Davey, Commissioner, Stillwater County, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at
1-2 (filed Sept. 18, 2018) (“[T]he Commission’s actions to lower regulatory barriers can enable more capital
spending to flow to areas like ours. Reducing fees and shortening review times in urban areas, thereby lowering the
cost of deployment in such areas, can promote speedier deployment across all of America.”); Letter from Board of
County Commissioners, Yellowstone County, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-
79 at 1-2 (filed Sept. 21, 2018) (“Reducing these regulatory barriers by setting guidelines on fees, siting
requirements and review timeframes, will promote investment including rural areas like ours.”); Letter from Board
of Commissioners, Harney County, Oregon, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79
at 1-2 (filed Sept. 5, 2018) (“By taking action to speed and reduce the costs of deployment across the country, and
create a more uniform regulatory framework, the Commission will lower the cost of deployment, enabling more
investment in both urban and rural communities.”); Letter from Niraj J. Antani, Ohio State Representative, to the
Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Sept. 4, 2018) (“[T]o truly expedite the
small cell deployment process, broader government action is needed on more than just the state level.”); Letter from
Michael C. Taylor, Mayor, City of Sterling Heights, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket
No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Aug. 30, 2018) (“[T]here are significant, tangible benefits to having a nation-wide rule that
promotes the deployment of next-generation wireless access without concern that excessive regulation or small cell
siting fees slows down the process.”).
6 See, e.g., Letter from Linda Morse, Mayor, City of Manhattan, KS to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT
Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Sept. 13, 2018) (City of Manhattan, KS Sept. 13, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from
Ronny Berdugo, Legislative Representative, League of California Cities to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT
Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Sept. 18, 2018) (Ronny Berdugo Sept. 18, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Damon
Connolly, Marin County Board of Supervisors to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2
(filed Sept. 17, 2018) (Damon Connolly Sept. 17, 2018 Ex Parte Letter).
7 See Letter from Thomas J. Navin, Counsel to Corning, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket
No. 17-79 at 1, Attach. A at 2-3 (filed Sept. 5, 2018) (Corning Sept. 5, 2018 Ex Parte Letter).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
4
deployed where it is needed most: 97 percent of new deployments would be in rural and suburban
communities that otherwise would be on the wrong side of the digital divide.8
8.The FCC will keep pressing ahead to ensure that every community in the country gets a
fair shot at the opportunity that next-generation wireless services can enable. As detailed in the sections
that follow, we do so by taking the following steps.
9.In the Declaratory Ruling, we note that a number of appellate courts have articulated
different and often conflicting views regarding the scope and nature of the limits Congress imposed on
state and local governments through Sections 253 and 332. We thus address and reconcile this split in
authorities by taking three main actions.
10.First, we express our agreement with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Second,
and Tenth Circuits that the “materially inhibit” standard articulated in 1997 by the Clinton-era FCC’s
California Payphone decision is the appropriate standard for determining whether a state or local law
operates as a prohibition or effective prohibition within the meaning of Sections 253 and 332.
11.Second, we note, as numerous courts and prior FCC cases have recognized, that state and
local fees and other charges associated with the deployment of wireless infrastructure can unlawfully
prohibit the provision of service. At the same time, courts have articulated various approaches to
determining the types of fees that run afoul of Congress’s limits in Sections 253 and 332. We thus clarify
the particular standard that governs the fees and charges that violate Sections 253 and 332 when it comes
to the Small Wireless Facilities at issue in this decision.9 Namely, fees are only permitted to the extent
that they are nondiscriminatory and represent a reasonable approximation of the locality’s reasonable
costs. In this section, we also identify specific fee levels for the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities
that presumptively comply with this standard. We do so to help avoid unnecessary litigation over fees.
12.Third, we focus on a subset of other, non-fee provisions of local law that could also
operate as prohibitions on service. We do so in particular by addressing state and local consideration of
aesthetic concerns in the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities, recognizing that certain reasonable
aesthetic considerations do not run afoul of Sections 253 and 332. This responds in particular to many
concerns we heard from state and local governments about deployments in historic districts.
8 Id.
9 “Small Wireless Facilities,” as used herein and consistent with section 1.1312(e)(2), encompasses facilities that
meet the following conditions:
(1) The facilities—
(i) are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in section
1.1320(d), or
(ii) are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or
(iii) do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or
by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
(2)Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined
in the definition of antenna in section 1.1320(d)), 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 facilities do not require antenna structure registration under part 17 of this chapter;
(5)The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and
(6)The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the
applicable safety standards specified in section 1.1307(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
5
13.Next, we issue a Report and Order that addresses the “shot clocks” governing the review
of wireless infrastructure deployments. We take three main steps in this regard. First, we create a new set
of shot clocks tailored to support the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. In particular, we read
Sections 253 and 332 as allowing 60 days for reviewing the application for attachment of a Small
Wireless Facility using an existing structure and 90 days for the review of an application for attachment
of a small wireless facility using a new structure. Second, while we do not adopt a “deemed granted”
remedy for violations of our new shot clocks, we clarify that failing to issue a decision up or down during
this time period is not simply a “failure to act” within the meaning of applicable law. Rather, missing the
deadline also constitutes a presumptive prohibition. We would thus expect any locality that misses the
deadline to issue any necessary permits or authorizations without further delay. We also anticipate that a
provider would have a strong case for quickly obtaining an injunction from a court that compels the
issuance of all permits in these types of cases. Third, we clarify a number of issues that are relevant to all
of the FCC’s shot clocks, including the types of authorizations subject to these time periods.
II.BACKGROUND
A.Legal Background
14.In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), Congress enacted sweeping new
provisions intended to facilitate the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure. As U.S. Courts of
Appeals have stated, “[t]he [1996] Act ‘represents a dramatic shift in the nature of telecommunications
regulation.’”10 The Senate floor manager, Senator Larry Pressler, stated that “[t]his is the most
comprehensive deregulation of the telecommunications industry in history.”11 Indeed, the purpose of the
1996 Act is to “provide for a pro-competitive, deregulatory national policy framework . . . by opening all
telecommunications markets to competition.”12 The conference report on the 1996 Act similarly indicates
that Congress “intended to remove all barriers to entry in the provision of telecommunications services.”13
The 1996 Act thus makes clear Congress’s commitment to a competitive telecommunications marketplace
unhindered by unnecessary regulations, explicitly directing the FCC to “promote competition and reduce
regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications
consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.”14
15.Several provisions of the 1996 Act speak directly to Congress’s determination that certain
state and local regulations are unlawful. Section 253(a) provides that “[n]o State or local statute or
regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.”15 Courts have
observed that Section 253 represents a “broad preemption of laws that inhibit competition.”16
16.The Commission has issued several rulings interpreting and providing guidance regarding
the language Congress used in Section 253. For instance, in the 1997 California Payphone decision, the
Commission, under the leadership of then Chairman William Kennard, stated that, in determining whether
a state or local law has the effect of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications services, it
10 Sprint Telephony PCS LP v. County of San Diego, 543 F.3d 571, 575 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (County of San
Diego) (quoting Cablevision of Boston, Inc. v. Pub. Improvement Comm’n, 184 F.3d 88, 97 (1st Cir. 1999)).
11 141 Cong. Rec. S8197 (daily ed. June 12, 1995).
12 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104–458, at 113 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. (100 Stat. 5) 124.
13 S. Rep. No. 104-230, at 126 (1996) (Conf. Rep.).
14 Preamble, Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. 104-104, 100 Stat. 56 (1996); see also AT&T Corp. v. Iowa
Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 371 (1999) (noting that the 1996 Act “fundamentally restructures local telephone markets”
to facilitate market entry); Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 857-58 (1997) (“The
Telecommunications Act was an unusually important legislative enactment . . . designed to promote competition.”).
15 47 U.S.C. § 253(a).
16 Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Telecomm. Reg. Bd. of Puerto Rico, 189 F.3d 1, 11 n.7 (1st Cir. 1999).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
6
“consider[s] whether the ordinance materially inhibits or limits the ability of any competitor or potential
competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.”17
17.Similar to Section 253, Congress specified in Section 332(c)(7) that “[t]he regulation of
the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local
government or instrumentality thereof—(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision
of personal wireless services.”18 Clause (B)(ii) of that section further provides that “[a] State or local
government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or
modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed
with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request.”19
Section 332(c)(7) generally preserves state and local authority over the “placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities” but with the important limitations described above.20
Section 332(c)(7) also sets forth a judicial remedy, stating that “[a]ny person adversely affected by any
final action or failure to act by a State or local government” that is inconsistent with the requirements of
Section 332(c)(7) “may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any
court of competent jurisdiction.”21 The provision further directs the court to “decide such action on an
expedited basis.”22
18.The Commission has previously interpreted the language Congress used and the limits it
imposed on state and local authority in Section 332. For instance, in interpreting Section
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), the Commission has found that “a State or local government that denies an application
for personal wireless service facilities siting solely because ‘one or more carriers serve a given geographic
market’ has engaged in unlawful regulation that ‘prohibits or ha[s] the effect of prohibiting the provision
of personal wireless services,’ within the meaning of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).”23 In adopting this
interpretation, the Commission explained that its “construction of the provision achieves a balance that is
most consistent with the relevant goals of the Communications Act” and its understanding that “[i]n
promoting the construction of nationwide wireless networks by multiple carriers, Congress sought
ultimately to improve service quality and lower prices for consumers.”24 The Commission also noted that
an alternative interpretation would “diminish the service provided to [a wireless provider’s] customers.”25
17 California Payphone Ass’n, 12 FCC Rcd 14191, 14206, para. 31 (1997) (California Payphone).
18 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i).
19 47 U.S.C § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii).
20 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A) (stating that, “[e]xcept as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this chapter shall limit
or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless services facilities”). The statute defines “personal
wireless services” to include CMRS, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access
services. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C). In 2012, Congress expressly modified this preservation of local authority by
enacting Section 6409(a), which requires local governments to approve certain types of facilities siting applications
“[n]otwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [codified in substantial part as Section
332(c)(7)] . . . or any other provision of law.” Spectrum Act, 47 U.S.C. § 6409(a)(1).
21 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).
22 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).
23 Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7) to Ensure Timely Siting Review,
Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd 13994, 14016, para. 56 (2009) (2009 Declaratory Ruling), aff’d, City of Arlington
v. FCC, 668 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2012) (City of Arlington), aff’d, 569 U.S. 290 (2013).
24 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 RCC Rcd at 14017-18, para. 61.
25 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
7
19.In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, the Commission acted to speed the deployment of then-
new 4G services and concluded that, “[g]iven the evidence of unreasonable delays [in siting decisions]
and the public interest in avoiding such delays,” it should offer guidance regarding the meaning of the
statutory phrases “reasonable period of time” and “failure to act” “in order to clarify when an adversely
affected service provider may take a dilatory State or local government to court.”26 The Commission
interpreted “reasonable period of time” under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) to be 90 days for processing
collocation applications and 150 days for processing applications other than collocations. 27 The
Commission further determined that failure to meet the applicable time frame enables an applicant to
pursue judicial relief within the next 30 days.28 In litigation involving the 90-day and 150-day time
frames, the locality may attempt to “rebut the presumption that the established timeframes are
reasonable.”29 If the agency fails to make such a showing, it may face “issuance of an injunction granting
the application.”30 In its 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 31 the Commission clarified that the time
frames under Section 332(c)(7) are presumptively reasonable and begin to run when the application is
submitted, not when it is found to be complete by a siting authority.32
20.In 2012, Congress adopted Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act (the Spectrum Act), which provides further evidence of Congressional intent to limit state and local
laws that operate as barriers to infrastructure deployment. It states that, “[n]otwithstanding section 704 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [codified as 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)] or any other provision of law, a
State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a
modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical
dimensions of such tower or base station.”33 Subsection (a)(2) defines the term “eligible facilities
request” as any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves (a)
collocation of new transmission equipment; (b) removal of transmission equipment; or (c) replacement of
transmission equipment.34 In implementing Section 6409 and in an effort to “advance[e] Congress’s goal
26 Id. at 14008, para. 37; see also id. at 14029 (Statement of Chairman Julius Genachowski) (“[T]he rules we adopt
today . . . will have an important effect in speeding up wireless carriers’ ability to build new 4G networks--which
will in turn expand and improve the range of wireless choices available to American consumers.”).
27 Id. at 14012, para. 45.
28 Id. at 14005, 14012, paras. 32, 45.
29 Id. at 14008-10, 14013-14, paras. 37-42, 49-50.
30 Id. at 14009, para. 38; see also City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 115 (2005) (proper
remedies for Section 332(c)(7) violations include injunctions but not constitutional tort damages).
31 Specifically, the Commission determined that once a siting application is considered complete for purposes of
triggering the Section 332(c)(7) shot clocks, those shot clocks run regardless of any moratoria imposed by state or
local governments, and the shot clocks apply to DAS and small-cell deployments so long as they are or will be used
to provide “personal wireless services.” Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities
Siting Policies, Report & Order, 29 FCC Rcd 12865, 12966, 12973, paras. 243, 270, (2014) (2014 Wireless
Infrastructure Order), aff’d, Montgomery County v. FCC, 811 F.3d 121 (4th Cir. 2015) (Montgomery County); see
also Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 32 FCC Rcd 3330, 3339, para. 22 (2017) (Wireless Infrastructure
NPRM/NOI); Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment,
Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, WC Docket No. 17-84 and WT Docket No. 17-79, FCC 18-111,
paras. 140-68 (rel. Aug. 3, 2018) (Moratoria Declaratory Ruling).
32 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12970, para. 258. (“Accordingly, to the extent municipalities
have interpreted the clock to begin running only after a determination of completeness, that interpretation is
incorrect.”).
33 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96 § 6409(a)(2), 126 Stat. 156 (2012).
34 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
8
of facilitating rapid deployment,”35 the Commission adopted rules to expedite the processing of eligible
facilities requests, including documentation requirements and a 60-day period for states and localities to
review such requests.36 The Commission further determined that a “deemed granted” remedy was
necessary for cases in which the reviewing authority fails to issue a decision within the 60-day period in
order to “ensur[e] rapid deployment of commercial and public safety wireless broadband services.”37 The
Fourth Circuit, affirming that remedy, explained that “[f]unctionally, what has occurred here is that the
FCC—pursuant to properly delegated Congressional authority—has preempted state regulation of
wireless towers.”38
21.Consistent with these broad federal mandates, courts have recognized that the
Commission has authority to interpret Sections 253 and 332 of the Act to further elucidate what types of
state and local legal requirements run afoul of the statutory parameters Congress established.39 For
instance, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the 2009 Declaratory Ruling in City of Arlington. The court
concluded that the Commission possessed the “authority to establish the 90– and 150–day time frames”
and that its decision was not arbitrary and capricious.40 More generally, as the agency charged with
administering the Communications Act, the Commission has the authority, responsibility, and expert
judgement to issue interpretations of the statutory language and to adopt implementing regulations that
clarify and specify the scope and effect of the Act. Such interpretations are particularly appropriate where
the statutory language is ambiguous, or the subject matter is “technical, complex, and dynamic,” as it is in
the Communications Act, as recognized by the Supreme Court.41 Here, the Commission has ample
experience monitoring and regulating the telecommunications sector. It is well-positioned, in light of this
experience and the record in this proceeding, to issue a clarifying interpretation of Sections 253 and
332(c)(7) that accounts both for the changing needs of a dynamic wireless sector that is increasingly
reliant on Small Wireless Facilities and for state and local oversight that does not materially inhibit
wireless deployment.
22.The congressional and FCC decisions described above point to consistent federal action,
particularly when faced with changes in technology, to ensure that our country’s approach to wireless
infrastructure deployment promotes buildout of the facilities needed to provide Americans with next-
generation services. Consistent with that long-standing approach, in the 2017 Wireless Infrastructure
NPRM/NOI, the Commission sought comment on whether the FCC should again update its approach to
infrastructure deployment to ensure that regulations are not operating as prohibitions in violation of
Congress’s decisions and federal policy.42 In August 2018, the Commission concluded that state and
local moratoria on telecommunications services and facilities deployment are barred by Section 253(a).43
35 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12872, para. 15.
36 Id. at 12922, 12956-57, paras. 135, 214-15.
37 Id. at 12961-62, paras. 226, 228.
38 Montgomery County, 811 F.3d at 129.
39 See, e.g., City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 253-54; County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 578; RT Commc’ns., Inc. v.
FCC, 201 F.3d 1264, 1268 (10th Cir. 2000).
40 City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 254, 260-61.
41 Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Gulf Power Co., 534 U.S. 327, 328 (2002); FDA v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) (recognizing “agency’s greater familiarity with the ever-changing facts and
circumstances surrounding the subjects regulated”); see also, e.g., Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X
Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 983-986 (2005) (Commission’s interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision
overrides earlier court decisions interpreting the same provision).
42 See generally Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3332-39, paras. 4-22.
43 See generally Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, paras. 140-68.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
9
B.The Need for Commission Action
23.In response to the opportunities presented by offering new wireless services, and the
problems facing providers that seek to deploy networks to do so, we find it necessary and appropriate to
exercise our authority to interpret the Act and clarify the preemptive scope that Congress intended. The
introduction of advanced wireless services has already revolutionized the way Americans communicate
and transformed the U.S. economy. Indeed, the FCC’s most recent wireless competition report indicates
that American demand for wireless services continues to grow exponentially. It has been reported that
monthly data usage per smartphone subscriber rose to an average of 3.9 gigabytes per subscriber per
month, an increase of approximately 39 percent from year-end 2015 to year-end 2016.44 As more
Americans use more wireless services, demand for new technologies, coverage and capacity will
necessarily increase, making it critical that the deployment of wireless infrastructure, particularly Small
Wireless Facilities, not be stymied by unreasonable state and local requirements.
24.5G wireless services, in particular, will transform the U.S. economy through increased
use of high-bandwidth and low-latency applications and through the growth of the Internet of Things.45
While the existing wireless infrastructure in the U.S. was erected primarily using macro cells with
relatively large antennas and towers, wireless networks increasingly have required the deployment of
small cell systems to support increased usage and capacity. We expect this trend to increase with next-
generation networks, as demand continues to grow, and providers deploy 5G service across the nation.46
It is precisely “[b]ecause providers will need to deploy large numbers of wireless cell sites to meet the
country’s wireless broadband needs and implement next-generation technologies” that the Commission
has acknowledged “an urgent need to remove any unnecessary barriers to such deployment, whether
caused by Federal law, Commission processes, local and State reviews, or otherwise.”47 As explained
below, the need to site so many more 5G-capable nodes leaves providers’ deployment plans and the
underlying economics of those plans vulnerable to increased per site delays and costs.
25.Some states and local governments have acted to facilitate the deployment of 5G and
other next-gen infrastructure, looking to bring greater connectivity to their communities through forward-
looking policies. Leaders in these states are working hard to meet the needs of their communities and
balance often competing interests. At the same time, outlier conduct persists. The record here suggests
that the legal requirements in place in other state and local jurisdictions are materially impeding that
deployment in various ways.48 Crown Castle, for example, describes “excessive and unreasonable” “fees
44 See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 Annual Report and
Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile
Services, Twentieth Report, 32 FCC Rcd 8968, 8972, para. 20 (2017) (Twentieth Wireless Competition Report).
45 See Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3331, para. 1.
46 See, e.g., Letter from Brett Haan, Principal, Deloitte Consulting, U.S., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT
Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed Sept. 17, 2018) (“Significant investment in new network infrastructure is needed to
deploy 5G networks at-scale in the United States. 5G’s speed and coverage capabilities rely on network
densification, which requires the addition of towers and small cells to the network. . . . This requires carriers to add
3 to 10 times the number of existing sites to their networks. Most of this additional infrastructure will likely be built
with small cells that use lampposts, utility phones, or other structures of similar size able to host smaller, less
obtrusive radios required to build a densified network.” (citation omitted)); see also Deloitte LLP, 5G: The Chance
to Lead for a Decade (2018) (Deloitte 5G Paper), available at
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/us-tmt-
5gdeployment-imperative.pdf.
47 See Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3331, para. 2.
48 See, e.g., Letter from Henry Hultquist, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1
(filed Aug. 10, 2018) (“Unfortunately, many municipalities are unable, unwilling, or do not make it a priority to act
on applications within the shot clock period.” ); Letter from Keith Buell, Sprint, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1-2 (filed Aug. 13, 2018) (Sprint Aug. 13, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from
Katherine R. Saunders, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed June 21,
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
10
to access the [rights-of-way] that are completely unrelated to their maintenance or management.” It also
points to barriers to market entry “for independent network and telecommunications service providers,”
including municipalities that “restric[t] access to the [right-of-way] only to providers of commercial
mobile services” or that impose “onerous zoning requirements on small cell installations when other
similar [right of way] utility installations are erected with simple building permits.”49 Crown Castle is not
alone in describing local regulations that slow deployment. AT&T states that localities in Maryland,
California, and Massachusetts have imposed fees so high that it has had to pause or decrease
deployments.50 Likewise, AT&T states that a Texas city has refused to allow small cell placement on any
structures in a right-of-way (ROW).51 T-Mobile states that the Town of Hempstead, New York requires
service providers who seek to collocate or upgrade equipment on existing towers that have been properly
constructed pursuant to Class II standards to upgrade and certify these facilities under Class III standards
that apply to civil and national defense and military facilities.52 Verizon states that a Minnesota town has
proposed barring construction of new poles in rights-of-way and that a Midwestern suburb where it has
been trying to get approval for small cells since 2014 has no established procedures for small cell
approvals.53 Verizon states that localities in New York and Washington have required special use permits
involving multiple layers of approval to locate small cells in some or all zoning districts.54 While some
localities dispute some of these characterizations, their submissions do not persuade us that there is no
basis or need for the actions we take here.
26.Further, the record in this proceeding demonstrates that many local siting authorities are
not complying with our existing Section 332 shot clock rules.55 WIA states that its members routinely
face lengthy delays and specifically cite localities in New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine as being
(Continued from previous page)
2018) (“[L]ocal permitting delays continue to stymie deployments.”); Letter from Kenneth J. Simon, Crown Castle,
to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Aug. 10, 2018); Letter from Scott K. Bergmann, Senior
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed
Aug. 30, 2018) (CTIA Aug. 30, 2018 Ex Parte Letter).
49 Crown Castle Comments at 7; see also Letter from Kenneth J. Simon, Senior Vice President and General Counsel,
Crown Castle International Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Sept.
19, 2018) (“In Hillsborough, California, Crown Castle submitted applications covering 16 nodes, and was assessed
$60,000 in application fees. Not only did Hillsborough go on to deny these applications, following that denial it also
then sent Crown Castle an invoice for an additional $351,773 (attached as Exhibit A), most of which appears to be
related to outside counsel fees—all for equipment that was not approved and has not yet been constructed.”).
50 Letter from Henry Hultquist, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed Aug. 6, 2018) (AT&T Aug. 6, 2018 Ex Parte Letter).
51 AT&T Comments at 6-7.
52 T-Mobile Reply Comments at 7-9; see also CCA Reply Comments at 12; CTIA Reply Comments at 18; WIA
Reply Comments at 22-23.
53 See Verizon Comments at 7.
54 See Verizon Comments at 35.
55 See, e.g., T-Mobile Comments at 8 (stating that “roughly 30% of all of its recently proposed sites (including small
cells) involve cases where the locality failed to act in violation of the shot clocks.”). According to WIA, one of its
members “reports that 70% of its applications to deploy Small Wireless Facilities in the public ROWs during a two-
year period exceeded the 90-day shot clock for installation of Small Wireless Facilities on an existing utility pole,
and 47% exceeded the 150-day shot clock for the construction of new towers.” WIA Comments at 7. A New Jersey
locality took almost five years to deny a Sprint application. See Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of
the Borough of Paramus, N.J., 21 F. Supp. 3d 381, 383, 387 (D.N.J. 2014), aff’d, 606 Fed. Appx. 669 (3d Cir.
2015). Another locality took almost three years to deny a Crown Castle application to install a DAS system. See
Crown Castle NG East, Inc. v. Town of Greenburgh, 2013 WL 3357169, *6-8 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff’d, 552 Fed.
Appx. 47 (2d Cir. 2014).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
11
problematic.56 Similarly, AT&T identified an instance in which it took a locality in California 800 days
to process an application.57 GCI provides an example in which it took an Alaska locality nine months to
decide an application. 58 T-Mobile states that a community in Colorado and one in California have
lengthy pre-application processes for all small cell installations that include notification to all nearby
households, a public meeting, and the preparation of a report, none of which these jurisdictions view as
triggering a shot clock.59 Similarly, Lightower provides examples of long delays in processing siting
applications. 60 Finally, Crown Castle describes a case in which a “town took approximately two years
and nearly twenty meetings, with constantly shifting demands, before it would even ‘deem complete’
Crown Castle’s application.”61
27.Our Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order are intended to address these issues
and outlier conduct. Our conclusions are also informed by findings, reports, and recommendations from
the FCC Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), including the Model Code for
Municipalities, the Removal of State and Local Regulatory Barriers Working Group report, and the Rates
and Fees Ad Hoc Working Group report, which the Commission created in 2017 to identify barriers to
deployment of broadband infrastructure, many of which are addressed here.62 We also considered input
from numerous state and local officials about their concerns, and how they have approached wireless
deployment, much of which we took into account here. Our action is also consistent with congressional
efforts to hasten deployment, including bi-partisan legislation pending in Congress like the
STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act and SPEED Act. The STREAMLINE Small Cell
Deployment Act proposes to streamline wireless infrastructure deployments by requiring siting agencies
to act on deployment requests within specified time frames and by limiting the imposition of onerous
56 WIA Comments at 8. WIA states that one of its “member reports that the wireless siting approval process exceeds
90 days in more than 33% of jurisdictions it surveyed and exceeds 150 days in 25% of surveyed jurisdictions.” WIA
Comments at 8. In some cases, WIA members have experienced delays ranging from one to three years in multiple
jurisdictions—significantly longer than the 90- and 150-day time frames that the Commission established in 2009.
57 See WIA Comments at 9 (citing and discussing AT&T’s Comments in the 2016 Streamlining Public Notice, WT
Docket No. 16-421).
58 GCI Comments at 5-6.
59 T-Mobile Comments at 21.
60 Lightower submits that average processing timeframes have increased from 300 days in 2016 to approximately
570 days in 2017, much longer than the Commission’s shot clocks. Lightower states that “forty-six separate
jurisdictions in the last two years had taken longer than 150 days to consider applications, with twelve of those
jurisdictions—representing 101 small wireless facilities—taking more than a year.” Lightower Comments at 5-6.
See also WIA Comments at 9 (citing and discussing Lightower’s Comments in the 2016 Streamlining Public Notice,
WT Docket No. 16-421).
61 WIA Comments at 8 (citing and discussing Crown Castle’s Comments in 2016 Streamlining Public Notice, WT
Docket No. 16-421).
62 BDAC Report of the Removal of State and Local Regulatory Barriers Working Group,
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/bdac-regulatorybarriers-01232018.pdf (approved by the BDAC on January
23, 2018) (BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report); Draft Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Rates and Fees to
the BDAC, https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/bdac-07-2627-2018-rates-fees-wg-report-07242018.pdf (July 26,
2018) (Draft BDAC Rates and Fees Report); BDAC Model Municipal Code (Harmonized),
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/bdac-07-2627-2018-harmonization-wg-model-code-muni.pdf (approved July
26, 2018) (BDAC Model Municipal Code). The Draft Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Rates and Fees to
the BDAC was presented to the BDAC on July 26, 2018 but has not been voted by the BDAC as of the adoption of
this Declaratory Ruling. Certain members of the Removal of State and Local Barriers Working Group also
submitted a minority report disagreeing with certain findings in the BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report. See
Minority Report Submitted by McAllen, TX, San Jose, CA, and New York, NY, GN Docket No. 17-83 (Jan 23,
2018); Letter from Kevin Pagan, City Attorney of McAllen to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed September 14,
2018).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
12
conditions and fees.63 The SPEED Act would similarly streamline federal permitting processes.64 In the
same vein, the Model Code for Municipalities adopts streamlined infrastructure siting requirements while
other BDAC reports and recommendations emphasize the negative impact of high fees on infrastructure
deployments.65
28.As do members of both parties of Congress and experts on the BDAC, we recognize the
urgent need to streamline regulatory requirements to accelerate the deployment of wireless infrastructure
for current needs and for the next generation of wireless service in 5G.66 State government officials also
have urged us to act to expedite the deployment of 5G technology, in particular, by streamlining overly
burdensome regulatory processes to ensure that 5G technology will expand beyond just urban centers.
These officials have expressed their belief that reducing high regulatory costs and delays in urban areas
would leave more money and encourage development in rural areas.67 “[G]etting [5G] infrastructure out
in a timely manner can be a challenge that involves considerable time and financial resources. The
solution is to streamline relevant policies—allowing more modern rules for modern infrastructure.”68
State officials have acknowledged that current regulations are “outdated” and “could hinder the timely
arrival of 5G throughout the country,” and urged the FCC “to push for more reforms that will streamline
infrastructure rules from coast to coast.”69 Although many states and localities support our efforts, we
acknowledge that there are others who advocated for different approaches, arguing, among other points,
63 See, e.g., STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act, S.3157, 115th Congress (2017-2018).
64 See, e.g., Streamlining Permitting to Enable Efficient Deployment of Broadband Infrastructure Act of 2017
(SPEED Act), S. 1988, 115th Cong. (2017).
65 See BDAC Model Municipal Code; Draft BDAC Rates and Fees Report; BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report.
66 See, e.g., Letter from Patricia Paoletta, Counsel to Deloitte Consulting LLP, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1 (filed Sept. 20, 2018) (“Deloitte noted that, as with many technology standard
evolutions, the value of being a first-mover in 5G will be significant. Being first to LTE afforded the United States
macroeconomic benefits, as it became a test bed for innovative mobile, social, and streaming applications. Being
first to 5G can have even greater and more sustained benefits to our national economy given the network effects
associated with adding billions of devices to the 5G network, enabling machine-to-machine interactions that
generates data for further utilization by vertical industries”).
67 Letter from Montana State Senator Duane Ankney to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 17-79, at 1
(filed July 31, 2018) (Duane Ankney July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Fred A. Lamphere, Butte County
Sheriff, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1 (filed Sept. 11, 2018) (Fred A.
Lamphere Sept. 11, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Todd Nash, Susan Roberts, Paul Catstilleja, Wallowa County
Board of Commissioners, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed Aug. 20, 2018);
Letter from Lonnie Gilbert, First Responder, National Black Growers Council Member, to the Hon. Brendan Carr,
Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1 (filed Sept. 12, 2018); Letter from Jason R. Saine, North Caroline
House of Representatives, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1(filed Sept.
14, 2018) (Jason R. Saine Sept. 14, 2018 Ex Parte Letter) (minimal regulatory standard across the United States is
critical to ensure that the United States wins the race to the 5G economy).
68 Letter from LaWana Mayfield, City Council Member, Charlotte, NC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT
Docket 17-79, at 1 (filed July 31, 2018) (LaWana Mayfield July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); see also Letter from
South Carolina State Representative Terry Alexander to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 17-79, at 1
(filed August 7, 2018) (“[P]olicymakers at all levels of government must streamline complex siting stipulations that
will otherwise slow down 5G buildout for small cells in particular.”); Letter from Sal Pace, Pueblo County
Commissioner, District 3, CO, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 17-79, at 1 (filed July 30, 2018)
(Sal Pace July 30, 2018 Ex Parte Letter) (“[T]he FCC should ensure that localities are fully compensated for their
costs . . . Such fees should be reasonable and non-discriminatory, and should ensure that localities are made whole.
Lastly, the FCC should set reasonable and enforceable deadlines for localities to act on wireless permit applications.
. . . The distinction between siting large macro-towers and small cells should be reflected in any rulemaking.”)
69 Letter from Dr. Carolyn A. Prince, Chairwoman, Marlboro County Council, SC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, WT Docket 17-79, at 1 (filed July 31, 2018) (Dr. Carolyn Prince July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
13
that the FCC lacks authority to take certain actions.70 We have carefully considered these views, but
nevertheless find our actions here necessary and fully supported.
29.Accordingly, in this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, we act to reduce
regulatory barriers to the deployment of wireless infrastructure and to ensure that our nation remains the
leader in advanced wireless services and wireless technology.
III.DECLARATORY RULING
30.In this Declaratory Ruling, we note that a number of appellate courts have articulated
different and often conflicting views regarding the scope and nature of the limits Congress imposed on
state and local governments through Sections 253 and 332. In light of these diverging views, Congress’s
vision for a consistent, national policy framework, and the need to ensure that our approach continues to
make sense in light of the relatively new trend towards the large-scale deployment of Small Wireless
Facilities, we take this opportunity to clarify and update the FCC’s reading of the limits Congress
imposed. We do so in three main respects.
31.First, in Part III.A, we express our agreement with the views already stated by the First,
Second, and Tenth Circuits that the “materially inhibit” standard articulated in 1997 by the Clinton-era
FCC’s California Payphone decision is the appropriate standard for determining whether a state or local
law operates as a prohibition or effective prohibition within the meaning of Sections 253 and 332.
32.Second, in Part III.B, we note, as numerous courts have recognized, that state and local
fees and other charges associated with the deployment of wireless infrastructure can effectively prohibit
the provision of service. At the same time, courts have articulated various approaches to determining the
types of fees that run afoul of Congress’s limits in Sections 253 and 332. We thus clarify the particular
standard that governs the fees and charges that violate Sections 253 and 332 when it comes to the Small
Wireless Facilities at issue in this decision. Namely, fees are only permitted to the extent that they
represent a reasonable approximation of the local government’s objectively reasonable costs, and are non-
discriminatory.71 In this section, we also identify specific fee levels for the deployment of Small Wireless
Facilities that presumptively comply with this standard. We do so to help avoid unnecessary litigation,
while recognizing that it is the standard itself, not the particular, presumptive fee levels we articulate, that
ultimately will govern whether a particular fee is allowed under Sections 253 and 332. So fees above
70 See, e.g., City of Manhattan, KS Sept. 13, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2; Ronny Berdugo Sept. 18, 2018 Ex Parte
Letter at 1-2; Damon Connolly Sept. 17, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2.
71 Fees charged by states or localities in connection with Small Wireless Facilities would be “compensation” for
purposes of Section 253(c). This Declaratory Ruling interprets Section 253 and 332(c)(7) in the context of three
categories of fees, one of which applies to all deployments of Small Wireless Facilities while the other two are
specific to Small Wireless Facilities deployments inside the ROW. (1) “Event” or “one-time” fees are charges that
providers pay on a non-recurring basis in connection with a one-time event, or series of events occurring within a
finite period. The one-time fees addressed in this Declaratory Ruling are not specific to the ROW. For example, a
provider may be required to pay fees during the application process to cover the costs related to processing an
application building or construction permits, street closures, or a permitting fee, whether or not the deployment is in
the ROW. (2) Recurring charges for a Small Wireless Facility’s use of or attachment to property inside the ROW
owned or controlled by a state or local government, such as a light pole or traffic light, is the second category of fees
addressed here, and is typically paid on a per structure/per year basis. (3) Finally, ROW access fees are recurring
charges that are assessed, in some instances, to compensate a state or locality for a Small Wireless Facility’s access
to the ROW, which includes the area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, sidewalk, alley, utility
easement, or similar property (including when such property is government-owned). A ROW access fee may be
charged even if the Small Wireless Facility is not using government owned property within the ROW. AT&T
Comments at 18 (describing three categories of fees); Letter from Tamara Preiss, Vice President, Federal Regulatory
and Legal Affairs, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, Attach. at 11 (filed Aug.
10, 2018) (Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter) (characterizing fees as recurring or non-recurring); see also Draft
BDAC Rates and Fees Report at p. 15-16. Unless otherwise specified, a reference to “fee” or “fees” herein refers to
any one of, or any combination of, these three categories of charges.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
14
those levels would be permissible under Sections 253 and 332 to the extent a locality’s actual, reasonable
costs (as measured by the standard above) are higher.
33.Finally, in Part III.C, we focus on a subset of other, non-fee provisions of state and local
law that could also operate as prohibitions on service. We do so in particular by addressing state and
local consideration of aesthetic concerns in the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. We note that the
Small Wireless Facilities that are the subject of this Declaratory Ruling remain subject to the
Commission’s rules governing Radio Frequency (RF) emissions exposure.72
A.Overview of the Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7) Framework Relevant to Small
Wireless Facilities Deployment
34.In Sections 253(a) and 332(c)(7)(B) of the Act, Congress determined that state or local
requirements that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of service are unlawful and thus
preempted.73 Section 253(a) addresses “any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service,” while
Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) addresses “personal wireless services.”74 Although the provisions contain
identical “effect of prohibiting” language, the Commission and different courts over the years have each
employed inconsistent approaches to deciding what it means for a state or local legal requirement to have
the “effect of prohibiting” services under these two sections of the Act. This has caused confusion among
both providers and local governments about what legal requirements are permitted under Sections 253
and 332(c)(7). For example, despite Commission decisions to the contrary construing such language
under Section 253, some courts have held that a denial of a wireless siting application will “prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting” the provision of a personal wireless service under Section
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) only if the provider can establish that it has a significant gap in service coverage in the
72 See 47 CFR §§ 1.1307, 1.1310. We disagree with commenters who oppose the Declaratory Ruling on the basis of
concerns regarding RF emissions. See, e.g., Comments from Judy Aizuss, Comments from Jeffrey Arndt,
Comments from Jeanice Barcelo, Comments from Kristin Beatty, Comments from James M. Benster, Comments
from Terrie Burns, Comments from EMF Safety Network, Comments from Kate Reese Hurd, Comments from
Marilynne Martin, Comments from Lisa Mayock, Comments from Kristen Moriarty Termunde, Comments from
Sage Associates, Comments from Elizabeth Shapiro, Comments from Paul Silver, Comments from Natalie Ventrice.
The Commission has authority to adopt and enforce RF exposure limits, and nothing in this Declaratory Ruling
changes the applicability of the Commission’s existing RF emissions exposure rules. See, e.g., Section 704(b) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104 (directing Commission to “prescribe and make effective
rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions” upon completing action in then-pending
rulemaking proceeding that included proposals for, inter alia, maximum exposure limits); 47 U.S.C. §
332(c)(7)(B)(iv) (recognizing legitimacy of FCC’s existing regulations on environmental effects of RF emissions of
personal wireless service facilities, by proscribing state and local regulation of such facilities on the basis of such
effects, to the extent such facilities comply with Commission regulations concerning such RF emissions); 47 U.S.C.
§ 151 (creating the FCC “[f]or the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire
and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, . . . a rapid, efficient,
Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service, . . . for the purpose of [inter alia] promoting
safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications”). See also H.R. Rep. No. 204(I),
104th Cong., 1st Sess. 94 (1995), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 10, 61 (1996) (in legislative history of Section
704 of 1996 Telecommunications Act, identifying “adequate safeguards of the public health and safety” as part of a
framework of uniform, nationwide RF regulations); ; Reassessment of FCC Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and
Policies, First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 28 FCC Rcd 3498,
3530-31, para. 103, n.176 (2013).
73 47 U.S.C. §§ 253(a), 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).
74 Id. The actions in this proceeding update the FCC’s approach to Sections 253 and 332 by addressing effective
prohibitions that apply to the deployment of services covered by those provisions. Our interpretations in this
proceeding do not provide any basis for increasing the regulation of services deployed consistent with Section 621
of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
15
area and a lack of feasible alternative locations for siting facilities.75 Other courts have held that evidence
of an already-occurring or complete inability to offer a telecommunications service is required to
demonstrate an effective prohibition under Section 253(a).76 Conversely, still other courts like the First,
Second, and Tenth Circuits have endorsed prior Commission interpretations of what constitutes an
effective prohibition under Section 253(a) and recognized that, under that analytical framework, a legal
requirement can constitute an effective prohibition of services even if it is not an insurmountable barrier.77
35.In this Declaratory Ruling, we first reaffirm, as our definitive interpretation of the
effective prohibition standard, the test we set forth in California Payphone, namely, that a state or local
legal requirement constitutes an effective prohibition if it “materially limits or inhibits the ability of any
competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.”78
We then explain how this “material inhibition” standard applies in the context of state and local fees and
aesthetic requirements. In doing so, we confirm the First, Second, and Tenth Circuits’ understanding that
under this analytical framework, a legal requirement can “materially inhibit” the provision of services
even if it is not an insurmountable barrier.79 We also resolve the conflicting court interpretations of the
75 Courts vary widely regarding the type of showing needed to satisfy the second part of that standard. The First,
Fourth, and Seventh Circuits have imposed a “heavy burden” of proof on applicants to establish a lack of alternative
feasible sites, requiring them to show “not just that this application has been rejected but that further reasonable
efforts to find another solution are so likely to be fruitless that it is a waste of time even to try.” Green Mountain
Realty Corp. v. Leonard, 750 F.3d 30, 40 (1st Cir. 2014); accord New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Fairfax
County, 674 F.3d 270, 277 (4th Cir. 2012); T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Fairfax County, 672 F.3d 259, 266-68 (4th
Cir. 2012) (en banc); Helcher v. Dearborn County, 595 F.3d 710, 723 (7th Cir. 2010) (Helcher). The Second,
Third, and Ninth Circuits have held that an applicant must show only that its proposed facilities are the “least
intrusive means” for filling a coverage gap in light of the aesthetic or other values that the local authority seeks to
serve. Sprint Spectrum, LP v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 643 (2d Cir. 1999) (Willoth); APT Pittsburgh Ltd. P’ship v.
Penn Township, 196 F.3d 469, 480 (3d Cir. 1999) (APT); American Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego, 763 F.3d
1035, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2014); T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995-99 (9th Cir. 2009) (City
of Anacortes).
76 See, e.g., County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 579-80; Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC v. City of St. Louis, 477 F.3d 528,
533-34 (8th Cir. 2007) (City of St. Louis).
77 See Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 2006) (Municipality of
Guayanilla); TCG New York, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 305 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2002) (City of White Plains); RT
Communications v. FCC, 201 F.3d 1264, 1268 (10th Cir. 2000) (“[Section] 253(a) forbids any statute which
prohibits or has ‘the effect of prohibiting’ entry. Nowhere does the statute require that a bar to entry be
insurmountable before the FCC must preempt it.”) (RT Communications) (affirming Silver Star Tel. Co. Petition for
Preemption and Declaratory Ruling, 12 FCC Rcd 15639 (1997)).
78 California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14206, para. 31. A number of circuit courts have cited California Payphone
as the leading authority regarding the standard to be applied under Section 253(a). See, e.g., County of San Diego,
543 F.3d at 578; City of St. Louis, 477 F.3d at 533; Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 18; Qwest Corp. v. City
of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d 1258, 1270 (10th Cir. 2004) (City of Santa Fe); City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 76. Crown
Castle argues that the Eighth and Ninth Circuit cited the FCC’s California Payphone decision,but read the standard
in an overly narrow fashion. See, e.g., Letter from Kenneth J. Simon, Senior Vice Pres. and Gen. Counsel, Crown
Castle, et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 12 (filed June 7, 2018) (Crown Castle
June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); see also Smart Communities Comments at 60-61 (describing circuit split). Some
commenters cite selected dictionary definitions or otherwise argue for a narrow definition of “prohibit.” See, e.g.,
Smart Communities Reply at 53. But because they do not go on to dispute the validity of the California Payphone
standard that has been employed not only by the Commission but also many courts, those arguments do not persuade
us to depart from the California Payphone standard here.
79 See, e.g., City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 76; Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 18; see also, e.g., Crown
Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 12. Because the clarifications in this order should reduce uncertainty
regarding the application of these provisions for state and local governments as well as stakeholders, we are not
persuaded by some commenters’ arguments that an expedited complaint process is required. See, e.g., AT&T
Comments at 28; CTIA Reply at 21. We do not address, at this time, recently-filed petitions for reconsideration of
our August 2018 Moratoria Declaratory Ruling. See, e.g., Smart Communities Petition for Reconsideration, WC
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
16
‘effective prohibition’ language so that continuing confusion on the meaning of Sections 253 and
332(c)(7) does not materially inhibit the critical deployments of Small Wireless Facilities and our nation’s
drive to deploy 5G.80
36.As an initial matter, we note that our Declaratory Ruling applies with equal measure to
the effective prohibition standard that appears in both Sections 253(a) and 332(c)(7).81 This ruling is
consistent with the basic canon of statutory interpretation that identical words appearing in neighboring
provisions of the same statute generally should be interpreted to have the same meaning.82 Moreover,
both of these provisions apply to wireless telecommunications services83 as well as to commingled
services and facilities.84
(Continued from previous page)
Docket No. 17-84 & WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Sept. 4, 2018); New York City Petition for Reconsideration, WC
Docket No. 17-84 & WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Sept. 4, 2018). Nor do we address requests for clarification and/or
action on other issues raised in the record beyond those expressly discussed in this order. These other issues include
arguments regarding other statutory interpretations that we do not address here. See, e.g., CTIA Reply at 23 (raising
broader questions about the precise interplay of Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7)); Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex
Parte Letter at 16-17 (raising broader questions about the scope of “legal requirements” under Section 253(a)).
Consequently, this order should not be read as impliedly taking a position on those issues.
80 See, e.g., Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 11-12 (arguing that “[d]espite the Commission’s efforts to
define the boundaries of federal preemption under Section 253, courts have issued a number of conflicting decisions
that have only served to confuse the preemption analysis sunder section 253” and that “the Commission should
clarify that the California Payphone standard as interpreted by the First and Second Circuits is the appropriate
standard going forward”); see also BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report at p. 9 (“The Commission should provide
clarity on what actually constitutes an “excessive” fee for right-of-way access and use. The FCC should provide
guidance on what constitutes a fee that is excessive and/or duplicative, and that therefore is not “fair and
reasonable.” The Commission should specifically clarify that “fair and reasonable” compensation for right-of way
access and use implies some relation to the burden of new equipment placed in the ROW or on the local asset, or
some other objective standard.”). Because our decision provides clarity by addressing conflicting court decisions
and reaffirming that the “materially inhibits” standard articulated in the Commission’s California Payphone decision
is the appropriate standard for determining whether a state or local law operates as an effective prohibition within
the meaning of Sections 253 and 332, we reject arguments that our action will increase conflicts and lead to more
litigation. See e.g., Letter from Michael Dylan Brennan, Mayor, City of University Heights, Ohio, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed Sept. 19, 2018) (stating that “…this framing and
definition of effective prohibition opens local governments to the likelihood of more, not less, conflict and litigation
over requirements for aesthetics, spacing, and undergrounding”).
81 See infra Part III.A, B.
82 See County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 579 (“We see nothing suggesting that Congress intended a different
meaning of the text ‘prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting’ in the two statutory provisions, enacted at the same
time, in the same statute. * * * * * As we now hold, the legal standard is the same under either [Section 253 or
332(c)(7)].”); see also, e.g., Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust, 136 S. Ct. 1938, 1946 (citing Sullivan v.
Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 484 (1990) (reading same term used in different parts of the same Act to have the same
meaning); Northcross v. Board of Ed. of Memphis City Schools, 412 U.S. 427, 428 (1973) (per curiam)
(“[S]imilarity of language . . . is . . . a strong indication that the two statutes should be interpreted pari passu”);
Verizon Comments at 9-10; AT&T Reply at 3-4; Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 15.
83 Common carrier wireless services meet the definition of “telecommunications services,” and thus are within the
scope of Section 253(a) of the Act. See, e.g., Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, para 142 n.523; see also,
e.g., League of Minnesota Cities Comments at 11; Verizon Reply at 9-10. While some commenters cite certain
distinguishing factual characteristics between wireline and wireless services, the record does not reveal why those
distinctions would be material to whether wireless telecommunications services are covered by Section 253 in the
first instance. See, e.g., City of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. A at 13; Virginia Joint Commenters Comments
at 5, Exh. A at 45-46. To the contrary, Section 253(e) expressly preserves “application of section 332(c)(3) of this
title to commercial mobile service providers” notwithstanding Section 253—a provision that would be meaningless
if wireless telecommunications services already fell outside the scope of Section 253. 47 U.S.C. § 253(e). For this
same reason, we also reject claims that the existence of certain protections for personal wireless services in Section
332(c)(7), or the phrase “nothing in this chapter” in Section 332(c)(7)(A), demonstrate that states’ or localities’
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
17
37.As explained in California Payphone and reaffirmed here, a state or local legal
requirement will have the effect of prohibiting wireless telecommunications services if it materially
inhibits the provision of such services. We clarify that an effective prohibition occurs where a state or
local legal requirement materially inhibits a provider’s ability to engage in any of a variety of activities
related to its provision of a covered service.85 This test is met not only when filling a coverage gap but
also when densifying a wireless network, introducing new services or otherwise improving service
(Continued from previous page)
regulations affecting wireless telecommunications services must fall outside the scope of Section 253. See, e.g.,
Virginia Joint Commenters Comments, Exh. A at iii, 45-46; Smart Communities Comments at 56. Even if, as some
parties argue, the phrase “nothing in this chapter” could be construed as preserving state or local decisions on the
placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities from preemption by other sections of
the Communications Act, Section 332(c)(7)(A) goes on to make clear that such state or local decisions are not
immune from preemption if they violate any of the standards set forth in Section 332(c)(7)(B)--including Section
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)’s ban of requirements that “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” the provision of service,
which is identical to the preemption provision in Section 253(a). Thus, states and localities may charge fees and
dispose of applications relating to the matters subject to Section 332(c)(7) in any manner they deem appropriate, so
long as that conduct does not amount to a prohibition or effective prohibition, as interpreted in this Declaratory
Ruling or otherwise run afoul of federal or state law; but because Sections 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and 253(a) use
identical ”effective prohibition” language, the standard for what is saved and what is preempted is the same under
both provisions.
84 See infra para. 40 (discussing use of small cells to close coverage gaps, including voice gaps); see also, e.g.,
Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, para 145 n.531; Restoring Internet Freedom, Declaratory Ruling,
Report and Order, and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 311, 425, para. 190 (2018); Letter from Andre J. Lachance, Associate
General Counsel, Verizon to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 3 (filed Sept. 19, 2018)
(confirming that “telecommunications services can be provided over small cells and Verizon has deployed Small
Wireless Facilities in its network that provide telecommunications services.”); Letter from David M. Crawford,
Senior Corporate Counsel, Fed. Reg. Affairs, T-Mobile, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-
79 at 1 (filed Sept. 19, 2018) (stating that “small wireless facilities are a critical component of T-Mobile’s network
deployment plans to support both the 5G evolution of wireless services, as well as more traditional services such as
mobile broadband and even voice calls. T-Mobile, for example, uses small wireless facilities to densify our network
to provide better coverage and greater capacity, and to provide traditional services such as voice calls in areas where
our macro site coverage is insufficient to meet demand.”); Letter from Henry G. Hultquist, Vice President, Federal
Regulatory, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1 (filed Sept. 20, 2018)
(“AT&T has operated and continues to operate commercial mobile radio services as well as information services
from small wireless facilities...”); see also, e.g., Coastal Communications Service v. City of New York, 658 F. Supp.
2d 425, 441-42 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (finding that a restriction on advertising on newly-installed payphones was subject
to Section 253(a) where the advertising was a material factor in the provider’s ability to provide the payphone
service itself). The fact that facilities are sometimes deployed by third parties not themselves providing covered
services also does not place such deployment beyond the purview of Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)
insofar as the facilities are used by wireless service providers on a wholesale basis to provide covered services
(among other things). See, e.g., T-Mobile Comments at 26. Given our conclusion that neither commingling of
services nor the identity of the entity engaged in the deployment activity changes the applicability of Section 253(a)
or Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) where the facilities are being used for the provisioning of services within the scope of
the relevant statutory provisions, we reject claims to the contrary. See, e.g., Colorado Communications and Utility
Alliance et al. Comments at 15-16; City of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. A at 12; id., Exh. C at 13-15.
Because local jurisdictions do not have the authority to regulate these interstate services, there is no basis for local
jurisdictions to conduct proceedings on the types of personal wireless services offered over particular wireless
service facilities or the licensee’s service area, which are matters within the Commission’s licensing authority.
Furthermore, local jurisdictions do not have the authority to require that providers offer certain types or levels of
service, or to dictate the design of a provider’s network. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A); see also Bastien v. AT&T
Wireless Servs., Inc., 205 F.3d 983, 989 (7th Cir. 2000).
85 By “covered service” we mean a telecommunications service or a personal wireless service for purposes of
Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7), respectively.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
18
capabilities.86 Under the California Payphone standard, a state or local legal requirement could materially
inhibit service in numerous ways—not only by rendering a service provider unable to provide an existing
service in a new geographic area or by restricting the entry of a new provider in providing service in a
particular area, but also by materially inhibiting the introduction of new services or the improvement of
existing services. Thus, an effective prohibition includes materially inhibiting additional services or
improving existing services.87
38.Our reading of Section 253(a) and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) reflects and supports a
marketplace in which services can be offered in a multitude of ways with varied capabilities and
performance characteristics consistent with the policy goals in the 1996 Act and the Communications Act.
To limit Sections 253(a) and 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) to protecting only against coverage gaps or the like would
be to ignore Congress’s contemporaneously-expressed goals of “promot[ing] competition[,] . . . secur[ing]
. . . higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage[ing] the rapid
deployment of new telecommunications technologies.”88 In addition, as the Commission recently
explained, the implementation of the Act “must factor in the fundamental objectives of the Act, including
the deployment of a ‘rapid, efficient . . . wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at
reasonable charges’ and ‘the development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products and
services for the benefit of the public . . . without administrative or judicial delays[, and] efficient and
86 See, e.g., Crown Castle Comments at 54-55; Free State Foundation Comments at 12; T-Mobile Comments at 43-
45; CTIA Reply at 14; WIA Reply at 26; Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 13-14; Letter from Kara
Romagnino Graves, Director, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-
79, at 8-9 (filed June 27, 2018) (CTIA June 27, 2018 Ex Parte Letter). As T-Mobile explains, for example, a
provider might need to improve “signal strength or system capacity to allow it to provide reliable service to
consumers in residential and commercial buildings.” T-Mobile Comments at 43; see also, e.g., Acceleration of
Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WT Docket Nos. 13-238, et al., Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 14238, 14253, para. 38 (2013) (observing that “DAS and small cell facilities[ ]
are critical to satisfying demand for ubiquitous mobile voice and broadband services”). The growing prevalence of
smart phones has only accelerated the demand for wireless providers to take steps to improve their service offerings.
See, e.g., Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9011-13, paras. 62-65.
87 Our conclusion finds further support in our broad understanding of the statutory term “service,” which, as we
explained in our recent Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, means “any covered service a provider wishes to provide,
incorporating the abilities and performance characteristics it wishes to employ, including to provide existing services
more robustly, or at a higher level of quality—such as through filling a coverage gap, densification, or otherwise
improving service capabilities.” Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, para. 162 n.594; see also Public
Utility Comm’n of Texas Petition for Declaratory Ruling and/or Preemption of Certain Provisions of the Texas
Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 3460, 3496, para. 74 (1997)
(Texas PUC Order) (interpreting the scope of ‘telecommunications services’ covered by Section 253(a) and
clarifying that it would be an unlawful prohibition for a state or locality to specify “the means or facilities” through
which a service provider must offer service); Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 10-11 (discussing this
precedent). We find this interpretation of “service” warranted not only under Section 253(a), but Section
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)’s reference to “services” as well.
88 Preamble to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. Law. No. 104-104, § 202, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
Consequently, we reject arguments suggesting that the provision of some level of wireless service in the past
necessarily demonstrates that there is no effective prohibition of service under the state or local legal requirements
that applied during those periods or that an effective prohibition only is present if a provider can provide no covered
service whatsoever. See, e.g., City and County of San Francisco Comments at 25-26; Virginia Joint Commenters
Comments, Exh. A at 31-33. Nor, in light of these goals, do we find it reasonable to interpret the protections of
these provisions as doing nothing more than guarding against a monopoly as some suggest. See, e.g., Smart
Communities Comments, WC Docket No. 17-84, at 8-9 (filed June 15, 2017) cited in Smart Communities
Comments at 57 n.141.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
19
intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum.’”89 These provisions demonstrate that our interpretation of
Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) is in accordance with the broader goals of the various statutes
that the Commission is entrusted to administer.
39.California Payphone further concluded that providers must be allowed to compete in a
“fair and balanced regulatory environment.”90 As reflected in decisions such as the Commission’s Texas
PUC Order, a state or local legal requirement can function as an effective prohibition either because of
the resulting “financial burden” in an absolute sense, or, independently, because of a resulting competitive
disparity.91 We clarify that “[a] regulatory structure that gives an advantage to particular services or
facilities has a prohibitory effect, even if there are no express barriers to entry in the state or local code;
the greater the discriminatory effect, the more certain it is that entities providing service using the
disfavored facilities will experience prohibition.”92 This conclusion is consistent with both Commission
and judicial precedent recognizing the prohibitory effect that results from a competitor being treated
materially differently than similarly-situated providers.93 We provide our authoritative interpretation
below of the circumstances in which a “financial burden,” as described in the Texas PUC Order,
constitutes an effective prohibition in the context of certain state and local fees.
40.As we explained above, we reject alternative readings of the effective prohibition
language that have been adopted by some courts and used to defend local requirements that have the
effect of prohibiting densification of networks. Decisions that have applied solely a “coverage gap”-
based approach under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) reflect both an unduly narrow reading of the statute and
an outdated view of the marketplace.94 Those cases, including some that formed the foundation for
89 Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Second Report
and Order, FCC 18-30, para. 62 (rel. Mar. 30, 2018) (Wireless Infrastructure Second R&O) (quoting 47 U.S.C. §§
151, 309(j)(3)(A), (D)).
90 California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14206, para. 31.
91 Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3466, 3498-500, paras. 13, 78-81; see also, e.g., Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex
Parte at 10-11, 13.
92 Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 13.
93 See, e.g., Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3466, 3498-500, paras. 13, 78-81; Federal-State Joint Board on
Universal Service; Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Preemption of an Order of the South Dakota Public
Utilities, Declaratory Ruling, 15 FCC Rcd 15168, 15173, paras. 12-13 (2000) (Western Wireless Order); Pittencrieff
Communications, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Preemption of the Texas Public Utility Regulatory
Act of 1995, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 1735, 1751-52, para. 32 (1997) (Pittencrieff), aff’d,
Cellular Telecomm. Indus. Ass‘n v. FCC, 168 F.3d 1332 (5th Cir. 1999); City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 80.
94 Smart Communities seeks clarification of whether this Declaratory Ruling is meant to say that the “coverage gap”
standard followed by a number of courts should include consideration of capacity as well as coverage issues. Letter
from Gerard Lavery Lederer, Counsel, Smart Communities and Special Districts Coalition, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, Att. at 17 (Sept. 19, 2018) (Smart Communities Sept. 19 Ex Parte Letter).
We are not holding that prior “coverage gap” analyses are consistent with the standards we articulate here as long as
they also take into account “capacity gaps”; rather, we are articulating here the effective prohibition standard that
should apply while, at the same time, noting one way in which prior approaches erred by requiring coverage gaps.
Accordingly, we reject both the version of the “coverage gap” test followed by the First, Fourth, and Seventh
Circuits (requiring applicants to show “not just that this application has been rejected but that further reasonable
efforts to find another solution are so likely to be fruitless that it is a waste of time even to try”) and the version
endorsed by the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits (requiring applicants to show that the proposed facilities are the
“least intrusive means” for filling a coverage gap) See supra n. 75. We also note that some courts have expressed
concern about alternative readings of the statute that would lead to extreme outcomes—either always requiring a
grant under some interpretations, or never preventing a denial under other interpretations. See, e.g., Willoth, 176
F.3d at 639-41; APT, 196 F.3d at 478-79; Town of Amherst v. Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, Inc., 173
F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 1999); AT&T Wireless PCS v. City Council of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d 423, 428 (4th Cir. 1998)
(City Council of Virginia Beach); see also, e.g., Greenling Comments at 2; City and County of San Francisco Reply
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
20
“coverage gap”-based analytical approaches, appear to view wireless service as if it were a single,
monolithic offering provided only via traditional wireless towers. 95 By contrast, the current wireless
marketplace is characterized by a wide variety of offerings with differing service characteristics and
deployment strategies. 96 As Crown Castle explains, coverage gap-based approaches are “simply
(Continued from previous page)
at 16. Our interpretation avoids those concerns while better reflecting the text and policy goals of the
Communications Act and 1996 Act than coverage gap-based approaches ultimately adopted by those courts. Our
approach ensures meaningful constraints on state and local conduct that otherwise would prohibit or have the effect
of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. At the same time, our standard does not preclude all state
and local denials of requests for the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities,
as explained below. See infra III.B, C.
95 See, e.g., Willoth, 176 F.3d at 641-44; 360 Degrees Commc’ns Co. v.Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
211 F.3d 79, 86-88 & n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (Albemarle County); see also, e.g., ExteNet Comments at 29; T-Mobile
Comments at 42; Verizon Comments at 18; WIA Comments at 38-40. Even some cases that implicitly recognize the
limitations of a gap-based test fail to account for those limitations in practice when applying Section
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). See, e.g., Second Generation Properties v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620, 633 n.14 (4th Cir.
2002) (discussing scenarios where a carrier has coverage but insufficient capacity to adequately handle the volume
of calls or where new technology emerges and a carrier would like to use it in areas that already have coverage using
prior-generation technology). Courts that have sought to identify limited set of characteristics of personal wireless
services covered by the Act essentially allow actual or effective prohibition of many personal wireless services that
providers wish to offer with additional or more advanced characteristics. See, e.g., Willoth, 176 F.3d at 641-43
(drawing upon certain statutory definitions); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Ho-Ho-
Kus, 197 F.3d 64, 70 (3d Cir. 1999) (Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus) (concluding that it should be up to state or local
authorities to assess and weigh the benefits of differing service qualities); Albemarle County, 211 F.3d at 87 (citing
47 CFR §§ 22.99, 22.911(b) as noting the possibility of some ‘dead spots’); cf. USCOC of Greater Iowa, Inc. v.
Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Des Moines, 465 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2006) (describing as a “dubious
proposition” the argument that a denial of a request to construct a tower resulting in “less than optimal” service
quality could be an effective prohibition). An outcome that allows the actual or effective prohibition of some
covered services is contrary to the Act. Section 253(a) applies to any state or local legal requirement that prohibits
or has the effect of prohibiting any entity from providing “any” interstate or intrastate telecommunications service,
47 U.S.C. § 253(a). Similarly, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) categorically precludes state or local regulation of the
placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities that prohibits or has the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless “services.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). We find the most natural
interpretation of these sections is that any service that meets the definition of “telecommunications service” or
“personal wireless service” is encompassed by the language of each provision, rather than only some subset of such
services or service generally. The notion that such state or local regulation permissibly could prohibit some personal
wireless services, so long as others are available, is at odds with that interpretation. In addition, as we explain
above, a contrary approach would fail to advance important statutory goals as well as the interpretation we adopt.
Further, the approach reflected in these court decisions could involve state or local authorities “inquir[ing] into and
regulat[ing] the services offered—an inquiry for which they are ill-qualified to pursue and which could only delay
infrastructure deployment.” Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 14. Instead, our effective prohibition
analysis focuses on the service the provider wishes to provide, incorporating the capabilities and performance
characteristics it wishes to employ, including facilities deployment to provide existing services more robustly, or at a
better level of quality, all to offer a more robust and competitive wireless service for the benefit of the public.
96 See generally, e.g., Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8968; see also, e.g., T-Mobile
Comments at 42-43; AT&T Reply at 4-5; CTIA Reply at 13-14; WIA Reply at 23-24; Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex
Parte Letter at 15. We do not suggest that viewing wireless service as if it were a single, monolithic offering
provided only via traditional wireless towers would have reflected an accurate understanding of the marketplace in
the past, even if it might have been somewhat more understandable that courts held such a simplified view at that
time. Rather, the current marketplace conditions highlight even more starkly the shortcomings of coverage gap-
based approaches, which do not account for other characteristics and deployment strategies. See, e.g., Twentieth
Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8974-75, para. 12 (observing that “[p]roviders of mobile wireless
services typically offer an array of mobile voice and data services,” including “interconnected mobile voice
services”); id. at 8997-97, paras. 42-43 (discussing various types of wireless infrastructure deployment to, among
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
21
incompatible with a world where the vast majority of new wireless builds are going to be designed to add
network capacity and take advantage of new technologies, rather than plug gaps in network coverage.”97
Moreover, a critical feature of these new wireless builds is to accommodate increased in-building use of
wireless services, necessitating deployment of small cells in order to ensure quality service to wireless
callers within such buildings.98
41.Likewise, we reject the suggestion of some courts like the Eighth and Ninth Circuits that
evidence of an existing or complete inability to offer a telecommunications service is required under
253(a).99 Such an approach is contrary to the material inhibition standard of California Payphone and the
correct recognition by courts “that a prohibition does not have to be complete or ‘insurmountable’” to
constitute an effective prohibition.100 Commission precedent beginning with California Payphone itself
makes clear that an insurmountable barrier is not required to find an effective prohibition under Section
253(a).101 The “effectively prohibit” language must have some meaning independent of the “prohibit”
(Continued from previous page)
other things, “improve spectrum efficiency for 4G and future 5G services,” “to fill local coverage gaps, to densify
networks and to increase local capacity”).
97 Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 15; see also id. at 13 (“Densification of networks will be key for
augmenting the capacity of existing networks and laying the groundwork for the deployment of 5G.”); id. at 15-16
(“When trying to maximize spectrum re-use and boost capacity, moving facilities by just a few hundred feet can
mean the difference between excellent service and poor service. The FCC’s rules, therefore, must account for the
effect siting decisions would have on every level of service, including increasing capacity and adding new spectrum
bands. Practices and decisions that prevent carriers from doing either materially prohibit the provision of
telecommunications service and thus should be considered impermissible under Section 332.”). Contrary
approaches appear to occur in part when courts’ policy balancing places more importance on broadly preserving
state and local authority than is justified. See, e.g., APT, 196 F.3d at 479; Albemarle County, 211 F.3d at 86; City
Council of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d at 429; National Tower, LLC v. Plainville Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 297 F.3d 14
(1st Cir. 2002); see also, e.g., League of Arizona Cities et al. Joint Comments at 45; Smart Communities Reply at
33. As explained above, our interpretation that “telecommunications services” in Section 253(a) and “personal
wireless services” in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) are focused on the covered services that providers seek to provide
—including the relevant service characteristics they seek to incorporate—not only is consistent with the text of those
provisions but better reflects the broader policy goals of the Communications Act and the 1996 Act.
98 See WIA Comments at 39; T-Mobile Comments at 43-44.
99 See, e.g., County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 577, 579-80; City of St. Louis, 477 F.3d at 533-34; see also, e.g.,
Virginia Joint Commenters Comments, Exh. A at 39-41. Although the Ninth Circuit in County of San Diego found
that “the unambiguous text of §253(a)” precluded a prior Ninth Circuit approach that found an effective prohibition
based on broad governmental discretion and the “mere possibility of prohibition,” that holding is not implicated by
our interpretations here. County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 578; cf. City of St. Louis, 477 F.3d at 532. Consequently,
those decisions do not preclude the Commission’s interpretations here, see, e.g., Verizon Reply at 7, and we reject
claims to the contrary. See, e.g., Smart Communities Comments at 60.
100 City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 76 (citing RT Commc’ns, 201 F.3d at 1268); see also, e.g., Municipality of
Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 18 (quoting City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 76 and citing City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d at
1269); Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 12; Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter, Attach at 5.
Indeed, the Eighth Circuit’s City of St. Louis decision acknowledges that under Section 253 “[t]he plaintiff need not
show a complete or insurmountable prohibition,” even while other aspects of that decision suggest that an
insurmountable barrier effectively would be required. City of St. Louis, 477 F.3d at 533 (citing City of White Plains,
305 F.3d at 76).
101 In California Payphone, the Commission concluded that the ordinance at issue “does not ‘prohibit’ the ability of
any payphone service provider to provide payphone service in the Central Business District within the meaning of
section 253(a),” but went on to evaluate the possibility of an effective prohibition by considering “whether the
Ordinance materially inhibits or limits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and
balanced legal and regulatory environment.” California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14205, 14206, paras. 28, 31. In
the Texas PUC Order, the Commission found that state law build-out requirements would require “substantial
financial investment” and a “comparatively high cost per loop sold” in particular areas, interfering with the
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
22
language, and we find that the interpretation of the First, Second, and Tenth Circuits reflects that
principle, while being more consistent with the California Payphone standard than the approach of the
Eighth and Ninth Circuits.102 The reasonableness of our interpretation that ‘effective prohibition’ does not
require a showing of an insurmountable barrier to entry is demonstrated not only by a number of circuit
courts’ acceptance of that view, but in the Supreme Court’s own characterization of Section 253(a) as
“prohibit[ing] state and local regulation that impedes the provision of ‘telecommunications service.’”103
42.The Eighth and Ninth Circuits’ suggestion that a provider must show an insurmountable
barrier to entry in the jurisdiction imposing the relevant regulation is at odds with relevant statutory
purposes and goals, as well. Section 253(a) is designed to protect “any entity” seeking to provide
telecommunications services from state and local barriers to entry, and Sections 253(b) and (c) emphasize
the importance of “competitively neutral” and “nondiscriminatory” treatment of providers.104 Yet
focusing on whether the carrier seeking relief faces an insurmountable barrier to entry would lead to
disparities in statutory protections among providers based merely on considerations such as their access to
capital and the breadth or narrowness of their entry strategies.105 In addition, the Commission has
observed in connection with Section 253: “Each local government may believe it is simply protecting the
(Continued from previous page)
“statewide entry” plans that new entrants “may reasonable contemplate” in violation of Section 253(a)
notwithstanding claims that the specific new entrants at issue had “‘vast resources and access to capital’ sufficient
to meet those added costs. Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3498, para. 78. The Commission also has expressed
“great concern” about an exclusive rights-of-way access agreement that “appear[ed] to have the potential to
adversely affect the provision of telecommunications services by facilities-based providers, in violation of the
provision of section 253(a).” Minnesota Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 21700, para. 3. As another example, in the Western
Wireless Order, the Commission stated that a “universal service fund mechanism that provides funding only to
ILECs” would likely violate Section 253(a) not because it was insurmountable but because it would “effectively
lower the price of ILEC-provided service relative to competitor-provided service” and thus “give customers a strong
incentive to choose service from ILECs rather than competitors.” Western Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16231,
para. 8.
102 We discuss specific applications of the California Payphone standard in the context of certain fees and non-fee
regulations in the sections below; we leave others to be addressed case-by-case as they arise or otherwise are taken
up by the Commission or courts in the future.
103 Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467, 491 (2002) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Level 3
Communications, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Level 3 Communications, LLC v. City of St. Louis, No. 08-626, at
13 (filed Nov. 7, 2008) (“[T]he term ‘[p]rohibit’ commonly has a less absolute meaning than that adopted below,
and properly refers to actions that ‘hold back,’ ‘hinder,’ or ‘obstruct.’” (quoting Random House Webster’s
Unabridged Dictionary 1546 (2d ed. 1998)). We thus are not compelled to interpret ‘effective prohibition’ to set the
high bar suggested by some commenters based on other dictionary definitions. Smart Communities Petition for
Reconsideration, WC Docket No. 17-84, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 7 (filed Sept. 4, 2018). Because we are
unpersuaded that the statutory terminology requires us to interpret an effective prohibition as satisfied only by an
insurmountable barrier to entry, we likewise reject commenters’ attempts to argue that “effective prohibition” must
be understood to set a higher bar by comparison to the “impairment” language in Section 251 of the Act and
associated regulatory interpretations of network unbundling requirements taken from that context. Id at 6. In
addition, commenters do not demonstrate why the statutory framework and regulatory context of network
unbundling under Section 251—and the specific concerns about access by non-facilities-based providers to
competitive networks underlying the court precedent they cite—is sufficiently analogous to that of Section 253 and
Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) that statements from that context should inform our interpretation here. See, e.g., AT&T
Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. at 392. In responding to these discrete arguments raised in a petition for
reconsideration of the Moratoria Declaratory Ruling that bear on actions we take in this order we do not thereby
resolve any of the petition’s arguments with respect to that order. The requests for relief raised in the petition
remain pending in full.
104 47 U.S.C. § 253(a), (b), (c).
105 See, e.g., Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3498, para. 78 (rejecting claims that there should be a higher bar to
find an effective prohibition for providers with significant financial resources and recognizing that the effects of the
relevant state requirements on a given provider could differ depending on the planned geographic scope of entry).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
23
interests of its constituents. The telecommunications interests of constituents, however, are not only
local. They are statewide, national and international as well. We believe that Congress’ recognition of
this fact was the genesis of its grant of preemption authority to this Commission.”106 As illustrated by our
consideration of effective prohibitions flowing from state and local fees, there also can be cases where a
narrow focus on whether an insurmountable barrier can be shown within the jurisdiction imposing a
particular legal requirement would neglect the serious effects that flow through in other jurisdictions as a
result, including harms to regional or national deployment efforts.107
B.State and Local Fees
43.Federal courts have long recognized that the fees charged by local governments for the
deployment of communications infrastructure can run afoul of the limits Congress imposed in the
effective prohibition standard embodied in Sections 253 and 332.108 In Municipality of Guayanilla, for
example, the First Circuit addressed whether a city could lawfully charge a 5 percent gross revenue fee.
The court found that the “5% gross revenue fee would constitute a substantial increase in costs” for the
provider, and that the ordinance consequently “will negatively affect [the provider’s] profitability.”109
The fee, together with other requirements, thus “place a significant burden” on the provider.110 In light of
this analysis, the First Circuit agreed that the fee “‘materially inhibits or limits the ability’” of the provider
“‘to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.’”111 The court thus held that the fee
does not survive scrutiny under Section 253. In doing so, the First Circuit also noted that the inquiry is
not limited to the impact that a fee would have on deployment in the jurisdiction that imposes the fee.
Rather, the court noted the aggregate effect of fees when totaled across all relevant jurisdictions.112 At the
same time, the First Circuit did not decide whether the fair and reasonable compensation allowed under
Section 253 must be limited to cost recovery or, at the very least, related to the actual use of the ROW.113
44.In City of White Plains, the Second Circuit likewise faced a 5 percent gross revenue fee,
which it found to be “[t]he most significant provision” in a franchise agreement implementing an
ordinance that the court concluded effectively prohibited service in violation of Section 253.114 While the
court noted that “compensation is . . . sometimes used as a synonym for cost,”115 it ultimately did not
resolve whether fair and reasonable compensation “is limited to cost recovery, or whether it also extends
to a reasonable rent,” relying instead on the fact that “White Plains has not attempted to charge Verizon
106 TCI Cablevision of Oakland County, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling, Preemption and Other Relief Pursuant
to 47 U.S.C. §§ 541, 544(e), and 253, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 21396, 21442, para. 106
(1997) (TCI Cablevision Order).
107 See infra Part III.B.
108 The Commission also has recognized the potential for fees to result in an effective prohibition. See, e.g.,
Pittencrieff, 13 FCC Rcd at 1751-52, para. 37 (observing that “even a neutral [universal service] contribution
requirement might under some circumstances effectively prohibit an entity from offering a service”).
109 Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 18-19.
110 Id. at 19.
111 Id. (quoting City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 76).
112 Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 17 (looking at the aggregate cost of fees charged across jurisdictions
given the interconnected nature of the service).
113 Id. at 22 (“We need not decide whether fees imposed on telecommunications providers by state and local
governments must be limited to cost recovery. We agree with the district court’s reasoning that fees should be, at the
very least, related to the actual use of rights of way and that ‘the costs [of maintaining those rights of way] are an
essential part of the equation.’”).
114 City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 77.
115 Id. In this context, the court stated that the term “compensation” is “flexible” and capable of different meanings
depending on the context in which it is used. Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
24
the fee that it seeks to charge TCG,” thus failing Section 253’s “competitively neutral and
nondiscriminatory” standard.116 But the court did observe that “Section 253(c) requires compensation to
be reasonable essentially to prevent monopolist pricing by towns.”117
45.In another example, the Tenth Circuit in City of Santa Fe addressed a $6,000 per foot fee
set for Qwest’s use of the ROW.118 The court held “that the rental provisions are prohibitive because they
create[d] a massive increase in cost” for Qwest.119 The court recognized that Section 253 allows the
recovery of cost-based fees, though it ultimately did not decide whether to “measure ‘fair and reasonable’
by the City’s costs or by a ‘totality of circumstances test’” applied in other courts because it determined
that the fees at issue were not cost-based and “fail[ed] even the totality of the circumstances test.”120
Consequently, the fee was preempted under Section 253.
46.At the same time, the courts have adopted different approaches to analyzing whether fees
run afoul of Section 253, at times failing even to articulate a particular test.121 Among other things, courts
have expressed different views on whether Section 253 limits states’ and localities’ fees to recovery of
their costs or allows fees set in excess of that level.122 We articulate below the Commission’s
interpretation of Section 253(a) and the standards we adopt for evaluating when a fee for Small Wireless
Facility deployment is preempted, regardless how the fee is challenged. We also clarify that the
Commission interprets Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) to have the same substantive meaning as Section
253(a).
47.Record Evidence on Costs Associated with Small Wireless Facilities. Keeping pace with
the demands on current 4G networks and upgrading our country’s wireless infrastructure to 5G require
116 City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 79. In particular, the court concluded that “fees that exempt one competitor are
inherently not ‘competitively neutral,’ regardless of how that competitor uses its resulting market advantage,” id. at
80, and thus “[a]llowing White Plains to strengthen the competitive position of the incumbent service provider
would run directly contrary to the pro-competitive goals of the [1996 Act],” id. at 79.
117 Id.
118 City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d at 1270-71.
119 Id. at 1271.
120 Id. at 1272 (observing that “[t]he City acknowledges . . . that the rent required by the Ordinance is not limited to
recovery of costs”).
121 Compare, e.g., Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 18-19 (finding that fees were significant and had the
effect of prohibiting service); City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d at 1271 (similar); with, e.g., Qwest v. Elephant Butte
Irrigation Dist., 616 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1123-24 (D.N.M. 2008) (rejecting Qwest’s reliance on preceding finding of
effective prohibition from quadrupled costs where the fee at issue was a penny per foot); Qwest v. City of Portland,
2006 WL 2679543, *15 (D. Or. 2006) (asserting with no explanation that “a registration fee of $35 and a refundable
deposit of $2,000 towards processing expenses . . . could not possibly have the effect of prohibiting Qwest from
providing telecommunications services”).
122 For example and as noted above, in Municipality of Guayanilla the First Circuit reserved judgment on whether
the fair and reasonable compensation allowed under Section 253 must be limited to cost recovery or if it was
sufficient if the compensation was related to the actual use of rights of way. Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at
22. Other courts have found reasonable compensation to require cost-based fees. XO Missouri v. City of Maryland
Heights, 256 F. Supp. 2d 987, 993-95 (E.D. Mo. 2003) (City of Maryland Heights); Bell Atlantic–Maryland, Inc. v.
Prince George’s County, 49 F. Supp. 2d 805, 818 (D. Md. 1999) (Prince George’s County) vacated on other
grounds, 212 F.3d 863 (4th Cir. 2000). Still other courts have applied a test that weighs a number of considerations
when evaluating whether compensation is fair and reasonable. TCG Detroit v. City of Dearborn, 206 F.3d 618, 625
(6th Cir. 2000) (City of Dearborn) (considering “the amount of use contemplated . . . the amount that other providers
would be willing to pay . . . and the fact that TCG had agreed in earlier negotiations to a fee almost identical to what
it now was challenging as unfair”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
25
the deployment of many more Small Wireless Facilities.123 For example, Verizon anticipates that
network densification and the upgrade to 5G will require 10 to 100 times more antenna locations than
currently exist. AT&T estimates that providers will deploy hundreds of thousands of wireless facilities in
the next few years alone—equal to or more than the number providers have deployed in total over the last
few decades.124 Sprint, in turn, has announced plans to build at least 40,000 new small sites over the next
few years.125 A report from Accenture estimates that, overall, during the next three or four years, 300,000
small cells will need to be deployed—a total that it notes is “roughly double the number of macro cells
built over the last 30 years.”126
48. The many-fold increase in Small Wireless Facilities will magnify per-facility fees
charged to providers. Per-facility fees that once may have been tolerable when providers built macro
towers several miles apart now act as effective prohibitions when multiplied by each of the many Small
Wireless Facilities to be deployed. Thus, a per-facility fee may affect a prohibition on 5G service or the
densification needed to continue 4G service even if that same per-facility fee did not effectively prohibit
previous generations of wireless service.
49.Cognizant of the changing technology and its interaction with regulations created for a
previous generation of service, the 2017 Wireline Infrastructure NPRM/NOI sought comment on whether
government-imposed fees could act as a prohibition within the meaning of Section 253, and if so, what
fees would qualify for 253(c)’s savings clause.127 The 2017 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI similarly
sought comment on the scope of Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) and on any new or updated guidance the
Commission should provide, potentially through a Declaratory Ruling.128 In particular, the Commission
sought comment on whether it should provide further guidance on how to interpret and apply the phrase
“prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting.”129
50.We conclude that ROW access fees, and fees for the use of government property in the
ROW,130 such as light poles, traffic lights, utility poles, and other similar property suitable for hosting
123 See CTIA June 27, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 6 (“[s]mall cell technology is needed to support 4G densification and
5G connectivity.”); see also Accelerating Wireless Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment,
Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 9760, 9765, para. 12 (2017) (2017 Pole Replacement Order) (recognizing that Small
Wireless Facilities will be increasingly necessary to support the rollout of next-generation services).
124 See Verizon Comments at 3; AT&T Comments at 1.
125 See Letter from Keith C. Buell, Senior Counsel, Sprint, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No.
17-79 at 2 (filed Feb. 21, 2018).
126 Accelerating Future Economic Value Report at 6; see also Deloitte 5G Paper.
127 Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 32 FCC Rcd 3266, 3296-97, paras. 100 -101 and 3298-99, paras. 104-
105 (2017).
128 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3360, para. 87. In addition, in 2016, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau released a public notice seeking comment on ways to expedite the deployment of next
generation wireless infrastructure, including providing guidance on application processing fees and charges for use
of rights of way. See Streamlining Deployment of Small Cell Infrastructure by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting
Policies, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 13360 (WTB 2016).
129 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3362, para. 90.
130 We do not find these fees to be taxes within the meaning of Section 601(c)(2) of the 1996 Act. See, e.g., Smart
Communities Reply at 36 (quoting the savings clause for “State or local law pertaining to taxation” in Section
601(c)(2) of the 1996 Act). It is ambiguous whether a fee charged for access to ROWs should be viewed as a tax for
purposes of Section 601(c)(2) of the 1996 Act. See, e.g., City of Dallas v. FCC, 118 F.3d 393, 397-98 (5th Cir.
1997) (distinguishing “the price paid to rent use of public right-of-ways” from a “tax” and citing similar precedent).
Given that Congress clearly contemplated in Section 253(c) that states’ and localities’ fees for access to ROWs
could be subject to preemption where they violate Section 253—or else the savings clause in that regard would be
superfluous—we find the better view is that such fees do not represent a tax encompassed by Section 601(c)(2) of
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
26
Small Wireless Facilities, as well as application or review fees and similar fees imposed by a state or local
government as part of their regulation of the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities inside and outside
the ROW, violate Sections 253 or 332(c)(7) unless these conditions are met: (1) the fees are a reasonable
approximation of the state or local government’s costs,131 (2) only objectively reasonable costs are
factored into those fees, and (3) the fees are no higher than the fees charged to similarly-situated
competitors in similar situations.132
51.We base our interpretation on several considerations, including the text and structure of
the Act as informed by legislative history, the economics of capital expenditures in the context of Small
Wireless Facilities (including the manner in which capital budgets are fixed ex ante), and the extensive
record evidence that shows the actual effects that state and local fees have in deterring wireless providers
from adding to, improving, or densifying their networks and consequently the service offered over them
(including, but not limited to, introducing next-generation 5G wireless service). We address each of these
considerations in turn.
52.Text and Structure. We start our analysis with a consideration of the text and structure of
Section 253. That section contains several related provisions that operate in tandem to define the roles
that Congress intended the federal government, states, and localities to play in regulating the provision of
telecommunications services. Section 253(a) sets forth Congress’s intent to preempt state or local legal
requirements that “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any
interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.”133 Section 253(b), in turn, makes clear Congress’s
intent that state “requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public
safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights
(Continued from previous page)
the 1996 Act. We do not address whether particular fees could be considered taxes under other statutes not
administered by the FCC, but we reject the suggestion that tests courts use to determine what constitute “taxes” in
the context of such other statutes should apply to the Commission’s interpretation of Section 601(c)(2) here in light
of the statutory context for Section 601(c)(2) in the 1996 Act and the Communications Act discussed above. See,
e.g., Qwest Corp. v. City of Surprise, 434 F.3d 1176, 1183-84 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that particular fees at
issue there were taxes for purposes of the Tax Injunction Act and stating in dicta that had the Tax Injunction Act not
applied it would agree with the conclusion of the district court that it was covered by Section 601(c)(2) of the 1996
Act); MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 359 F. Appx. 692, 696 (9th Cir. 2009) (asserting
without analysis that the same test would apply to determine if a fee constitutes a tax under both the Tax Injunction
Act and Section 601(c)(2) of the 1996 Act).
131 By costs, we mean those costs specifically related to and caused by the deployment. These include, for instance,
the costs of processing applications or permits, maintaining the ROW, and maintaining a structure within the ROW.
See Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Municipality of Guayanilla, 354 F. Supp. 2d 107, 114 (D.P.R. 2005) (Guayanilla
District Ct. Opinion), aff'd, 450 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2006) (“fees charged by a municipality need to be related to the
degree of actual use of the public rights-of way” to constitute fair and reasonable compensation under Section
253(c)).
132 We explain above what we mean by “fees.” See supra note 71. Contrary to some claims, we are not asserting a
“general ratemaking authority.” Virginia Joint Commenters Comments at 6. Our interpretations in this order bear
on whether and when fees associated with Small Wireless Facility deployment have the effect of prohibiting
wireless telecommunications service and thus are subject to preemption under Section 253(a), informed by the
savings clause in Section 253(c). While that can implicate issues surrounding how those fees were established, it
does so only to the extent needed to vindicate Congress’s intent in Section 253. We do not interpret Section 253(a)
or (c) to authorize the regulation or establishment of state and local fees as an exercise in itself. We likewise are not
persuaded by undeveloped assertions that the Commission’s interpretation of Section 253 in the context of fees
would somehow violate constitutional separation of powers principles. See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters
Comments, Exh. A at 52.
133 47 U.S.C. § 253(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
27
of consumers” are not preempted.134 Of particular importance in the fee context, Section 253(c) reflects a
considered policy judgment that “[n]othing in this section” shall prevent states and localities from
recovering certain carefully delineated fees. Specifically, Section 253(c) makes clear that fees are not
preempted that are “fair and reasonable” and imposed on a “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory
basis,” for “use of public rights-of-way on a “nondiscriminatory basis,” so long as they are “publicly
disclosed” by the government.135 Section 253(d), in turn, provides one non-exclusive mechanism by
which a party can obtain a determination from the Commission of whether a specific state or local
requirement is preempted under Section 253(a)—namely, by filing a petition with the Commission.136
53.In reviewing this statutory scheme, the Commission previously has construed Section
253(a) as “broadly limit[ing] the ability of state[s] to regulate,” while the remaining subsections set forth
“defined areas in which states may regulate.”137 We reaffirm this conclusion, consistent with the view of
most courts to have considered the issue—namely, that Sections 253(b) and (c) make clear that certain
state or local laws, regulations, and legal requirements are not preempted under the expansive scope of
Section 253(a).138 Our interpretation of Section 253(a) is informed by this statutory context,139 and the
observation of courts that when a preemption provision precedes a narrowly-tailored savings clause, it is
reasonable to infer that Congress intended a broad preemptive scope.140 We need not decide today
whether Section 253(a) preempts all fees not expressly saved by Section 253(c) with respect to all types
of deployments. Rather, we conclude, based on the record before us, that with respect to Small Wireless
Facilities, even fees that might seem small in isolation have material and prohibitive effects on
deployment,141 particularly when considered in the aggregate given the nature and volume of anticipated
Small Wireless Facility deployment.142 Against this backdrop, and in light of significant evidence, set
forth herein, that Congress intended Section 253 to preempt legal requirements that effectively prohibit
service, including wireless infrastructure deployment, we view the substantive standards for fees that
Congress sought to insulate from preemption in Section 253(c) as an appropriate ceiling for state and
local fees that apply to the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities in public ROWs.143
134 47 U.S.C. § 253(b).
135 47 U.S.C. § 253(c).
136 47 U.S.C. § 253(d).
137 Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3481, para. 44.
138 See, e.g., Connect America Fund; Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 32
FCC Rcd 5878, 5881, 5885-87, paras. 8, 19-25 (2017) (Sandwich Isles Section 253 Order); Texas PUC Order, 13
FCC Rcd at 3480-81, paras. 41-44; Global Network Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of New York, 562 F.3d 145, 150-51 (2d
Cir. 2009); Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of Houston, 529 F.3d 257, 262 (5th Cir. 2008); City of St. Louis, 477
F.3d at 531-32 (8th Cir. 2007); Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 15-16; City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d at 1269;
BellSouth Telecomm’s, Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach, 252 F.3d 1169, 1187-89 (11th Cir. 2001). Some courts appear
to have viewed Section 253(c) as an independent basis for preemption. See, e.g., City of Dearborn, 206 F.3d at 624
(after concluding that a franchise fee did not violate Section 253(a), going on to evaluate whether it was “fair and
reasonable” under Section 253(c)). We find more persuasive the Commission and other court precedent to the
contrary, which we find better adheres to the statutory language.
139 See, e.g., Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2442 (2014).
140 See, e.g., Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 44-45 (1987); City of New York v. Permanent Mission of
India to United Nations, 618 F.3d 172, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2010); Frank v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 314 F.3d 195, 199 (5th
Cir. 2002); cf. United States v. Kay, 359 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2004) (justifying a broad reading of a statute given that
Congress “narrowly defin[ed] exceptions and affirmative defenses against a backdrop of broad applicability”).
141 See infra paras. 62-63.
142 See, e.g., Wireless Infrastructure Second R&O, FCC 18-30, at para. 64.
143 See, e.g., Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 9-10. We therefore reject the view of those courts
that have concluded that Section 253(a) necessarily requires some additional showing beyond the fact that a
particular fee is not cost-based. See, e.g., Qwest v. City of Berkeley, 433 F.3d 1253, 1257 (9th Cir. 2006) (“we
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
28
54.In addition, notwithstanding that Section 253(c) only expressly governs ROW fees, we
find it appropriate to look to its substantive standards as a ceiling for other state and local fees addressed
by this Declaratory Ruling.144 For one, our evaluation of the material effects of fees on the deployment of
Small Wireless Facilities does not differ whether the fees are for ROW access, use of government
property within the ROW, or one-time application and review fees or the like—any of which drain limited
capital resources that otherwise could be used for deployment—and we see no reason why the Act would
tolerate a greater prohibitory effect in the case of application or review fees than for ROW fees.145 In
addition, elements of the substantive standards for ROW fees in Section 253(c) appear at least analogous
to elements of the California Payphone standard for evaluating an effective prohibition under Section
253(a). In pertinent part, both incorporate principles focused on the legal requirements to which a
provider may be fairly subject,146 and seek to guard against competitive disparities.147 Without resolving
the precise interplay of those concepts in Section 253(c) and the California Payphone standard, their
similarities support our use of the substantive standards of Section 253(c) to inform our evaluation of fees
at issue here that are not directly governed by that provision.
55.From the foregoing analysis, we can derive the three principles that we articulate in this
Declaratory Ruling about the types of fees that are preempted. As explained in more detail below, we
also interpret Section 253(c)’s “fair and reasonable compensation” provision to refer to fees that represent
a reasonable approximation of actual and direct costs incurred by the government, where the costs being
passed on are themselves objectively reasonable.148 Although there is precedent that “fair and
reasonable” compensation could mean not only cost-based charges but also market-based charges in
certain instances,149 the statutory context persuades us to adopt a cost-based interpretation here. In
particular, while the general purpose of Section 253(c) is to preserve certain state and local conduct from
preemption, it includes qualifications and limitations to cabin state and local action under that savings
clause in ways that ensure appropriate protections for service providers. The reasonableness of
interpreting the qualifications and limitations in the Section 253(c) savings clause as designed to protect
the interests of service providers is emphasized by the statutory language. The “competitively neutral and
(Continued from previous page)
decline to read” prior Ninth Circuit precedent “to mean that all non-cost based fees are automatically preempted, but
rather that courts must consider the substance of the particular regulation at issue”). At the same time, our
interpretation does not take the broader view of the preemptive scope of Section 253 adopted by the Sixth Circuit,
which interpreted Section 253(c) as an independent prohibition on conduct that is not itself prohibited by Section
253(a). City of Dearborn, 206 F.3d at 624.
144 See supra note 71.
145 Cf. Cheney R. Co. v. ICC, 902 F.2d 66, 69 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (observing that the expressio unius canon is a “feeble
helper in an administrative setting, where Congress is presumed to have left to reasonable agency discretion
questions that it has not directly resolved,” and concluding there that “Congress's mandate in one context with its
silence in another suggests not a prohibition but simply a decision not to mandate any solution in the second context,
i.e., to leave the question to agency discretion”).
146 For ROW compensation to be saved under Section 253(c) it must be “fair and reasonable,” while the California
Payphone standard looks to whether a legal requirement “materially limits or inhibits” the ability to compete in a
“fair” legal environment for a covered service. California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14206, para. 31.
147 For ROW compensation to be saved under Section 253(c) it also must be “competitively neutral and
nondiscriminatory,” while the California Payphone standard also looks to whether a legal requirement “materially
limits or inhibits” the ability to compete in a “balanced” legal environment for a covered service. California
Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14206, para. 31.
148 See infra paras. 69-77; see also, e.g., City of Maryland Heights, 256 F. Supp. 2d at 993-95; Bell Atlantic–
Maryland, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 818.
149 See, e.g., NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (statute did not unambiguously require the SEC to
interpret “fair and reasonable” to mean cost-based, and the SEC’s reliance on market-based rates as “fair and
reasonable” where there was competition was a reasonable interpretation).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
29
nondiscriminatory” and public disclosure qualifications in Section 253(c) appear most naturally
understood as protecting the interest of service providers from fees that otherwise would have been saved
from preemption under Section 253(c) absent those qualifiers. Under the noscitur a sociis canon of
statutory interpretation, that context persuades us that the “fair and reasonable” qualifier in Section 253(c)
similarly should be understood as focused on protecting the interest of providers.150 As discussed in
greater detail below, while it might well be fair for providers to bear basic, reasonable costs of entry,151
the record does not reveal why it would be fair or reasonable from the standpoint of protecting providers
to require them to bear costs beyond that level, particularly in the context of the deployment of Small
Wireless Facilities. In addition, the text of Section 253(c) provides that ROW access fees must be
imposed on a “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis.” This means, for example, that fees
charged to one provider cannot be materially higher than those charged to a competitor for similar uses.152
56.Other considerations support our approach, as well. By its terms, Section 253(a)
preempts state or local legal requirements that “prohibit” or have the “effect of prohibiting” the provision
of services, and we agree with court precedent that “[m]erely allowing the [local government] to recoup
its processing costs . . . cannot in and of itself prohibit the provision of services.”153 The Commission has
long understood that Section 253(a) is focused on state or local barriers to entry for the provision of
service,154 and we conclude that states and localities do not impose an unreasonable barrier to entry when
they merely require providers to bear the direct and reasonable costs caused by their decision to enter the
market. 155 We decline to interpret a government’s recoupment of such fundamental costs of entry as
having the effect of prohibiting the provision of services, nor has any commenter argued that recovery of
cost by a government would prohibit service in a manner restricted by Section 253(a).156 Reasonable state
and local regulation of facilities deployment is an important predicate for a viable marketplace for
150 See, e.g., Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., 137 S. Ct. 734 (2017) (“A word is given more precise
content by the neighboring words with which it is associated.” (internal alteration and quotation marks omitted)).
151 See infra para. 56.
152 See, e.g., City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 80.
153 City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d at 1269; see also Verizon Comments at 17.
154 See, e.g., Sandwich Isles Section 253 Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 5878, 5882-83, paras. 1, 13; Western Wireless Order,
15 FCC Rcd at 16231, para. 8; Petition of the State of Minnesota for a Declaratory Ruling regarding the Effect of
Section 253 on an Agreement to Install Fiber Optic Wholesale Transport Capacity in State Freeway Rights of Way,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 21697, 21707, para. 18 (Minnesota Order); Hyperion Order, 14
FCC Rcd at 11070, para. 13; Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3480, para. 41; TCI Cablevision Order, 12 FCC Rcd
at 21399, para. 7; California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14209, para. 38; see also, e.g., AT&T Comm’ns of the Sw. v.
City of Dallas, 8 F. Supp. 2d 582, 593 (N.D. Tx. 1998) (AT&T v. City of Dallas) (“[A]ny fee that is not based on
AT&T’s use of City rights-of-way violates § 253(a) of the FTA as an economic barrier to entry.”); Verizon
Comments at 11-12; Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 7. Because we view the California
Payphone standard as reflecting a focus on barriers to entry, we decline requests to adopt a distinct, additional
standard with that as an explicit focus. See, e.g., T-Mobile Comments at 35.
155 See, e.g., Implementation of Section 224 of the Act, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd
5240, 5301-03, paras. 142-45 (2011) (rejecting an approach to defining a lower bound rate for pole attachments that
“would result in pole rental rates below incremental cost” as contrary to cost causation principles); Investigation of
Interstate Access Tariff Non-Recurring Charges, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 3498, 3502, para. 34
(1987) (observing in the rate regulation context that “the public interest is best served, and a competitive
marketplace is best encouraged, by policies that promote the recovery of costs from the cost-causer”). Our
interpretation limiting states and localities to the recovery of a reasonable approximation of objectively reasonable
cost also takes into account state and local governments’ exclusive control over access to the ROW.
156 For example, Verizon states that “[a]lthough any fee could be said to raise the cost of providing service,” Verizon
Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 9, “[t]he Commission should interpret . . . Section 253(a) to allow cost-
based fees for access to public rights-of-way and structures within them, but to prohibit above-cost fees that generate
revenue in excess of state and local governments’ actual costs.” Id., Attach. at 6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
30
communications services by protecting property rights and guarding against conflicting deployments that
could harm or otherwise interfere with others’ use of property.157 By contrast, fees that recover more than
the state or local costs associated with facilities deployment—or that are based on unreasonable costs,
such as exorbitant consultant fees or the like—go beyond such governmental recovery of fundamental
costs of entry. In addition, interpreting Section 253(a) to prohibit states and localities from recovering a
reasonable approximation of reasonable costs could interfere with the ability of states to exercise the
police powers reserved to them under the Tenth Amendment.158 We therefore conclude that Section
253(a) is circumscribed to permit states and localities to recover a reasonable approximation of their costs
related to the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities.
57.Commission Precedent. We draw further confidence in our conclusions from the
Commission’s California Payphone decision, which we reaffirm here, finding that a state or local legal
requirement would violate Section 253(a) if it “materially limits or inhibits” an entity’s ability to compete
in a “balanced” legal environment for a covered service.159 As explained above, fees charged by a state or
locality that recover the reasonable approximation of reasonable costs do not “materially inhibit” a
provider’s ability to compete in a “balanced” legal environment. To the contrary, those costs enable
localities to recover their necessary expenditures to provide a stable and predictable framework in which
market participants can enter and compete. On the other hand, in the Texas PUC Order interpreting
California Payphone, the Commission concluded that state or local legal requirements such as fees that
impose a “financial burden” on providers can be effectively prohibitive.160 As the record shows,
excessive state and local governments’ fees assessed on the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities in
the ROW in fact materially inhibit the ability of many providers to compete in a balanced environment.161
58.California Payphone and Texas PUC separately support the conclusion that fees cannot
be discriminatory or introduce competitive disparities, as such fees would be inconsistent with a
“balanced” regulatory marketplace. Thus, fees that treat one competitor materially differently than other
competitors in similar situations are themselves grounds for finding an effective prohibition—even in the
case of fees that are a reasonable approximation of the actual and reasonable costs incurred by the state or
locality. Indeed, the Commission has previously recognized the potential for subsidies provided to one
157 See, e.g., TCI Cablevision Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 21441, para. 103; see also, e.g., Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of
the Commons, 162 SCI. 1243 (1968). States’ or localities’ regulation premised on addressing effects of deployment
besides these costs caused by facilities deployment are distinct issues, which we discuss below. See infra Part III.C.
158 The Supreme Court has recognized that land use regulation can involve an exercise of police powers. See, e.g.,
Hodel v. Va. Surface Min. & Reclamation Ass’n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 289 (1981). As that Court observed, “[i]t
would . . . be a radical departure from long-established precedent for this Court to hold that the Tenth Amendment
prohibits Congress from displacing state police power laws regulating private activity.” Id. at 292. At the same
time, the Court also has held that “historic police powers of the States” are not to be preempted by federal law
“unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S.
597, 605 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). As relevant here, we see no clear and manifest intent that
Congress intended to preempt publicly disclosed, objectively reasonable cost-based fees imposed on a
nondiscriminatory basis, particularly in light of Section 253(c).
159 We disagree with suggestions that the Commission applied an additional and more stringent “commercial
viability” test in California Payphone. See, e.g., Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 10. Instead, the
Commission was simply evaluating the Section 253 petition on its own terms, see, e.g., California Payphone, 12
FCC Rcd at 14204, 14210, paras. 27, 41, and, without purporting to define the bounds of Section 253(a), explaining
that the petitioner “ha[d] not sufficiently supported its allegation” that the provision of service at issue “would be
‘impractical and uneconomic.’” Id. at 14210, para. 41. Confirming that this language was simply the Commission’s
short-hand reference to arguments put forward by the petitioner itself, and not a Commission-announced standard
for applying Section 253, the Commission has not applied a “commercial viability” standard in other decisions, as
these same commenters recognize. See, e.g., Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 10.
160 Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3466, 3498-500, paras. 13, 78-81.
161 See infra paras. 60-65.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
31
competitor to distort the marketplace and create a barrier to entry in violation of Section 253(a).162 We
reaffirm that conclusion here.
59.Legislative History. While our interpretation follows directly from the text and structure
of the Act, our conclusion finds further support in the legislative history, which reflects Congress’s focus
on the ability of states and localities to recover the reasonable costs they incur in maintaining the rights of
way.163 Significantly, Senator Dianne Feinstein, during the floor debate on Section 253(c), “offered
examples of the types of restrictions that Congress intended to permit under Section 253(c), including [to]
‘require a company to pay fees to recover an appropriate share of the increased street repair and paving
costs that result from repeated excavation.’”164 Representative Bart Stupak, a sponsor of the legislation,
similarly explained during the debate on Section 253 that “if a company plans to run 100 miles of
trenching in our streets and wires to all parts of the cities, it imposes a different burden on the right-of-
way than a company that just wants to string a wire across two streets to a couple of buildings,” making
clear that the compensation described in the statute is related to the burden, or cost, from a provider’s use
of the ROW.165 These statements buttress our interpretation of the text and structure of Section 253 and
confirm Congress’s apparent intent to craft specific safe harbors for states and localities, and to permit
recovery of reasonable costs related to the ROW as “fair and reasonable compensation,” while
preempting fees above a reasonable approximation of cost that improperly inhibit service.166
60.Capital Expenditures. Apart from the text, structure, and legislative history of the 1996
Act, an additional, independent justification for our interpretation follows from the simple, logical
premise, supported by the record, that state and local fees in one place of deployment necessarily have the
effect of reducing the amount of capital that providers can use to deploy infrastructure elsewhere, whether
the reduction takes place on a local, regional or national level.167 We are persuaded that providers and
infrastructure builders, like all economic actors, have a finite (though perhaps fluid)168 amount of
resources to use for the deployment of infrastructure. This does not mean that these resources are
limitless, however. We conclude that fees imposed by localities, above and beyond the recovery of
localities’ reasonable costs, materially and improperly inhibit deployment that could have occurred
elsewhere.169 This and regulatory uncertainty created by such effectively prohibitive conduct170 creates an
162 See, e.g., Western Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16231, para. 8.
163 See, e.g., WIA Comments, Attach. 2 at 70.
164 WIA Comments, Attach. 2 at 70 (quoting 141 Cong. Rec. S8172 (daily ed. June 12, 1995) (statement of Sen.
Feinstein, quoting letter from Office of City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco)) (emphasis added)); see
also, e.g., Verizon Comments at 15 (similar); City of Maryland Heights, 256 F. Supp. 2d at 995-96.
165 141 Cong. Rec. H8460-01, H8460 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1995).
166 We reject other comments downplaying the relevance of legislative statements by some commenters as
inconsistent with the text and structure of the Act. See, e.g., League of Arizona Cities et al. Joint Comments at 27-
28; NATOA Comments, Exh. A at 26-28; Smart Communities Reply at 57-58; Cities of San Antonio et al. Reply at
20-21; see also, e.g., City of Portland v. Electric Lightwave, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1071-72 (D. Or. 2005).
167 At a minimum, this analysis complements and reinforces the justifications for our interpretation provided above.
While the relevant language of Section 253(a) and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) is not limited just to Small Wireless
Facilities, we proceed incrementally in our Declaratory Ruling here and address the record before us, which
indicates that our interpretation of the effective prohibition standard here is particularly reasonable in the context of
Small Wireless Facility deployment.
168 For example, the precise amount of these resources might shift as a service provider encounters unexpected costs,
recovers costs passed on to subscribers, or earns a profit above those costs.
169 As Verizon observes, “[a] number of states enacted infrastructure legislation because they determined that rate
relief was necessary to ensure wireless deployment,” and thus could be seen as having “acknowledged that excessive
fees impose a substantial barrier to the provision of service.” Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 7-8.
In view of the evidence in the record regarding the effect of state and local fees on capital expenditures, see, e.g.,
Corning Sept. 5, 2018 Ex Parte Letter (noting that cost savings from reduced small cell attachment and application
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
32
appreciable impact on resources that materially limits plans to deploy service. This record evidence
emphasizes the importance of evaluating the effect of fees on Small Wireless Facility deployment on an
aggregate basis. Consistent with the First Circuit’s analysis in Municipality of Guayanilla, the record
persuades us that fees associated with Small Wireless Facility deployment lead to “a substantial increase
in costs”—particularly when considered in the aggregate—thereby “plac[ing] a significant burden” on
carriers and materially inhibiting their provision of service contrary to Section 253 of the Act.171
61.The record is replete with evidence that providers have limited capital budgets that are
constrained by state and local fees.172 As AT&T explains, “[a]ll providers have limited capital dollars to
invest, funds that are quickly depleted when drained by excessive ROW fees.”173 AT&T added that
“[c]ompetitive demands will force carriers to deploy small cells in the largest cities. But, when those
largest cities charge excessive fees to access ROWs and municipal ROW structures, carriers’ finite capital
dollars are prematurely depleted, leaving less for investment in mid-level cities and smaller communities.
Larger municipalities have little incentive to not overcharge, and mid-level cities and smaller
(Continued from previous page)
fees could result in $2.4 billion in capital expenditure and that 97% of this capital expenditure would go toward
investments in rural and suburban areas), we disagree with arguments that fees do not affect the deployment of
wireless facilities in rural and underserved areas. See, e.g., Letter from Sam Liccardo, Mayor, City of San Jose, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 4 (filed Sept. 18, 2018) (City of San Jose Sept. 18,
2018 Ex Parte Letter) (stating that “whether or not a provider wishes to invest in a dense urban area, including
underserved urban areas, or a rural area is fundamentally based on the size of the customer base and the market
demand for service-not on the purported wiles of a ‘must-serve’ jurisdiction somehow forcing investment away from
rural areas because a right of way or attachment fee is charged.”); Letter from Joanne Hovis, Chief Executive
Officer, Coalition for Local Internet Choice, James Baller, President, Coalition for Local Internet Choice, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, Attach. at 3 (filed Sept. 18, 2018) (“in lucrative areas,
carriers will pay market fees for access to property just as they would any other cost of doing business. But they
will not, as rational economic actors, necessarily apply new profits (created by FCC preemption) to deploying in
otherwise unattractive areas.”).
170 See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 32 (identifying “disparate interpretations” regarding the fees that are preempted and
seeking FCC clarification to “dispel the resulting uncertainty”); Verizon Comments at 10 (similar); Letter from
Cathleen A. Massey, Vice Pres.-Fed. Regulatory Affairs, T-Mobile, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT
Docket No. 17-79, Attach. at 7 (filed Sept. 21, 2017) (seeking clarification of Section 253); BDAC Regulatory
Barriers Report, p. 9 (“The FCC should provide guidance on what constitutes a fee that is excessive and/or
duplicative, and that therefore is not ‘fair and reasonable.’ The Commission should specifically clarify that ‘fair and
reasonable’ compensation for right-of way access and use implies some relation to the burden of new equipment
placed in the ROW or on the local asset, or some other objective standard.”).
171 Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 19.
172 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 2; Conterra Broadband et al. Comments at 6; Mobilitie Comments at 3; Sprint
Comments at 17; Letter from Courtney Neville, Associate General Counsel, Competitive Carriers Association, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2-3 (filed July 16, 2018) (CCA July 16, 2018 Ex Parte
Letter); Letter from Henry Hultquist, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed June 8, 2018) (AT&T June 8, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Crown Castle June 7, 2018
Ex Parte Letter at 2; Letter from Katharine R. Saunders, Managing Associate General Counsel, Federal Regulatory
and Legal Affairs, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed June 21, 2018)
(Verizon June 21, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Ronald W. Del Sesto, Jr., Counsel for Uniti Fiber, to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 5 (filed Oct. 30, 2017); Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter,
Attach. at 2-4. When developing capital budgets, companies rationally would account for anticipated revenues
associated with the services that can be provided by virtue of planned facilities deployment, and the record does not
reveal—nor do we see any basis to assume—that such revenues would be so great as to eliminate constraints on
providers’ capital budgets so as to enable full deployment notwithstanding the level of state and local fees.
173 AT&T Aug. 6, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
33
municipalities have no ability to avoid this harm.”174 As to areas that might not be sufficiently crucial to
deployment to overcome high fees, AT&T identified jurisdictions in Maryland, California, and
Massachusetts where high fees have directly resulted in paused or decreased deployments.175 Limiting
localities to reasonable cost recovery will “allow[] AT&T and other providers to stretch finite capital
dollars to additional communities.”176 Verizon similarly explains that “[c]apital budgets are finite. When
providers are forced to spend more to deploy infrastructure in one locality, there is less money to spend in
others. The leverage that some cities have to extract high fees means that other localities will not enjoy
next generation wireless broadband services as quickly, if at all.”177 Sprint, too, affirms that, because “all
carriers face limited capital budgets, they are forced to limit the number and pace of their deployment
investments to areas where the delays and impediments are the least onerous, to the detriment of their
customers and, ultimately and ironically, to the very jurisdictions that imposed obstacles in the first
place.”178 Sprint gives a specific example of its deployments in two adjacent jurisdictions—the City of
Los Angeles and Los Angeles County—and describes how high fees in the county prevented Sprint from
activating any small cells there, while more than 500 deployments occurred in the city, which had
significantly lower fees.179 Similarly, Conterra Broadband states that “[w]hen time and capital are
diverted away from actual facility installation and instead devoted to clearing regulatory roadblocks,
consumers and enterprises, including local small businesses, schools and healthcare centers, suffer.”180
Based on the record, we find that fees charged by states and localities are causing actual delays and
restrictions on deployments of Small Wireless Facilities in a number of places across the country in
violation of Section 253(a).181
62.Our conclusion finds further support when one considers the aggregate effects of fees
imposed by individual localities, including, but not limited to, the potential limiting implications for a
nationwide wireless network that reaches all Americans, which is among the key objectives of the
statutory provisions in the 1996 Act that we interpret here.182 When evaluating whether fees result in an
effective prohibition of service due to financial burden, we must consider the marketplace regionally and
nationally and thus must consider the cumulative effects of state or local fees on service in multiple
geographic areas that providers serve or potentially would serve. Where providers seek to operate on a
regional or national basis, they have constrained resources for entering new markets or introducing,
expanding, or improving existing services, particularly given that a provider’s capital budget for a given
174 Id.
175 Id. (pausing or delaying deployments in Citrus Heights, CA, Oakland, CA and three Maryland counties;
decreasing deployments in Lowell, MA and decreasing deployments from 98 to 25 sites in Escondido, CA).
176 Id.
177 Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 5, Attach. at 2-4.
178 Sprint Comments at 17.
179 Sprint Aug. 13, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2.
180 Conterra Broadband et al. Comments at 6; see also Letter from John Scott, Counsel for Mobilitie, LLC to
Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (“high fees imposed by some cities hurt other cities
that have reasonable fees, because they reduce capital resources that might have gone to those cities, and because
they pressure other financially strapped cities not to turn away what appears to be a revenue opportunity”).
181 Letter from Kenneth J. Simon, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Crown Castle, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 4 (filed August 10, 2018) (Crown Castle Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter).
182 New England Public Comms. Council Petition for Preemption Pursuant to Section 253, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19713, 19717, para. 9 (1996) (1996 Act intent of “accelerat[ing] deployment of advanced
telecommunications services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition.”); see
also Crown Castle Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
34
period of time is often set in advance.183 In such cases, the resources consumed in serving one geographic
area are likely to deplete the resources available for serving other areas.184 The text of Section 253(a) is
not limited by its terms only to effective prohibitions within the geographic area targeted by the state or
local fee. Where a fee in a geographic area affects service outside that geographic area, the statute is most
naturally read to encompass consideration of all affected areas.
63.A contrary, geographically-restrictive interpretation of Section 253(a) would exacerbate
the digital divide by giving dense or wealthy states and localities that might be most critical for a provider
to serve the ability to leverage their unique position to extract fees for their own benefit at the expense of
regional or national deployment by decreasing the deployment resources available for less wealthy or
dense jurisdictions.185 As a result, the areas likely to be hardest hit by excessive government fees are not
necessarily jurisdictions that charge those fees, but rather areas where the case for new, expanded, or
improved service was more marginal to start—and whose service may no longer be economically
justifiable in the near-term given the resources demanded by the “must-serve” areas. To cite some
examples of harmful aggregate effects, AT&T notes that high annual recurring fees are particularly
harmful because of their “continuing and compounding nature.”186 It also states that, “if, as S&P Global
Market Intelligence estimates, small-cell deployments reach nearly 800,000 by 2026, a ROW fee of
$1000 per year …would result in nearly $800 million annually in forgone investment.” 187 Yet another
commenter notes that, “[f]or a deployment that requires a vast number of small cell facilities across a
metropolitan area, these fees quickly mount up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, often making
deployment economically infeasible,” and “far exceed[ing] any costs the locality incurs by orders of
magnitude, while taking capital that would otherwise go to investment in new infrastructure.”188
Endorsing such a result would thwart the purposes underlying Section 253(a). As Crown Castle observes,
“[e]ven where the fees do not result in a direct lack of service in a high-demand area like a city or urban
core, the high cost of building and operating facilities in these jurisdictions consume [sic] capital and
revenue that could otherwise be used to expand wireless infrastructure in higher cost areas. This impact of
egregious fees is prohibitory and should be taken into account in any prohibition analysis.”189
64.Some municipal commenters endorse a cost-based approach to “ensure that localities are
fully compensated for their costs [and that] fees should be reasonable and non-discriminatory, and should
ensure that localities are made whole”190 in recognition that “getting [5G] infrastructure out in a timely
manner can be a challenge that involves considerable time and financial resources.”191 Commenters from
smaller municipalities recognize that “thousands and thousands of small cells are needed for 5G… [and]
183 See, e.g., AT&T June 8, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Verizon June
21, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
184 See, e.g., Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 17 (“Given the interconnected nature of utility services across
communities and the strain that the enactment of gross revenue fees in multiple municipalities would have on
PRTC's provision of services, the Commonwealth-wide estimates are relevant to determining how the ordinance
affects PRTC’s ‘ability . . . to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service’” under Section
253(a)).
185 See, e.g., Letter from Sam Liccardo, Mayor or San Jose, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT
Docket No. 17-79, Attachment at 1-2 (filed Aug. 2, 2018) (describing payment by providers of $24 million to a
Digital Inclusion Fund in order to deploy small cells in San Jose on city owned light poles).
186 AT&T Comments at 19.
187 AT&T Comments at 19-20.
188 Mobilitie Comments at 3.
189 Crown Castle Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
190 Sal Pace July 30, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1.
191 LaWana Mayfield July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
35
old regulations could hinder the timely arrival of 5G throughout the country”192 and urge the Commission
to “establish some common-sense standards insofar as it relates to fees associated with the deployment of
small cells [due to] a cottage industry of consultants [] who have wrongly counseled communities to
adopt excessive and arbitrary fees.”193 Representatives from non-urban areas in particular caution that, “if
the investment that goes into deploying 5G on the front end is consumed by big, urban areas, it will take
longer for it to flow outwards in the direction of places like Florence, [SC].”194 “[R]educing the high
regulatory costs in urban areas would leave more dollars to development in rural areas [because] most of
investment capital is spent in the larger urban areas [since] the cost recovery can be made in those areas.
This leaves the rural areas out.”195 We agree with these commenters, and we further agree with courts that
have considered “the cumulative effect of future similar municipal [fees ordinances]” across a broad
geographic area when evaluating the effect of a particular fee in the context of Section 253(a).196 To the
extent that other municipal commenters argue that our interpretation gives wireless providers preferential
treatment compared to other users of the ROW, the record does not contain data about other users that
would support such a conclusion.197 In any event, Section 253 of the Communications Act expressly bars
legal requirements that effectively prohibit telecommunications service without regard to whether it might
result in preferential treatment for providers of that service.198
65.Applying this approach here, the record reveals that fees above a reasonable
approximation of cost, even when they may not be perceived as excessive or likely to prohibit service in
isolation, will have the effect of prohibiting wireless service when the aggregate effects are considered,
particularly given the nature and volume of anticipated Small Wireless Facility deployment.199 The
record reveals that these effects can take several forms. In some cases, the fees in a particular jurisdiction
will lead to reduced or entirely forgone deployment of Small Wireless Facilities in the near term for that
192 Dr. Carolyn Prince July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
193 Letter from Ashton J. Hayward III, Mayor, Pensacola, FL to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, WT Docket
No. 17-79 at 1 (filed June 8, 2018).
194 Representative Terry Alexander Aug. 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1.
195 Senator Duane Ankney July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1; see also Letter from Elder Alexis D. Pipkins, Sr. to the
Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC at 1 (filed July 26, 2018) (“the race to 5G is global…instead of each city or
state for itself, we should be working towards aligned, streamlined frameworks that benefit us all.”); Letter from
Jeffrey Bohm, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, County of St. Clair to Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC,
WT Docket 17-79 at 1-2 (filed August 22, 2018) (“Smaller communities, such as those located in St. Clair County
would benefit from having the Commissions reduce the costly and unnecessary fee’s that some larger communities
place on small cells as a condition of deployment. These fees, wholly disproportionate to any cost, put communities
like ours at an unfair disadvantage”); Letter from Scott Niesler, Mayor, City of Kings Mountain, to Brendan Carr,
Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket 17-79 at 1-2 (filed June 4, 2018) (“the North Carolina General Assembly has
enacted legislation to encourage the deployment of small cell technology to limit exorbitant fees which can siphon
off capital from further expansion projects. I was encouraged to see the FCC taking similar steps to enact policies
that help clear the way for the essential investment”).
196 Guayanilla District Ct. Opinion, 354 F. Supp. 2d at 111-12; but see, e.g., Letter from Nina Beety to Marlene
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 5 (filed Sept. 17, 2018) (Nina Beety Sept. 17, 2018 Ex Parte
Letter) (asserting that providers artificially under-capitalize their deployment budgets to build the case for poverty).
197 Letter from Larry Hanson, Executive Director, Georgia Municipal Association to Marlene Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1-2 (filed Sept. 17, 2018) (Georgia Municipal Association Sept. 17, 2018 Ex Parte
Letter).
198 47 U.S.C. § 253(a).
199 See, e.g., Wireless Infrastructure Second R&O, FCC 18-30, at para. 64. In addition, although one could argue
that, in theory, a sufficiently small departure from actual and reasonable costs might not have the effect of
prohibiting service in a particular instance, the record does not reveal an alternative, administrable approach to
evaluating fees without a cost-based focus.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
36
jurisdiction.200 In other cases, where it is essential for a provider to deploy in a given area, the fees
charged in that geographic area can deprive providers of capital needed to deploy elsewhere, and lead to
reduced or forgone near-term deployment of Small Wireless Facilities in other geographic areas.201 In
both of those scenarios the bottom-line outcome on the national development of 5G networks is the
same—diminished deployment of Small Wireless Facilities critical for wireless service and building out
5G networks.202
66.Some have argued that our decision today regarding Sections 253 and 332 should not be
applied to preempt agreements (or provisions within agreements) entered into prior to this Declaratory
Ruling.203 We note that courts have upheld the Commission’s preemption of the enforcement of
provisions in private agreements that conflict with our decisions204 We therefore do not exempt existing
agreements (or particular provisions contained therein) from the statutory requirements that we interpret
here. That said, however, this Declaratory Ruling’s effect on any particular existing agreement will
depend upon all the facts and circumstances of that specific case.205 Without examining the particular
features of an agreement, including any exchanges of value that might not be reflected by looking at fee
provisions alone, we cannot state that today’s decision does or does not impact any particular agreement
entered into before this decision.
67.Relationship to Section 332. While the above analysis focuses on the text and structure
of the Act, legislative history, Commission orders, and case law interpreting Section 253(a), we reiterate
that in the fee context, as elsewhere, the statutory phrase “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” in
Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) has the same meaning as the phrase “prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting”
in Section 253(a). As noted in the prior section, there is no evidence to suggest that Congress intended
for virtually identical language to have different meanings in the two provisions.206 Instead, we find it
200 See, e.g., AT&T June 8, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2; Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
201 AT&T June 8, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2; Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Verizon June 21,
2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2; CCA July 16, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2-3.
202 See, e.g., Letter from Thomas J. Navin, Counsel to Corning, Inc. to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket
No. 17-79 (filed Jan 25, 2018), Attach. at 6-7 (comparing different effects on deployment between a base case and a
high fee case, and estimating that pole attachment fees nationwide assuming high fees would result in 28.2M fewer
premises passed, or 31 percent of the 5G Base case results, and an associated $37.9B in forgone network
deployment).
203 City of San Jose Sept. 18, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2.
204 See, e.g., Building Owners and Managers Ass’n Int’l v. FCC, 254 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (OTARD rules
barring exclusivity provisions in lease agreements). As the D.C. Circuit has recognized, “[w]here the Commission
has been instructed by Congress to prohibit restrictions on the provision of a regulated means of communication, it
may assert jurisdiction over a party that directly furnishes those restrictions, and, in so doing, the Commission may
alter property rights created under State law.” Id. at 96; see also Lansdowne on the Potomac Homeowners Ass’n v.
OpenBand at Lansdowne, LLC, 713 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2013).
205 For example, the City of Los Angeles asserts that fee provisions in its agreements with providers are not
prohibitory and must be examined in light of a broader exchange of value contemplated by the agreements in their
entirety. Letter from Eric Garcetti, Mayor, City of Los Angeles to the Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, FCC, WT Docket
No. 17-79 (filed Sept 18, 2018). We agree that agreements entered into before this decision will need to be
examined in light of their potentially unique circumstances before a decision can be reached about whether those
agreements or any particular provisions in those agreements are or are not impacted by today’s FCC decision.
206 We reject the claims of some commenters that Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) is limited exclusively to decisions on
individual requests and therefore must be interpreted differently than Section 253(a). See, e.g., San Francisco
Comments at 24-26. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i) explicitly applies to “regulation of the placement, construction, and
modification,” and it would be irrational to interpret “regulation” in that paragraph to mean something different from
the term “regulation” as used in 253(a) or to find that it does not encompass generally applicable “regulations” as
well as decisions on individual applications. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that San Francisco’s position
reflects the appropriate interpretation of the scope of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), the record does not reveal why a
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
37
more reasonable to conclude that the language in both sections generally should be interpreted to have the
same meaning and to reflect the same standard, including with respect to preemption of fees that could
“prohibit” or have “the effect of prohibiting” the provision of covered service. Both sections were
enacted to address concerns about state and local government practices that undermined providers’ ability
to provide covered services, and both bar state or local conduct that prohibits or has the effect of
prohibiting service.
68.To be sure, Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) may relate to different categories of state and
local fees. Ultimately, we need not resolve here the precise interplay between Sections 253 and
332(c)(7). It is enough for us to conclude that, collectively, Congress intended for the two provisions to
cover the universe of fees charged by state and local governments in connection with the deployment of
telecommunications infrastructure. Given the analogous purposes of both sections and the consistent
language used by Congress, we find the phrase “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” in Section
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) should be construed as having the same meaning and governed by the same
preemption standard as the identical language in Section 253(a).207
69.Application of the Interpretations and Principles Established Here. Consistent with the
interpretations above, the requirement that compensation be limited to a reasonable approximation of
objectively reasonable costs and be non-discriminatory applies to all state and local government fees paid
in connection with a provider’s use of the ROW to deploy Small Wireless Facilities including, but not
limited to, fees for access to the ROW itself, and fees for the attachment to or use of property within the
ROW owned or controlled by the government (e.g., street lights, traffic lights, utility poles, and other
infrastructure within the ROW suitable for the placement of Small Wireless Facilities). This
interpretation applies with equal force to any fees reasonably related to the placement, construction,
maintenance, repair, movement, modification, upgrade, replacement, or removal of Small Wireless
Facilities within the ROW, including, but not limited to, application or permit fees such as siting
applications, zoning variance applications, building permits, electrical permits, parking permits, or
excavation permits.
70.Applying the principles established in this Declaratory Ruling, a variety of fees not
reasonably tethered to costs appear to violate Sections 253(a) or 332(c)(7) in the context of Small
Wireless Facility deployments.208 For example, we agree with courts that have recognized that gross
(Continued from previous page)
distinction between broadly-applicable requirements and decisions on individual requests would call for a materially
different analytical approach, even if it arguably could be relevant when evaluating the application of that analytical
approach to a particular preemption claim. In addition, although some commenters assert that such an interpretation
“would make it virtually impossible for local governments to enforce their zoning laws with regard to wireless
facility siting,” they provide no meaningful explanation why that would be the case. See, e.g., San Francisco Reply
at 16. While some local commenters note that the savings clauses in Section 253(b) and (c) do not have express
counterparts in the text of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i), see, e.g., San Francisco Comments at 26, we are not persuaded
that this compels a different interpretation of the virtually identical language restricting actual or effective
prohibitions of service in Section 253(a) and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), particularly given our reliance on
considerations in addition to the savings clauses themselves when interpreting the “effective prohibition” language.
See supra paras. 57-65. We offer these interpretations both to respond to comments and in the event that some court
decision could be viewed as supporting a different result.
207 Section 253(a) expressly addresses state or local activities that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting “any
entity” from providing a telecommunications service. 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, the
Commission likewise interpreted Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) as implicated where the state or local conduct prohibits
or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service by one entity even if another entity already
is providing such service. See 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14016-19, paras. 56-65.
208 We acknowledge that a fee not calculated by reference to costs might nonetheless happen to land at a level that is
a reasonable approximation of objectively reasonable costs, and otherwise constitute fair and reasonable
compensation as we describe herein. If all these criteria are met, the fee would not be preempted.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
38
revenue fees generally are not based on the costs associated with an entity’s use of the ROW,209 and
where that is the case, are preempted under Section 253(a). In addition, although we reject calls to
preclude a state or locality’s use of third party contractors or consultants, or to find all associated
compensation preempted,210 we make clear that the principles discussed herein regarding the
reasonableness of cost remain applicable. Thus, fees must not only be limited to a reasonable
approximation of costs, but in order to be reflected in fees, the costs themselves must also be reasonable.
Accordingly, any unreasonably high costs, such as excessive charges by third party contractors or
consultants, may not be passed on through fees even though they are an actual “cost” to the government.
If a locality opts to incur unreasonable costs, Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) do not permit it to pass those
costs on to providers. Fees that depart from these principles are not saved by Section 253(c), as we
discuss below.
71.Interpretation of Section 253(c) in the Context of Fees. In this section, we turn to the
interpretation of several provisions in Section 253(c), which provides that state or local action that
otherwise would be subject to preemption under Section 253(a) may be permissible if it meets specified
criteria. Section 253(c) expressly provides that state or local governments may require
telecommunications providers to pay “fair and reasonable compensation” for use of public ROWs but
requires that the amounts of any such compensation be “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory”
and “publicly disclosed.”211
72.We interpret the ambiguous phrase “fair and reasonable compensation,” within the
statutory framework we outlined for Section 253, to allow state or local governments to charge fees that
recover a reasonable approximation of the state or local governments’ actual and reasonable costs. We
conclude that an appropriate yardstick for “fair and reasonable compensation,” and therefore an indicator
of whether a fee violates Section 253(c), is whether it recovers a reasonable approximation of a state or
local government’s objectively reasonable costs of, respectively, maintaining the ROW, maintaining a
structure within the ROW, or processing an application or permit.212
73.We disagree with arguments that “fair and reasonable compensation” in Section 253(c)
should somehow be interpreted to allow state and local governments to charge “any compensation,” and
we give weight to BDAC comments that, “[a]s a policy matter, the Commission should recognize that
local fees designed to maximize profit are barriers to deployment.”213 Several commenters argue, in
209 See, e.g., Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 21; City of Maryland Heights, 256 F. Supp. 2d at 993-96;
Prince George’s County, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 818; AT&T v. City of Dallas, 8 F. Supp. 2d at 593; see also, e.g., CTIA
Comments at 30, 45; id. Attach. at 17; ExteNet Comments, Exh. 1 at 41; T-Mobile Comments at 7; WIA Comments
at 52-53.
210 See, e.g., CCA Comments at 17-21 (asking the Commission to declare franchise fees or percentage of revenue
fees outside the scope of fair and reasonable compensation and to prohibit state and localities from requiring service
providers to obtain business licenses for individual cell sites). For example, although fees imposed by a state or
local government calculated as a percentage of a provider’s revenue are unlikely to be a reasonable approximation of
cost, if such a percentage-of-revenue fee were, in fact, ultimately shown to amount to a reasonable approximation of
costs, the fee would not be preempted.
211 47 U.S.C. § 253(c).
212 Guayanilla District Ct. Opinion, 354 F. Supp. 2d at 114 (“fees charged by a municipality need to be related to the
degree of actual use of the public rights-of way” to constitute fair and reasonable compensation under Section
253(c)); New Jersey Payphone Ass’n, Inc. v. Town of West New York, 130 F. Supp. 2d 631, 638 (D.N.J. 2001), aff’d
299 F. 3d 235 (3d Cir. 2002) (New Jersey Payphone) (“Plainly, a fee that does more than make a municipality whole
is not compensatory in the literal sense, and risks becoming an economic barrier to entry.”)
213 BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report, Appendix C, p. 3 (a “[ROW] burden-oriented [fee] standard is flexible
enough to suit varied localities and network architectures, would ensure that fees are not providing additional
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
39
particular, that Section 253(c)’s language must be read as permitting localities latitude to charge any fee
at all214 or a “market-based rent.”215 Many of these arguments seem to suggest that Section 253 or 332
have not previously been read to impose limits on fees, but as noted above courts have long read these
provisions as imposing such limits. Still others argue that limiting the fees state and local governments
may charge amounts to requiring taxpayers to subsidize private companies’ use of public resources.216
We find little support in the record, legislative history, or case law for that position.217 Indeed, our
(Continued from previous page)
revenues for other localities purposes unrelated to providing and maintaining the ROW, and would provide some
basis to challenge fees that, on their face, are so high as to suggest their sole intent is to maximize revenue.”)
214 See, e.g., Baltimore Comments at 15-16 (noting that local governments traditionally impose fees based on rent,
and other ROW users pay market-based fees and arguing that citizens should not have to “subsidize” wireless
deployments); Bellevue et al. Reply at 12-13 (stating that “the FCC should compensate municipalities at fair market
value because any physical invasion is a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and just compensation is “typically”
calculated using fair market value.”); NLC Comments at 5 (“local governments, like private landlords, are entitled to
collect rent for the use of their property and have a duty to their residents to assess appropriate compensation. This
does not necessarily translate to restricting this compensation to just the cost of managing the asset—just as private
property varies in value, so does municipal property.”); Smart Communities Reply at 7-10 (stating that “fair and
reasonable compensation (i.e., fair market value) is not, as some commenters contend, measured by the regulatory
cost for use of a ROW or other property; rather it is measured by what it would cost the user of the ROW to
purchase rights form a local property owner.”).
215 Draft BDAC Rates and Fees Report, p. 10 (listing “Local Government Perspectives”).
216 See, e.g., NLC Comments, Statement of the Hon. Gary Resnick, Mayor, Wilton Manors, FL Comments at 6-7
(“preemption of local fees or rent for use of government-owned light and traffic poles, or fees for use of the right-of-
way amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of wireless providers and wireless infrastructure companies. There is no
corresponding benefit for such taxpayers such as requiring the broadband industry to reduce consumer rates or offer
advanced services to all communities within a certain time frame.”); Letter from Rondella M. Hawkins, Officer,
City of Austin—Telecommunications & Regulatory Affairs, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No.
17-79 (filed Aug. 7, 2018) at 1. These commenters do not explain why allowing recovery of a reasonable
approximation of the state or locality’s objectively reasonable costs would involve a taxpayer subsidy of service
providers, and we are not persuaded that our interpretation would create a subsidy.
217 As discussed more fully above, Congress intended through Section 253 to preempt state and local governments
from imposing barriers in the form of excessive fees, while also preserving state and local authority to protect
specified interests through competitively neutral regulation consistent with the Act. Our interpretation of Section
253(c) is consistent with Congress’s objectives. Our interpretation of “fair and reasonable compensation” in Section
253(c) is also consistent with prior Commission action limiting fees, and easing access, to other critical
communications infrastructure. For example, in implementing the requirement in the Pole Attachment Act that
utilities charge “just and reasonable” rates, the Commission adopted rules limiting the rates utilities can impose on
cable companies for pole attachments. Based on the costs associated with building and operation of poles, the rates
the Commission adopted were upheld by the Supreme Court, which found that the rates imposed were permissible
and not “confiscatory” because they “provid[ed] for the recovery of fully allocated cost, including the actual cost of
capital.” See FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U.S. 245, 254 (1987). Here, based on the specific language in the
separate provision of Section 253, we interpret the “effective prohibition” language, as applied to small cells, to
permit state and local governments to recover only “fair and reasonable compensation” for their maintenance of
ROW and government-owned structures within ROW used to host Small Wireless Facilities. Relatedly, Smart
Communities errs in arguing that the Commission’s Order “provides localities 60 days to provide access and sets the
rate for access,” making it a “classic taking.” Smart Communities Sept. 19, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 25. To the
contrary, the Commission has not given providers any right to compel access to any particular state or local
property. Cf. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982). There may well be legitimate
reasons for states and localities to deny particular placement applications, and adjudication of whether such
decisions amount to an effective prohibition must be resolved on a case-by-case basis. In this regard, we note that
the record in this proceeding reflects that the vast majority of local jurisdictions voluntarily accept placement of
wireless, utility, and other facilities in their rights-of-way. And in any event, cost-based recovery of the type we
provide here has been approved as just compensation for takings purposes in the context of such facilities. See
Alabama Power Co. v. FCC, 311 F.3d 1357, 1368, 1370-71 (11th Cir. 2002). See also United States v. 564.54 Acres
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
40
approach to compensation ensures that cities are not going into the red to support or subsidize the
deployment of wireless infrastructure.
74.The existence of Section 253(c) makes clear that Congress anticipated that “effective
prohibitions” could result from state or local government fees, and intended through that clause to provide
protections in that respect, as discussed in greater detail herein.218 Against that backdrop, we find it
unlikely that Congress would have left providers entirely at the mercy of effectively unconstrained
requirements of state or local governments.219 Our interpretation of Section 253(c), in fact, is consistent
with the views of many municipal commenters, at least with respect to one-time permit or application
fees, and the members of the BDAC Ad Hoc Committee on Rates and Fees, who unanimously concurred
that one-time fees for municipal applications and permits, such as an electrical inspection or a building
permit, should be based on the cost to the government of processing that application.220 The Ad Hoc
Committee noted that “[the] cost-based fee structure [for one-time fees] unanimously approved by the
committee accommodates the different siting related costs that different localities may incur to review and
process permit applications, while precluding excessive fees that impede deployment.221 We find that the
same reasoning should apply to other state and local government fees such as ROW access fees or fees for
the use of government property within the ROW.222
75.We recognize that state and local governments incur a variety of direct and actual costs in
connection with Small Wireless Facilities, such as the cost for staff to review the provider’s siting
application, costs associated with a provider’s use of the ROW, and costs associated with maintaining the
ROW itself or structures within the ROW to which Small Wireless Facilities are attached.223 We also
recognize that direct and actual costs may vary by location, scope, and extent of providers’ planned
deployments, such that different localities will have different fees under the interpretation set forth in this
Declaratory Ruling.
(Continued from previous page)
of Land, 441 U.S. 506, 513 (1979) (recognizing that alternative measure of compensation might be appropriate
“with respect to public facilities such as roads or sewers”).
218 See supra Parts III.A, B.
219 See, e.g., City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 78-79; Guayanilla District Ct. Opinion, 354 F. Supp. 2d at 114. We
disagree with arguments that competition between municipalities, or competition from adjacent private landowners,
would be sufficient to ensure reasonable pricing in the ROW. See e.g., Smart Communities Comments, Exh. 2, The
Economics of Government Right of Way Fees, Declaration of Kevin Cahill, Ph.D at para. 15. We find this
argument unpersuasive in view of the record evidence in this proceeding showing significant fees imposed on
providers in localities across the country. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 18; Verizon Comments at 6-7; see also
BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report, Appendix. C, p. 2.
220 See, e.g., Smart Communities Comments Cahill 2A at 2-3 (noting that “…a common model is to charge a fee that
covers the costs that a municipality incurs in conducting the inspections and proceedings required to allow entry,
fees that cover ongoing costs associated with inspection or expansion of facilities ...”); Colorado Comm. and Utility
All. et al. Comments at 19 (noting that “application fees are based upon recovery of costs incurred by localities.”);
Draft BDAC Rates and Fees Report, p. 15-16.
221 See also Draft BDAC Rates and Fees Report, p. 15-16. Although the BDAC Ad Hoc Rates and Fees Committee
and municipal commenters only support a cost-based approach for one-time fees, we find no reason not to extend
the same reasoning to ROW access fees or fees for the use of government property within the ROW, when all three
types of fees are a legal requirement imposed by a government and pose an effective prohibition. The BDAC Rates
and Fees Report did not provide a recommendation on fees for ROW access or fees for the use of government
property within the ROW, and we disagree with suggestions that our ruling, which was consistent with the
committee’s recommendation for one-time fees, circumvents the efforts of the Ad Hoc Rates and Fees Committee.
See Georgia Municipal Association Sept. 17, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 3.
222 See supra para. 50.
223 See, e.g., Colorado Comm. and Utility All. et al. Comments at 18-19 (discussing range of costs that application
fees cover).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
41
76.Because we interpret fair and reasonable compensation as a reasonable approximation of
costs, we do not suggest that localities must use any specific accounting method to document the costs
they may incur when determining the fees they charge for Small Wireless Facilities within the ROW.
Moreover, in order to simplify compliance, when a locality charges both types of recurring fees identified
above (i.e., for access to the ROW and for use of or attachment to property in the ROW), we see no
reason for concern with how it has allocated costs between those two types of fees. It is sufficient under
the statute that the total of the two recurring fees reflects the total costs involved.224 Fees that cannot
ultimately be shown by a state or locality to be a reasonable approximation of its costs, such as high fees
designed to subsidize local government costs in another geographic area or accomplish some public
policy objective beyond the providers’ use of the ROW, are not “fair and reasonable compensation…for
use of the public rights-of-way” under Section 253(c).225 Likewise, we agree with both industry and
municipal commenters that excessive and arbitrary consulting fees or other costs should not be
recoverable as “fair and reasonable compensation,”226 because they are not a function of the provider’s
“use” of the public ROW.
77.In addition to requiring that compensation be “fair and reasonable,” Section 253(c)
requires that it be “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory.” The Commission has previously
interpreted this language to prohibit states and localities from charging fees on new entrants and not on
incumbents.227 Courts have similarly found that states and localities may not impose a range of fees on
one provider but not on another228 and even some municipal commenters acknowledge that governments
should not discriminate as to the fees charged to different providers.229 The record reflects continuing
concerns from providers, however, that they face discriminatory charges.230 We reiterate the
Commission’s previous determination that state and local governments may not impose fees on some
providers that they do not impose on others. We would also be concerned about fees, whether one-time
or recurring, related to Small Wireless Facilities, that exceed the fees for other wireless
telecommunications infrastructure in similar situations, and to the extent that different fees are charged
224 See supra note 71 (identifying three categories of fees charged by states and localities).
225 47 U.S.C. § 253(c) (emphasis added). Our interpretation is consistent with court decisions interpreting the “fair
and reasonable” compensation language as requiring fees charged by municipalities relate to the degree of actual use
of a public ROW. See, e.g, Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Municipality of Guayanilla, 283 F. Supp. 2d 534, 543-44 (D.P.R.
2003); see also Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 21-24; City of Maryland Heights, 256 F. Supp. 2d at 984.
226 See Letter from Ashton J. Hayward III, Mayor, Pensacola, FL to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, WT
Docket No. 17-79 at 1 (filed June 8, 2018); see also, Illinois Municipal League Comments at 2 (noting that proposed
small cell legislation in Illinois allows municipalities to recover “reasonable costs incurred by the municipality in
reviewing the application.”).
227 TCI Cablevision of Oakland County, 12 FCC Rcd. at 21443, para. 108 (1997).
228 City of White Plains, 305 F.3d 80.
229 City of Baltimore Reply at 15 (“The City does agree that rates to access the right of way by similar entities must
be nondiscriminatory.”). Other commenters argue that nothing in Section 253 can apply to property in the ROW.
City of San Francisco Reply at 2-3, 19 (denying that San Francisco is discriminatory to different providers but also
asserting that “[l]ocal government fees for use of their poles are simply beyond the purview of section 253(c)”).
230 See, e.g., CFP Comments at 31-33 (noting that the City of Baltimore charges incumbent Verizon “less than $.07
per linear foot for the space that it leases in the public right-of-way” while it charges other providers “$3.33 per
linear foot to lease space in the City's conduit). Some municipal commenters argue that wireless infrastructure
occupies more space in the ROW. See Smart Communities Reply Comments at 82 (“wireless providers are placing
many of those permanent facilities in the public rights-of-way, in ways that require much larger deployments. It is
not discrimination to treat such different facilities differently, and to focus on their impacts”). We recognize that
different uses of the ROW may warrant charging different fees, and we only find fees to be discriminatory and not
competitively neutral when different amounts are charged for similar uses of the ROW.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
42
for similar use of the public ROW.231
78.Fee Levels Likely to Comply with Section 253. Our interpretation of Section 253(a) and
“fair and reasonable compensation” under Section 253(c) provides guidance for local and state fees
charged with respect to one-time fees generally, and recurring fees for deployments in the ROW.
Following suggestions for the Commission to “establish a presumptively reasonable ‘safe harbor’ for
certain ROW and use fees,”232 and to facilitate the deployment of specific types of infrastructure critical
to the rollout of 5G in coming years, we identify in this section three particular types of fee scenarios and
supply specific guidance on amounts that presumptively are not prohibited by Section 253. Informed by
our review of information from a range of sources, we conclude that fees at or below these amounts
presumptively do not constitute an effective prohibition under Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7), and
are presumed to be “fair and reasonable compensation” under Section 253(c).
79.Based on our review of the Commission’s pole attachment rate formula, which would
require fees below the levels described in this paragraph, as well as small cell legislation in twenty states,
local legislation from certain municipalities in states that have not passed small cell legislation, and
comments in the record, we presume that the following fees would not be prohibited by Section 253 or
Section 332(c)(7): (a) $500 for non-recurring fees, including a single up-front application that includes up
to five Small Wireless Facilities, with an additional $100 for each Small Wireless Facility beyond five, or
$1,000 for non-recurring fees for a new pole (i.e., not a collocation) intended to support one or more
Small Wireless Facilities; and (b) $270 per Small Wireless Facility per year for all recurring fees,
including any possible ROW access fee or fee for attachment to municipally-owned structures in the
ROW.233
80.By presuming that fees at or below the levels above comply with Section 253, we assume
231 Our interpretation is consistent with principles described by the BDAC’s Ad Hoc Committee on Rates and Fees.
Draft BDAC Rates and Fees Report at 5 (Jul. 24, 2018) (listing “neutral treatment and access of all technologies and
communication providers based upon extent/nature of ROW use” as principle to guide evaluation of rates and fees).
232 BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report, Appendix C, p. 3.
233 These presumptive fee limits are based on a number of different sources of data. Many different state small cell
bills, in particular, adopt similar fee limits despite their diversity of population densities and costs of living, and we
expect that these presumptive fee limits will allow for recovery in excess of costs in many cases. 47 CFR § 1.1409;
National Conference of State Legislatures, Mobile 5G and Small Cell Legislation, (May 7, 2018),
http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/mobile-5g-and-small-cell-
legislation.aspx (providing description of state small cell legislation); Little Rock, Ark. Ordinance No. 21,423 (June
6, 2017); NCTA August 20, 2018 Ex Parte Letter, Attachment; see also H.R. 2365, 2018 Leg. 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz.
2018) ($100 per facility for first 5 small cells in application; $50 annual utility attachment rate, $50 ROW access
fee); H.R. 189 149th Gen. Assemb. Reg. Sess. (Del. 2017) ($100 per small wireless facility on application; fees not
to exceed actual, direct and reasonable cost); S. 21320th Gen. Assemb. Reg. Sess. (Ind. 2017) ($100 per small
wireless facility); H.R. 1991, 99th Gen. Assemb. 2nd Reg. Sess. (Missouri, 2018) ($100 for each facility collocated on
authority pole; $150 annual fee per pole); H.R. 38 2018 Leg. Assemb. 2d Reg. Sess. (N.M. 2018) ($100 for each of
first 5 small facilities in an application; $20 per pole annually; $250 per facility annually for access to ROW); S.
189, 2018 Leg. Gen. Sess. (Utah 2018) ($100 per facility to collocate on existing or replacement utility pole; $250
annual ROW fee per facility for certain attachments). See also Letter from Kara R. Graves, Director, Regulatory
Affairs, CTIA, and D. Zachary Champ, Director, Government Affairs, WIA to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT
Docket No. 17-79 (filed Aug. 10, 2018) Attach. (listing fees in twenty state small cell legislations) (CTIA/WIA Aug.
10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Scott K. Bergmann, Sen. Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Sept. 4, 2018) at 3, Attach. (analyzing average and
median recurring fee levels permitted under state legislation). These examples suggest that the fee levels we discuss
above may be higher than what many states already allow and further support our finding that there should be only
very limited circumstances in which localities can charge higher fees consistent with the requirements of Section
253. We recognize that certain fees in a minority of state small cell bills are above the levels we presume to be
allowed under Section 253. Any party may still charge fees above the levels we identify by demonstrating that the
fee is a reasonable approximation of cost that itself is objectively reasonable.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
43
that there would be almost no litigation by providers over fees set at or below these levels. Likewise, our
review of the record, including the many state small cell bills passed to date, indicate that there should be
only very limited circumstances in which localities can charge higher fees consistent with the
requirements of Section 253. In those limited circumstances, a locality could prevail in charging fees that
are above this level by showing that such fees nonetheless comply with the limits imposed by Section
253—that is, that they are (1) a reasonable approximation of costs, (2) those costs themselves are
reasonable, and (3) are non-discriminatory.234 Allowing localities to charge fees above these levels upon
this showing recognizes local variances in costs.235
C.Other State and Local Requirements that Govern Small Facilities Deployment
81.There are also other types of state and local land-use or zoning requirements that may
restrict Small Wireless Facility deployments to the degree that they have the effect of prohibiting service
in violation of Sections 253 and 332. In this section, we discuss how those statutory provisions apply to
requirements outside the fee context, both generally and with a particular focus on aesthetic and
undergrounding requirements.
82.As discussed above, a state or local legal requirement constitutes an effective prohibition
if it “materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair
and balanced legal and regulatory environment.”236 Our interpretation of that standard, as set forth above,
applies equally to fees and to non-fee legal requirements. And as with fees, Section 253 contains certain
safe harbors that permit some legal requirements that might otherwise be preempted by Section 253(a).
Section 253(b) saves state “requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the
public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the
rights of consumers.237 And Section 253(c) preserves state and local authority to manage the public
rights-of-way.238
83.Given the wide variety of possible legal requirements, we do not attempt here to
determine which of every possible non-fee legal requirements are preempted for having the effect of
prohibiting service, although our discussion of fees above should prove instructive in evaluating specific
requirements. Instead, we focus on some specific types of requirements raised in the record and provide
guidance on when those particular types of requirements are preempted by the statute.
84.Aesthetics. The Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI sought comment on whether
deployment restrictions based on aesthetic or similar factors are widespread and, if so, how Sections 253
and 332(c)(7) should be applied to them.239 Parties describe a wide range of such requirements that
allegedly restrict deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. For example, many providers criticize
234 Several state and local commenters express concern about the presumptively reasonable fee levels we establish,
including concerns about the effect of the fee levels on existing fee-related provisions included in state and local
legislation. See e.g., Letter from Kent Scarlett, Exec. Director, Ohio Municipal League to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC at 1 (filed Sept. 18, 2018); Letter from Liz Kniss, Mayor, City of Palo Alto to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, WC Docket No. 17-84 at 1 (filed Sept. 17, 2018). As stated above, while
the fee levels we establish reflect our presumption regarding the level of fees that would be permissible under
Section 253 and 332(c)(7), state or local fees that exceed these levels may be permissible if the fees are based on a
reasonable approximation of costs and the costs themselves are objectively reasonable.
235 We emphasize that localities may charge fees to recover their objectively reasonable costs and thus reject
arguments that our approach requires localities to bear the costs of small cell deployment or applies a one-size-fits-
all standard. See, e,g., Letter from Mike Posey, Mayor, City of Huntington Beach, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1-2 (filed Sept.11, 2018) (Mike Posey Sept. 11, 2018 Ex Parte Letter).
236 California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14206, para. 31; see supra paras. 34-42.
237 47 U.S.C. § 253(b).
238 47 U.S.C. § 253(c).
239 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3362-66, paras. 90-92, 95, 97-99.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
44
burdensome requirements to deploy facilities using “stealth” designs or other means of camouflage,240 as
well as unduly stringent mandates regarding the size of equipment, colors of paint, and other details.241
Providers also assert that the procedures some localities use to evaluate the appearance of proposed
facilities and to decide whether they comply with applicable land-use requirements are overly restrictive.
242 Many providers are particularly critical of the use of unduly vague or subjective criteria that may
apply inconsistently to different providers or are only fully revealed after application, making it
impossible for providers to take these requirements into account in their planning and adding to the time
necessary to deploy facilities.243 At the same time, we have heard concerns in the record about carriers
deploying unsightly facilities that are significantly out of step with similar, surrounding deployments.
85.State and local governments add that many of their aesthetic restrictions are justified by
factors that the providers fail to mention. They assert that their zoning requirements and their review and
enforcement procedures are properly designed to, among other things, (1) ensure that the design,
appearance, and other features of buildings and structures are compatible with nearby land uses; (2)
manage ROW so as to ensure traffic safety and coordinate various uses; and (3) protect the integrity of
240 See, e.g., CCIA Comments at 14-15 (discussing regulations enacted by Village of Skokie, Illinois); WIA Reply
Comments (WT Docket No. 16-421) at 9-10 (discussing restrictions imposed by Town of Hempstead, New York);
see also AT&T Comments at 14-17; PTA-FLA Comments at 19; Verizon Comments at 19-20; AT&T Aug. 6, 2018
ex parte at 3.
241 See, e.g., CCIA Comments at 13-14 (describing regulations established by Skokie, Illinois that prescribe in detail
the permissible colors of paint and their potential for reflecting light); AT&T Aug. 6, 2018 ex parte at 3 (“Some
municipalities require carriers to paint small cell cabinets a particular color when like requirements were not
imposed on similar equipment placed in the ROW by electric incumbents, competitive telephone companies, or
cable companies,” and asserts that it often “is highly burdensome to maintain non-factory paint schemes over years
or decades, including changes to the municipal paint scheme,” due to “technical constraints as well such as
manufacture warranty or operating parameters, such as heat dissipation, corrosion resistance, that are inconsistent
with changes in color, or finish.”); AT&T Comments at 16-17 (contending that some localities “allow for a single
size and configuration for small cell equipment while requiring case-by-case approval of any non-conforming
equipment, even if smaller and upgraded in design and performance,” and thus effectively compel “providers [to]
incur the added expense of conforming their equipment designs to the approved size and configuration, even if
newer equipment is smaller, to avoid the delays associated with the approval of an alternative equipment design and
the risk of rejection of that design.”); id. at 17 (some local governments “prohibit the placement of wireless facilities
in and around historic properties and districts, regardless of the size of the equipment or the presence of existing
more visually intrusive construction near the property or district”).
242 See, e.g., Crown Castle Comments at 14-15 (criticizing San Francisco’s aesthetic review procedures that
discriminate against providers and criteria and referring to extended litigation); CTIA Reply Comments at 17 (“San
Francisco imposes discretionary aesthetic review for wireless ROW facilities.”); T-Mobile Comments at 40; but see
San Francisco Comments at 3-7 (describing aesthetic review procedures). See also AT&T Comments at 13-17;
Extenet Comments at 37; CTIA Comments at 21-22; Sprint Comments at 38-40; T-Mobile Comments at 8-12;
Verizon Comments at 5-8.
243 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 13-17; Sprint Comments at 38-40; T-Mobile Comments at 8-12; Verizon
Comments at 5-8. WIA cites allegations that an unnamed city in California recently declined to support approval of
a proposed small wireless installation, claiming that the installations do not meet “Planning and Zoning Protected
Location Compatibility Standards,” even though the same equipment has been deployed elsewhere in the city
dozens of times, and even though the “Protected Location” standards should not apply because the proposals are not
on “protected view” streets). WIA Reply Comments, WT Docket No. 16-421 at 9-10; id. at 8 (noting that one city
changed its aesthetic standards after a proposal was filed); AT&T Comments at 17 (noting that a design approval
took over a year); Virginia Joint Commenters, WT Docket No. 16-421 (state law providing discretion for zoning
authority to deny application because of “aesthetics” concerns without additional guidance); Extenet Reply
Comments at 13 (noting that some “local governments impose aesthetic requirements based entirely on subjective
considerations that effectively give local governments latitude to block a deployment for virtually any aesthetically-
based reason”)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
45
their historic, cultural, and scenic resources and their citizens’ quality of life.244
86.Given these differing perspectives and the significant impact of aesthetic requirements on
the ability to deploy infrastructure and provide service, we provide guidance on whether and in what
circumstances aesthetic requirements violate the Act. This will help localities develop and implement
lawful rules, enable providers to comply with these requirements, and facilitate the resolution of disputes.
We conclude that aesthetics requirements are not preempted if they are (1) reasonable, (2) no more
burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective and
published in advance.
87.Like fees, compliance with aesthetic requirements imposes costs on providers, and the
impact on their ability to provide service is just the same as the impact of fees. We therefore draw on our
analysis of fees to address aesthetic requirements. We have explained above that fees that merely require
providers to bear the direct and reasonable costs that their deployments impose on states and localities
should not be viewed as having the effect of prohibiting service and are permissible.245 Analogously,
aesthetic requirements that are reasonable in that they are technically feasible and reasonably directed to
avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character deployments are also
permissible. In assessing whether this standard has been met, aesthetic requirements that are more
burdensome than those the state or locality applies to similar infrastructure deployments are not
permissible, because such discriminatory application evidences that the requirements are not, in fact,
reasonable and directed at remedying the impact of the wireless infrastructure deployment. For example,
a minimum spacing requirement that has the effect of materially inhibiting wireless service would be
considered an effective prohibition of service.
88.Finally, in order to establish that they are reasonable and reasonably directed to avoiding
aesthetic harms, aesthetic requirements must be objective—i.e., they must incorporate clearly-defined and
ascertainable standards, applied in a principled manner—and must be published in advance.246 “Secret”
rules that require applicants to guess at what types of deployments will pass aesthetic muster substantially
increase providers’ costs without providing any public benefit or addressing any public harm. Providers
cannot design or implement rational plans for deploying Small Wireless Facilities if they cannot predict in
advance what aesthetic requirements they will be obligated to satisfy to obtain permission to deploy a
facility at any given site.247
244 See, e.g., NLC Comments, WT Docket No. 16-421 at 8-10; Smart Communities Comments, WT Docket No. 16-
421 at 35-36; New York City Comments at 10-15; New Orleans Comments at 1-2, 5-8; San Francisco Comments at
3-12; CCUA Reply Comments at 5; Irvine (CA) Comments at 2; Oakland County (MI) Comments at 3-5; Florida
Coalition of Local Gov’ts Reply Comments at 6-12 (justifications for undergrounding requirements); id. at 16-421
(justifications for municipal historic-preservation requirements); id. at 22-16 (justifications for aesthetics and design
requirements).
245 See supra paras. 55-56.
246 Our decision to adopt this objective requirement is supported by the fact that many states have recently adopted
limits on their localities’ aesthetic requirements that employ the term “objective.” See, e.g., Letter from Scott
Bergmann, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket
No. 17-79 at 8 (filed Sept. 19, 2018) (noting requirements enacted in the states of Arizona, Delaware, Missouri,
North Carolina, Ohio, and Oklahoma, that local siting requirements for small wireless facilities be “objective”); see
also Letter from Kara R. Graves, Director, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT
Docket No. 17-79 at 8 (filed Sept. 4, 2018)
247 Some local governments argue that, because different aesthetic concerns may apply to different neighborhoods,
particularly those considered historic districts, it is not feasible for them to publish local aesthetic requirements in
advance. See, e.g., Letter from Mark J. Schwartz, County Manager, Arlington County, VA, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (Sept. 18, 2018) (Arlington County Sept. 18 Ex Parte Letter); Letter
from Allison Silberberg, Mayor, City of Alexandria, VA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No.
17-79, at 2 (Sept. 18, 2018). We believe this concern is unfounded. As noted above, the fact that our approach here
(including the publication requirement) is consistent with that already enacted in many state-level small cell bills
supports the feasibility of our decision. Moreover, the aesthetic requirements to be published in advance need not
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
46
89.We appreciate that at least some localities will require some time to establish and publish
aesthetics standards that are consistent with this Declaratory Ruling. Based on our review and evaluation
of commenters’ concerns, we anticipate that such publication should take no longer than 180 days after
publication of this decision in the Federal Register.
90.Undergrounding Requirements. We understand that some local jurisdictions have
adopted undergrounding provisions that require infrastructure to be deployed below ground based, at least
in some circumstances, on the locality’s aesthetic concerns. A number of providers have complained that
these types of requirements amount to an effective prohibition. 248 In addressing this issue, we first
reiterate that, while undergrounding requirements may well be permissible under state law as a general
matter, any local authority to impose undergrounding requirements under state law does not remove such
requirements from the provisions of Section 253. In this regard, we believe that a requirement that all
wireless facilities be deployed underground would amount to an effective prohibition given the
propagation characteristics of wireless signals. In this sense, we agree with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit when it observed that, “[i]f an ordinance required, for instance, that all facilities be
underground and the plaintiff introduced evidence that, to operate, wireless facilities must be above
ground, the ordinance would effectively prohibit it from providing services.”249 Further, a requirement
that materially inhibits wireless service, even if it does not go so far as requiring that all wireless facilities
be deployed underground, also would be considered an effective prohibition of service. Thus, the same
criteria discussed above in the context of aesthetics generally would apply to state or local
undergrounding requirements.
91.Minimum Spacing Requirements. Some parties complain of municipal requirements
regarding the spacing of wireless installations—i.e., mandating that facilities be sited at least 100, 500, or
1,000 feet, or some other minimum distance, away from other facilities, ostensibly to avoid excessive
overhead “clutter” that would be visible from public areas.250 We acknowledge that while some such
requirements may violate 253(a), others may be reasonable aesthetic requirements.251 For example, under
the principle that any such requirements be reasonable and publicly available in advance, it is difficult to
envision any circumstances in which a municipality could reasonably promulgate a new minimum
spacing requirement that, in effect, prevents a provider from replacing its preexisting facilities or
collocating new equipment on a structure already in use. Such a rule change with retroactive effect would
(Continued from previous page)
prescribe in detail every specification to be mandated for each type of structure in each individual neighborhood.
Localities need only set forth the objective standards and criteria that will be applied in a principled manner at a
sufficiently clear level of detail as to enable providers to design and propose their deployments in a manner that
complies with those standards.
248 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 14-15; Crown Castle Comments at 54-56; T-Mobile Comments at 38; Verizon
Comments at 6-8; WIA Comments at 56; CTIA Reply at 16. But see Chicago Comments at 15; City of Claremont
(CA) Comments at 1; City of Kenmore (WA) Comments at 1; City of Mukilteo (WA) Comments at 2; Florida
Coalition of Local Gov’ts Comments at 6-12; Smart Communities Comments at 74.
249 County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 580, accord, BDAC Model Municipal Code at 13, § 2.3.e (providing for
municipal zoning authority to allow providers to deploy small wireless facilities on existing vertical structures where
available in neighborhoods with undergrounding requirements, or if no technically feasible structures exist, to place
vertical structures commensurate with other structures in the area).
250 See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 8 (describing requirements imposed by Buffalo Grove, Illinois); CCIA
Comments at 14-15 (“These restrictions stifle technological innovation and unnecessarily burden the ability of a
provider to use the best available technological to serve a particular area. For example, 5G technology will require
higher band spectrum for greater network capacity, yet some millimeter wave spectrum simply cannot propagate
long distances over a few thousand feet—let alone a few hundred. Therefore, a local requirement of, for example, a
thousand-foot minimum separation distance between small cells would unnecessarily forestall any network provider
seeking to use higher band spectrum with greater capacity when that provider needs to boost coverage in a specific
area of a few hundred feet.”). See also AT&T Comments at 15; CTIA Reply at 17.
251 47 U.S.C. § 253(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
47
almost certainly have the effect of prohibiting service under the standards we articulate here. Therefore,
such requirements should be evaluated under the same standards for aesthetic requirements as those
discussed above.252
D.States and Localities Act in Their Regulatory Capacities When Authorizing and
Setting Terms for Wireless Infrastructure Deployment in Public Rights of Way
92.We confirm that our interpretations today extend to state and local governments’ terms
for access to public ROW that they own or control, including areas on, below, or above public roadways,
highways, streets, sidewalks, or similar property, as well as their terms for use of or attachment to
government-owned property within such ROW, such as new, existing and replacement light poles, traffic
lights, utility poles, and similar property suitable for hosting Small Wireless Facilities.253 As explained
below, for two alternative and independent reasons, we disagree with state and local government
commenters who assert that, in providing or denying access to government-owned structures, these
governmental entities function solely as “market participants” whose rights cannot be subject to federal
preemption under Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7).254
93.First, this effort to differentiate between such governmental entities’ “regulatory” and
“proprietary” capacities in order to insulate the latter from preemption ignores a fundamental feature of
the market participant doctrine.255 As the Ninth Circuit has observed, at its core, this doctrine is “a
252 Another type of restriction that imposes substantial burdens on providers, but does not meaningfully advance any
recognized public-interest objective, is an explicit or implicit quid pro quo in which a municipality makes clear that
it will approve a proposed deployment only on condition that the provider supply an “in-kind” service or benefit to
the municipality, such as installing a communications network dedicated to the municipality’s exclusive use. See,
e.g., Comcast Comments at 9-10 Verizon Comments at 7, Crown Castle Comments at 55-56. Such requirements
impose costs, but rarely, if ever, yield benefits directly related to the deployment. Additionally, where such
restrictions are not cost-based, they inherently have “the effect of prohibiting” service, and thus are preempted by
Section 253(a). See also BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report, Appendix E at 1 (describing “conditions imposed that
are unrelated to the project for which they were seeking ROW access” as “inordinately burdensome”); BDAC
Model Municipal Code at 19, § 2.5a.(v)(F) (providing that municipal zoning authority “may not require an
Applicant to perform services . . . or in-kind contributions [unrelated] to the Communications Facility or Support
Structure for which approval is sought”).
253 See supra paras. 50-91. Some have argued that Section 224 of the Communications Act’s exception of state-
owned and cooperative-owned utilities from the definition of “utility,” “[a]s used in this section,” suggests that
Congress did not intend for any other portion of the Act to apply to poles or other facilities owned by such entities.
City of Mukilteo, et. al. Ex Parte Comments on the Draft Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT
Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed Sept. 18, 2018); Letter from James Bradford Ramsay, General Counsel, NARUC to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 17-79 at 7 (filed Sept. 19, 2018). We see no basis for such a
reading. Nothing in Section 253 suggests such a limited reading, nor does Section 224 indicate that other provisions
of the Act do not apply. We conclude that our interpretation of effective prohibition extends to fees for all
government-owned property in the ROW, including utility poles. Compare 47 U.S.C. § 224 with 47 U.S.C. § 253.
We are not addressing here how our interpretations apply to access or attachments to government-owned property
located outside the public ROW.
254 See, e.g., AASHTO Comments, Att. 1 (Del. DOT Comments) at 3-5; New York City Comments at 2-8; San
Antonio et al. Comments at 14-15; Smart Communities Comments at 62-66; San Francisco Comments at 28-30;
League of Arizona Cities et al. Comments, WT Docket No. 16-421 at 3-9; San Antonio et al. Comments, WT
Docket No. 16-421 at 14-15. See also Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3364-65, para. 96
(seeking comment on this issue).
255 The market participant doctrine establishes that, unless otherwise specified by Congress, federal statutory
provisions may be interpreted as preempting or superseding state and local governments’ activities involving
regulatory or public policy functions, but not their activities as “market participants” to serve their “purely
proprietary interests,” analogous to similar transactions of private parties. Building & Construction Trades Council
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
48
presumption about congressional intent,” which “may have a different scope under different federal
statutes.”256 The Supreme Court has likewise made clear that the doctrine is applicable only “[i]n the
absence of any express or implied indication by Congress.”257 In contrast, where state action conflicts
with express or implied federal preemption, the market participant doctrine does not apply, whether or not
the state or local government attempts to impose its authority over use of public rights-of-way by permit
or by lease or contract.258 Here, both Sections 253(a) and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) expressly address
preemption, and neither carves out an exception for proprietary conduct.259
94.Specifically, Section 253(a) expressly preempts certain state and local “legal
requirements” and makes no distinction between a state or locality’s regulatory and proprietary conduct.
Indeed, as the Commission has long recognized, Section 253(a)’s sweeping reference to “State [and] local
statute[s] [and] regulation[s]” and “other State [and] local legal requirement[s]” demonstrates Congress’s
intent “to capture a broad range of state and local actions that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting
entities from providing telecommunications services.”260 Section 253(b) mentions “requirement[s],” a
phrase that is even broader than that used in Section 253(a) but covers “universal service,” “public safety
and welfare,” “continued quality of telecommunications,” and “safeguard[s for the] rights of consumers.”
The subsection does not recognize a distinction between regulatory and proprietary. Section 253(c),
which expressly insulates from preemption certain state and local government activities, refers in relevant
part to “manag[ing] the public rights-of-way” and “requir[ing] fair and reasonable compensation,” while
eliding any distinction between regulatory and proprietary action in either context. The Commission has
previously observed that Section 253(c) “makes explicit a local government’s continuing authority to
issue construction permits regulating how and when construction is conducted on roads and other public
(Continued from previous page)
v. Associated Builders & Contractors, 507 U.S. 218, 229, 231 (1993) (Boston Harbor); see also Wisconsin Dept. of
Industry, Labor, and Human Relations v. Gould, Inc., 475 U.S. 282, 289 (1986) (Gould).
256 See, e.g., Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Distr., 498 F.3d 1031, 1042 (9th Cir. 2007);
Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Comm. College, 623 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010).
257 See Boston Harbor, 507 U.S. at 231.
258 See American Trucking Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 569 U.S. 641, 650 (2013) (American Trucking).
259 At a minimum, we conclude that Congress’s language has not unambiguously pointed to such a distinction. See
Letter from Tamara Preiss, Vice President, Federal Regulatory and Legal Affairs, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed Aug. 23, 2018) (Verizon Aug. 23, 2018 Ex Parte Letter).
Furthermore, we contrast these statutes with those that do not expressly or impliedly preempt proprietary conduct.
Compare, e.g., American Trucking, 569 U.S. 641 (finding that FAA Authorization Act of 1994’s provision that
“State [or local government] may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and
effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the transportation of
property” expressly preempted the terms of a standard-form concession agreement drafted to govern the relationship
between the Port of Los Angeles and any trucking company seeking to operate on the premises), and Gould,
475 U.S. at 289 (finding that NLRA preempted a state law barring state contracts with companies with disfavored
labor practices because the state scheme was inconsistent with the federal scheme), with Boston Harbor, 507 U.S. at
224-32. In Boston Harbor, the Supreme Court observed that the NLRA contained no express preemption provision
or implied preemption scheme and consequently held:
In the absence of any express or implied indication by Congress that a State may not manage its own
property when it pursues its purely proprietary interests, and where analogous private conduct would be
permitted, this Court will not infer such a restriction.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
260 See Minnesota Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 21707, para. 18. We find these principles to be equally applicable to our
interpretation of the meaning of “regulation[s]” referred to under Section 332(c)(7)(B) insofar as such actions
impermissibly “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.” Supra paras.
34-42.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
49
rights-of-way.”261 We conclude here that, as a general matter, “manage[ment]” of the ROW includes any
conduct that bears on access to and use of those ROW, notwithstanding any attempts to characterize such
conduct as proprietary.262 This reading, coupled with Section 253(c)’s narrow scope, suggests that
Congress’s omission of a blanket proprietary exception to preemption was intentional, and thus, that such
conduct can be preempted under Section 253(a). We therefore construe Section 253(c)’s requirements,
including the requirement that compensation be “fair and reasonable,” as applying equally to charges
imposed via contracts and other arrangements between a state or local government and a party engaged in
wireless facility deployment.263 This interpretation is consistent with Section 253(a)’s reference to “State
or local legal requirement[s],” which the Commission has consistently construed to include such
agreements.264 In light of the foregoing, whatever the force of the market participant doctrine in other
contexts,265 we believe the language, legislative history, and purpose of Sections 253(a) and (c) are
incompatible with the application of this doctrine in this context. We observe once more that “[o]ur
conclusion that Congress intended this language to be interpreted broadly is reinforced by the scope of
section 253(d),” which “directs the Commission to preempt any statute, regulation, or legal
requirement permitted or imposed by a state or local government if it contravenes sections 253(a) or (b).
A more restrictive interpretation of the term ‘other legal requirements’ easily could permit state and local
restrictions on competition to escape preemption based solely on the way in which [state] action was
structured. We do not believe that Congress intended this result.”266
95.Similarly, and as discussed elsewhere,267 we interpret Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)’s
references to “any request[s] for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service
facilities” broadly, consistent with Congressional intent. As described below, we find that “any” is
unqualifiedly broad, and that “request” encompasses anything required to secure all authorizations
necessary for the deployment of personal wireless services infrastructure. In particular, we find that
Section 332(c)(7) includes authorizations relating to access to a ROW, including but not limited to the
261 See Minnesota Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 21728-29, para. 60, quoting H. R. Rep. No. 104-204, U.S. Congressional &
Administrative News, March 1996, vol.1, Legislative History section at 41 (1996).
262 Indeed, to permit otherwise could limit the utility of ROW access for telecommunications service providers and
thus conflict with the overarching preemption scheme set up by Section 253(a), for which 253(b) and 253(c) are
exceptions. By construing “manage[ment]” of a ROW to include some proprietary behaviors, we mean to suggest
that conduct taken in a proprietary capacity is likewise subject to 253(c)’s general limitations, including the
requirement that any compensation charged in such capacity be “fair and reasonable.”
263 Cf. Minnesota Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 21729-30, para. 61-62 (internal citations omitted) (“Moreover, Minnesota
has not shown that the compensation required for access to the right-of-way is ‘fair and reasonable.’ The
compensation appears to reflect the value of the exclusivity inherent in the Agreement [which provides the
developer with exclusive physical access, for at least ten years, to longitudinal rights-of-way along Minnesota's
interstate freeway system] rather than fair and reasonable charges for access to the right-of-way. Nor has Minnesota
shown that the Agreement provides for ‘use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis.’”)
264 Cf. Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 17 n.83 (“Section 253(c), which carves out ROW management,
would hardly be necessary if all ROW decisions were proprietary and shielded from the statute’s sweep.”).
265 We acknowledge that the Commission previously concluded that “Section 6409(a) applies only to State and local
governments acting in their role as land use regulators” and found that “this conclusion is consistent with judicial
decisions holding that Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act do not preempt ‘non regulatory
decisions[.]’” See 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12964-65, paras. 237-240. To the extent
necessary, we clarify here that the actions and analysis there were limited in scope given the different statutory
scheme and record in that proceeding, which did not, at the time, suggest a need to “further elaborate as to how this
principle should apply to any particular circumstance” (there, in connection with application of Section 6409(a)).
Here, in contrast, as described herein, we find that further elucidation by the Commission is needed.
266 Minnesota Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 21707, para. 18 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis omitted).
267 See infra Part IV.C.1 (Authorizations Subject to the “Reasonable Period of Time” Provision of Section
332(c)(7)(B)(ii)).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
50
“place[ment], construct[ion], or modif[ication]” of facilities on government-owned property, for the
purpose of providing “personal wireless service.” We observe that this result, too, is consistent with
Commission precedent such as the Minnesota Order, which involved a contract that provided exclusive
access to a ROW. As but one example, to have limited that holding to exclude government-owned
property within the ROW even if the carrier needed access to that property would have the effect of
diluting or completely defeating the purpose of Section 332(c)(7).268
96.Second, and in the alternative, even if Section 253(a) and Section 332(c)(7) were to
permit leeway for states and localities acting in their proprietary role, the examples in the record would be
excepted because they involve states and localities fulfilling regulatory objectives.269 In the proprietary
context, “a State acts as a ‘market participant with no interest in setting policy.’”270 We contrast state and
local governments’ purely proprietary actions with states and localities acting with respect to managing or
controlling access to property within public ROW, or to decisions about where facilities that will provide
personal wireless service to the public may be sited. As several commenters point out, courts have
recognized that states and localities “hold the public streets and sidewalks in trust for the public” and
“manage public ROW in their regulatory capacities.”271 These decisions could be based on a number of
regulatory objectives, such as aesthetics or public safety and welfare, some of which, as we note
elsewhere, would fall within the preemption scheme envisioned by Congress. In these situations, the state
or locality’s role seems to us to be indistinguishable from its function and objectives as a regulator.272 To
268 See also infra para. 134-36 and cases cited therein. Precedent that may appear to reach a different result can be
distinguished in that it resolves disputes arising under Section 332 and/or 253(a) without analyzing the scope of
Section 253(c). Furthermore, those situations did not involve government-owned property or structures within a
public ROW. See, e.g., Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills, 283 F.3d 404, 420-21 (2d Cir. 2002) (declining to find
preemption under Section 332 applicable to terms of a school rooftop lease); Omnipoint Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of
Huntington Beach, 738 F.3d 192, 195-96, 200-01 (9th Cir. 2013) (declining to find preemption under Section 332
applicable to restrictions on lease of parkland).
269 In this regard, also relevant to our interpretations here is courts’ admonition that government activities that are
characterized as transactions but in reality are “tantamount to regulation” are subject to preemption, Gould, 475 U.S.
at 289, and that government action disguised as private action may not be relied on as a pretext to advance
regulatory objectives. See, e.g., Coastal Communications Service v. City of New York, 658 F. Supp. 2d 425, 441-42
(E.D.N.Y. 2009) (finding that a restriction on advertising on newly-installed payphones was subject to section
253(a) where the advertising was a material factor in the provider’s ability to provide the payphone service itself).
270 See, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60, 70 (2008).
271 See Verizon Comments at 26-28 & n.85; T-Mobile Comments at 50 & n.210 and cases cited therein.
272 Indeed, the Commission has long recognized that, in enacting Sections 253(c) and 332(c)(7), Congress
affirmatively protected the ability of state and local governments to carry out their responsibilities for maintaining,
managing, and regulating the use of ROW and structures therein for the benefit of the public. TCI Cablevision
Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 21441, para. 103 (1997) (“We recognize that section 253(c) preserves the authority of state
and local governments to manage public rights-of-way. Local governments must be allowed to perform the range of
vital tasks necessary to preserve the physical integrity of streets and highways, to control the orderly flow of
vehicles and pedestrians, to manage gas, water, cable (both electric and cable television), and telephone facilities
that crisscross the streets and public rights-of-way.”); Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, para. 142 (same);
Classic Telephone, Inc. Petition for Preemption, Declaratory Ruling, and Injunctive Relief, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 13082, 13103, para. 39 (1996) (same). We find these situations to be distinguishable from
those where a state or locality might be engaged in a discrete, bona fide transaction involving sales or purchases of
services that do not otherwise violate the law or interfere with a preemption scheme. Compare, e.g., Cardinal
Towing & Auto Repair, Inc., v. City of Bedford, 180 F.3d 686, 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1999) (declining to find that the
FAA Authorization Act of 1994, as amended by the ICC Termination Act of 1995, preempted an ordinance and
contract specifications that were designed only to procure services that a municipality itself needed, not to regulate
the conduct of others), with NextG Networks of N.Y., Inc. v. City of New York, 2004 WL 2884308 (N.D.N.Y., Dec.
10, 2004) (crediting allegations that a city’s actions, such as issuing a request for proposal and implementing a
general franchising scheme, were not of a purely proprietary nature, but rather, were taken in pursuit of a regulatory
objective or policy). This action could include, for example, procurement of services for the state or locality, or a
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
51
the extent that there is some distinction, the temptation to blend the two roles for purposes of insulating
conduct from federal preemption cannot be underestimated in light of the overarching statutory objective
that telecommunications service and personal wireless services be deployed without material
impediments.
97.Our interpretation of both provisions finds ample support in the record of this proceeding.
Specifically, commenters explain that public ROW and government-owned structures within such ROW
are frequently relied upon to supply services for the benefit of the public, and are often the best-situated
locations for the deployment of wireless facilities.273 However, the record is also replete with examples of
states and localities refusing to allow access to such ROW or structures, or imposing onerous terms and
conditions for such access.274 These examples extend far beyond governments’ treatment of single
structures;275 indeed, in some cases it has been suggested that states or localities are using their
proprietary roles to effectuate a general municipal policy disfavoring wireless deployment in public
ROW.276 We believe that Section 253(c) is properly construed to suggest that Congress did not intend to
permit states and localities to rely on their ownership of property within the ROW as a pretext to advance
regulatory objectives that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of covered services, and
thus that such conduct is preempted.277 Our interpretations here are intended to facilitate the
implementation of the scheme Congress intended and to provide greater regulatory certainty to states,
municipalities, and regulated parties about what conduct is preempted under Section 253(a). Should
factual questions arise about whether a state or locality is engaged in such behavior, Section 253(d)
affords state and local governments and private parties an avenue for specific preemption challenges.
(Continued from previous page)
contract for employment services between a state or locality and one of its employees. We do not intend to reach
these scenarios with our interpretations today.
273 See, e.g., Verizon Aug. 23, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 4-5.
274 See supra para. 25.
275 Cf. Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills, 283 F.3d 404.
276 See NextG Networks of N.Y., Inc. v. City of New York, 2004 WL 2884308; Coastal Communications Service v.
City of New York, 658 F. Supp. 2d at 441-42.
277 We contrast this instance to others in which we either declined to act or responded to requests for action with
respect to specific disputes. See, e.g., 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12964-65, paras. 237-
240; Continental Airlines Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Over-the-Air Reception Devices (OTARD)
Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 13201, 13220, para. 43 (2006) (observing, in the context of a
different statutory and regulatory scheme, that “[g]iven that the Commission intended to preempt restrictions
[regarding restrictions on Continental's use of its Wi-Fi antenna] in private lease agreements, however, Massport
would be preempted even if it is acting in a private capacity with regard to its lease agreement with Continental.”);
Sandwich Isles Section 253 Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 5883, para. 14 (rejecting argument that argument that Section
253(a) is inapplicable where it would affect the state’s ability to “deal[] with its real estate interests . . . as it sees fit,”
such as by granting access to “rights-of-way over land that it owns); Minnesota Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 21706-08,
paras. 17-19; cf. Amigo.Net Petition for Declaratory Ruling, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 10964,
10967 (WCB 2002) (Section 253 did not apply to carrier’s provision of network capacity to government entities
exclusively for such entities’ internal use); T-Mobile West Corp. v. Crow, 2009 WL 5128562 (D. Ariz., Dec. 17,
2009) (Section 332(c)(7) did not apply to contract for deployment of wireless facilities and services for use on state
university campus). We clarify here that such prior instances are not to be construed as a concession that Congress
did not make preemption available, or that the Commission lacked the authority to support parties’ attempts to avail
themselves of relief offered under preemption schemes, when confronted with instances in which a state or locality
is relying on its proprietary role to skirt federal regulatory reach. Indeed, these instances demonstrate the opposite—
that preemption is available to effectuate Congressional intent—and merely illustrate application of this principle.
Also, we do not find it necessary to await specific disputes in the form of Section 253(d) petitions to offer these
interpretations. In the alternative and as an independent means to support the interpretations here, we clarify that we
intend for our views to guide how preemption should apply in fact-specific scenarios.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
52
E.Responses to Challenges to Our Interpretive Authority and Other Arguments
98.We reject claims that we lack authority to issue authoritative interpretations of Sections
253 and 332(c)(7) in this Declaratory Ruling. As explained above, we act here pursuant to our broad
authority to interpret key provisions of the Communications Act, consistent with our exercise of that
interpretive authority in the past.278 In this instance, we find that issuing a Declaratory Ruling is
necessary to remove what the record reveals is substantial uncertainty and to reduce the number and
complexity of legal controversies regarding certain fee and non-fee state and local legal requirements in
connection with Small Wireless Facility infrastructure. We thus exercise our authority in this Declaratory
Ruling to interpret Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7) and explain how those provisions apply in the
specific scenarios at issue here.279
99.Nothing in Sections 253 or 332(c)(7) purports to limit the exercise of our general
interpretive authority.280 Congress’s inclusion of preemption provisions in Section 253(d) and Section
332(c)(7)(B)(v) does not limit the Commission’s ability pursuant to other sections of the Act to construe
and provide its authoritative interpretation as to the meaning of those provisions.281 Any preemption
under Section 253 and/or Section 332(c)(7)(B) that subsequently occurs will proceed in accordance with
the enforcement mechanisms available in each context. But whatever enforcement mechanisms may be
available to preempt specific state and local requirements, nothing in Section 253 or Section 332(c)(7)
prevents the Commission from declaring that a category of state or local laws is inconsistent with Section
253(a) or Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) because it prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the relevant
covered service.282
278 See, e.g., Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, paras. 161-68; 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at
14001, para. 23.
279 Targeted interpretations of the statute like those we adopt here fall far short of a “federal regulatory program
dictating the scope and policies involved in local land use” that some commenters fear. League of Minnesota Cities
Comments at 9.
280 We also reject claims that Section 601(c)(1) of the 1996 Act constrains our interpretation of these provisions.
See, e.g., NARUC Reply at 3; Smart Communities Reply at 33, 35-36. That provision guards against implied
preemption, while Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7)(B) both expressly restrict state and local activities. See, e.g.,
Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3485-86, para. 51. Courts also have read that provision narrowly. See, e.g., In re
FCC 11-161, 753 F.3d 1015, 1120 (10th Cir. 2014); Qwest Corp. v. Minnesota Pub. Utilities Comm’n, 684 F.3d
721, 730-31 (8th Cir. 2012); Farina v. Nokia Inc., 625 F.3d 97, 131 (3d Cir. 2010). Although the Ninth Circuit in
County of San Diego asserted that there is a presumption that express preemption provisions should be read
narrowly, and that the presumption would apply to the interpretation of Section 253(a), County of San Diego, 543
F.3d at 548, the cited precedent applies that presumption where “the State regulates in an area where there is no
history of significant federal presence.” Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Inst. v. Energy Res. Conservation & Dev.
Comm’n, 410 F.3d 492, 496 (9th Cir. 2005). Whatever the applicability of such a presumption more generally, there
is a substantial history of federal involvement here, particularly insofar as interstate telecommunications services
and wireless services are implicated. See, e.g., Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003); Ivy
Broadcasting Co. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 391 F.2d 486, 490–92 (2d Cir. 1968); 47 U.S.C., Title III.
281 See, e.g., California PUC Comments at 11; Verizon Comments at 31-33; CTIA Reply at 22-23; WIA Reply at 16-
18. We thus reject claims to the contrary. See, e.g., City of New York Comments at 8; Virginia Joint Commenters
Comments, Exh. A at 41-44; City of New York Reply at 1-2; NATOA Reply at 9-10; Smart Communities Reply at
34. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit upheld just such an exercise of authority with respect to the interpretation of Section
332(c)(7) in the past. See generally City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 249-54. While some commenters assert that the
questions addressed by the Commission in the order underlying the Fifth Circuit’s City of Arlington decision are
somehow more straightforward than our interpretations here, they do not meaningfully explain why that is the case,
instead seemingly contemplating that the Commission would address a wider, more general range of circumstances
than we actually do here. See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments, Exh. A at 44-45.
282 Consequently, we reject claims that relying on our general interpretative authority to interpret Section 253 and
Section 332(c)(7) would render any provisions of the Act mere surplusage, see, e.g., Smart Communities Reply at
34-35, or would somehow “usurp the role of the judiciary.” Washington State Cities Reply at 14. We likewise
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
53
100.Although some commenters contend in general terms that differences in judicial
approaches to Section 253 are limited and thus there is little need for Commission guidance,283 the
interpretations we offer in this Declaratory Ruling are intended to help address certain specific scenarios
that have caused significant uncertainty and legal controversy, irrespective of the degree to which this
uncertainty has been reflected in court decisions. We also reject claims that a Supreme Court brief joined
by the Commission demonstrates that there is no need for the interpretations in this Declaratory Ruling.284
To the contrary, that brief observed that some potential interpretations of certain court decisions “would
create a serious conflict with the Commission’s understanding of Section 253(a), and [] would undermine
the federal competition policies that the provision seeks to advance.”285 The brief also noted that, if
warranted, “the Commission can restore uniformity by issuing authoritative rulings on the application of
Section 253(a) to particular types of state and local requirements.”286 Rather than cutting against the need
for, or desirability of, the interpretations we offer in this Declaratory Ruling, the brief instead presaged
them.287
(Continued from previous page)
reject other arguments insofar as they purport to treat Section 253(d)’s provision for preemption as more specific
than, or otherwise controlling over, other Communications Act provisions enabling the Commission to
authoritatively interpret the Act. See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments, Exh. A at 43. To the contrary,
“[t]he specific controls but only within its self-described scope.” Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Gulf Power,
534 U.S. 327, 336 (2002). In addition, concerns that the Commission might interpret Section 253(c) in a manner
that would render it a nullity or in a manner divorced from relevant context—things we do not do here—bear on the
reasonableness of a given interpretation and not on the existence of interpretive authority in the first instance, as
some contend. See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments, Exh. A at 43-44.
283 See, e.g., City of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. B at 26-27; Fairfax County Comments at 20; Smart
Communities Comments at 61. Some commenters assert that there are reasonable, material reliance interests arising
from past court interpretations that would counsel against our interpretations in this order because “localities and
providers have adjusted to the tests within their circuits” and “reflected those standards in local law.” Smart
Communities Comments, WT Docket No. 16-141 at 67 (filed Mar. 8, 2017) cited in City of Austin Comments at 2
n.3. Arguments such as these, however, merely underscore the regulatory patchwork that inhibits the development
of a robust nationwide telecommunications and private wireless service as envisioned by Congress. By offering
interpretations of the relevant statutes here, we intend, thereby, to eliminate potential regional regulatory disparities
flowing from differing interpretations of those provisions. See, e.g., WIA Reply at 19-20.
284 See City of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. B at 27 (citing Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae,
Level 3 Commc’ns v. City of St. Louis, Nos. 08-626, 08-759 at 9, 11 (filed May 28, 2009) (Amicus Brief)).
285 Amicus Brief at 12-13. The brief also identified other specific areas of concern with those cases. See, e.g., id. at
13 (“The court appears to have accorded inordinate significance to Level 3’s inability to ‘state with specificity what
additional services it might have provided’ if it were not required to pay St. Louis’s license fee. That specific failure
of proof—which the court of appeals seems to have regarded as emblematic of broader evidentiary deficiencies in
Level 3’s case—is not central to a proper Section 253(a) inquiry.” (citation omitted)); id. at 14 (“Portions of the
Ninth Circuit’s decision, moreover, could be read to suggest that a Section 253 plaintiff must show effective
preclusion—rather than simply material interference—in order to prevail. As discussed above, limiting the
preemptive reach of Section 253(a) to legal requirements that completely preclude entry would frustrate the policy
of open competition that Section 253 was intended to promote.” (citation omitted)).
286 Id. at 18.
287 Contrary to some claims, the need for these clarifications also is not undercut by prior determinations that
advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion to all Americans. See,
e.g., Letter from Nancy Werner, General Counsel, NATOA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No.
17-79, at 2 (filed June 21, 2018) (NATOA June 21, 2018 Ex Parte Letter) (citing Inquiry Concerning Deployment of
Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, 33 FCC Rcd
1660, 1707-08, para. 94 (2018) (2018 Broadband Deployment Report)). These commenters do not explain why the
distinct standard for evaluating deployment of advanced telecommunications capability, see 2018 Broadband
Deployment Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 1663-76, paras. 9-39, should bear on the application of Section 253 or Section
332(c)(7). Further, as the Commission itself observed, “[a] finding that deployment of advanced
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
54
101.Our interpretations of Sections 253 and Section 332(c)(7) are likewise not at odds with
the Tenth Amendment and constitutional precedent, as some commenters contend.288 In particular, our
interpretations do not directly “compel the states to administer federal regulatory programs or pass
legislation.”289 The outcome of violations of Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7)(B) of the Act are no
more than a consequence of “the limits Congress already imposed on State and local governments”
through its enactment of Section 332(c)(7).290
102.We also reject the suggestion that the limits Section 253 places on state and local ROW
fees and management will unconstitutionally interfere with the relationship between a state and its
political subdivisions.291 As relevant to our interpretations here, it is not clear, at first blush, that such
concerns would be implicated.292 Because state and local legal requirements can be written and structured
in myriad ways, and challenges to such state or local activities could be framed in broad or narrow terms,
we decline to resolve such questions here, divorced from any specific context.
IV.THIRD REPORT AND ORDER
103.In this Third Report and Order, we address the application of shot clocks to state and
local review of wireless infrastructure deployments. We do so by taking action in three main areas. First,
we adopt a new set of shot clocks tailored to support the deployment Small Wireless Facilities. Second,
we adopt a specific remedy that applies to violations of these new Small Wireless Facility shot clocks,
which we expect will operate to significantly reduce the need for litigation over missed shot clocks.
Third, we clarify a number of issues that are relevant to all of the FCC’s shot clocks, including the types
of authorizations subject to these time periods.
(Continued from previous page)
telecommunications capability is reasonable and timely in no way suggests that we should let up in our efforts to
foster greater deployment.” Id. at 1664, para. 13.
288 See, e.g., City of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. A at 28; Smart Communities Comments at 77-78; Smart
Communities Reply at 48-50; NATOA June 21, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 3.
289 Montgomery County, 811 F.3d at 128; see Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (Printz); New York v.
United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (New York). These provisions preempting state law thus do not “compel the
States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program,” Printz, 521 U.S. at 900, or “dictate what a state . . . may
or may not do.” Murphy v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1478 (2018) (Murphy).
290 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14002, para. 25. The Communications Act establishes its own
framework for oversight of wireless facility deployment—one that is largely deregulatory, see, e.g., Wireless
Infrastructure Second R&O, FCC 18-30, at para. 63; Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the
Communications Act, GN Docket No. 93-252, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1480-81, para. 182
(1994)—and it is reasonable to expect state and local governments electing to act in that area to do so only in a
manner consistent with the Act’s framework. See, e.g., Murphy, 138 S. Ct. at 1470-71, 1480. Thus, the application
of Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7)(B) is clearly distinguishable from the statute the Supreme Court struck down
in Murphy, which did not involve a preemption scheme but nonetheless prohibited state authorization of sports
gambling. Id. at 1481. The application here is also clearly distinguishable from the statute in Printz, which
mandated states to run background checks on handgun purchases, Printz, 521 U.S. at 904–05, and the statute in New
York, which required states to enact state laws that provide for the disposal of radioactive waste or else take title to
such waste. New York, 505 U.S. at 151–52.
291 See, e.g., City of New York Comments at 9-10; Smart Communities Comments at 78.; see also, e.g., Nixon v.
Mo. Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 134 (2004) (identifying Tenth Amendment issues with the application of Section
253 where that application would implicate “state or local governmental self-regulation (or regulation of political
inferiors)”).
292 For example, where a state or local law or other legal requirement simply sets forth particular fees to be paid, or
where the legal requirement at issue is simply an exercise of discretion that governing law grants the state or local
government, it is not clear that preemption would unconstitutionally interfere with the relationship between a state
and its political subdivisions.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
55
A.New Shot Clocks for Small Wireless Facility Deployments
104.In 2009, the Commission concluded that we should use shot clocks to define a
presumptive “reasonable period of time” beyond which state or local inaction on wireless infrastructure
siting applications would constitute a “failure to act” within the meaning of Section 332.293 We adopted a
90-day clock for reviewing collocation applications and a 150-day clock for reviewing siting applications
other than collocations. The record here suggests that our two existing Section 332 shot clocks have
increased the efficiency of deploying wireless infrastructure. Many localities already process wireless
siting applications in less time than required by those shot clocks, and a number of states have enacted
laws requiring that collocation applications be processed in 60 days or less.294 Some siting agencies
acknowledge that they have worked to gain efficiencies in processing siting applications and welcome the
addition of new shot clocks tailored to the deployment of small scale facilities.295 Given siting agencies’
increased experience with existing shot clocks, the greater need for rapid siting of Small Wireless
Facilities nationwide, and the lower burden siting of these facilities places on siting agencies in many
cases, we take this opportunity to update our approach to speed the deployment of Small Wireless
Facilities.296
1.Two New Section 332 Shot Clocks for Deployment of Small Wireless
Facilities
105.In this section, using authority confirmed in City of Arlington, we adopt two new Section
332 shot clocks for Small Wireless Facilities—60 days for review of an application for collocation of
Small Wireless Facilities using a preexisting structure and 90 days for review of an application for
attachment of Small Wireless Facilities using a new structure. These new Section 332 shot clocks
carefully balance the well-established authority that states and local authorities have over review of
wireless siting applications with the requirements of Section 332(c)(7)(ii) to exercise that authority
“within a reasonable period of time… taking into account the nature and scope of the request.”297 Further,
our decision is consistent with the BDAC’s Model Code for Municipalities’ recommended timeframes,
which utilize this same 60-day and 90-day framework for collocation of Small Wireless Facilities and
new structures298 and are similar to shot clocks enacted in state level small cell bills and the real world
293 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 13994.
294 See infra para. 106.
295 Chicago Comments at 7 (“[T]he City has worked to achieve efficient processing times even for applications
where no federal deadline exists.”); New Orleans Comments at 3 (“City supports the concept proposed by the
Commission . . . to establish . . . more narrowly defined classes of deployments, with distinct reasonable times
frames for action within each class.”).
296 See LaWana Mayfield July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (“However, getting this infrastructure out in a timely
manner can be a challenge that involves considerable time and financial resources. The solution is to streamline
relevant policies—allowing more modern rules for modern infrastructure.”); Letter from John Richard C. King,
House of Representatives, South Carolina, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79,
at 1 (filed Aug. 27, 2018) (“A patchwork system of town-to-town, state-to-state rules slows the approval of small
cell installations and delays the deployment of 5G. We need a national framework with guardrails to streamline the
path forward to our wireless future”); Letter from Andy Thompson, State Representative, Ohio House District 95, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed Aug. 24, 2018) (“In order for 5G to arrive as
quickly and as effectively as possible, relevant infrastructure regulations must be streamlined. It makes very little
sense for rules designed for 100-foot cell towers to govern the path to deployment for modern equipment called
small cells that can fit into a pizza box.”); Letter from Todd Nash, Wallowa County Board of Commissioners,
Oregon, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed Sept. 10, 2018) (FCC
should streamline regulatory processes by, for example, tightening the deadlines for states and localities to approve
new network facilities).
297 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(ii).
298 The BDAC Model Municipal Code recommended, for certain types of facilities, shot clocks of 60 days for
collocations and 90 days for new constructions on applications for siting Small Wireless Facilities. BDAC Model
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
56
experience of many municipalities which further supports the reasonableness of our approach.299 Our
actions will modernize the framework for wireless facility siting by taking into consideration that states
and localities should be able to address the siting of Small Wireless Facilities in a more expedited review
period than needed for larger facilities.300
106.We find compelling reasons to establish a new presumptively reasonable Section 332
shot clock of 60 days for collocations of Small Wireless Facilities on existing structures. The record
demonstrates the need for, and reasonableness of, expediting the siting review of these collocations.301
Notwithstanding the implementation of the current shot clocks, more streamlined procedures are both
reasonable and necessary to provide greater predictability for siting applications nationwide for the
deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. The two current Section 332 shot clocks do not reflect the
evolution of the application review process and evidence that localities can complete reviews more
quickly than was the case when the existing Section 332 shot clocks were adopted nine years ago. Since
2009, localities have gained significant experience processing wireless siting applications.302 Indeed,
many localities already process wireless siting applications in less than the required time303 and several
(Continued from previous page)
Municipal Code at §§ 2.2, 2.3, 3.2a(i)(B). Our approach utilizes the same timeframes set forth in the Model
Municipal Code, and we disagree with comments that it is inconsistent with or ignores the work of the BDAC.
GMA September 17 Ex Parte Letter at 4-5.
299 For instance, while the City of Chicago opposes the shot clocks adopted here, we note that the City has also
stated that, “[d]espite th[e] complex review process, involving many utilities and other entities, CDOT on average
processed small cell applications last year in 55 days.” Letter from Edward N. Siskel, Corp. Counsel, Dept. of Law,
City of Chicago, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 2 (filed Sept. 19, 2018).
300 Just like the shot clocks originally established in 2009—later affirmed by the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme
Court—the shot clocks framework in this Third Report and Order are no more than an interpretation of “the limits
Congress already imposed on State and local governments” through its enactment of Section 332(c)(7). 2009
Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14002, para. 25. See also City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 259. As explained in
the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, the shot clocks derived from Section 332(c)(7) “will not preempt State or local
governments from reviewing applications for personal wireless service facilities placement, construction, or
modification,” and they “will continue to decide the outcome of personal wireless service facility siting applications
pursuant to the authority Congress reserved to them in Section 332(c)(7)(A).” 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC
Rcd at 14002, para. 25.
301 CTIA Comments, WT Docket No. 16-421, at 33 (filed Mar. 8, 2017); Letter from Juan Huizar, City Manager of
the City of Pleasanton, TX, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed June
4, 2018) (describing the firsthand benefit of small cells and noting that communications infrastructure is a critical
component of local growth); Letter from Sara Blackhurst, President, Action 22, to the Hon. Brendan Carr,
Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed May 18, 2018) (Action 22 Ex Parte )(“While we understand
the need for relevant federal rules and protections appropriate for larger wireless infrastructure, we feel these same
rules are not well-suited for smaller wireless facilities and risk slowing deployment in communities that need
connectivity now.”); Letter from Maurita Coley Flippin, President and CEO, MMTC, to the Hon. Ajit Pai,
Chairman, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed Sept. 5, 2018) (encourages the Commission to remove
unnecessary barriers such as unreasonable delays so deployment can proceed expeditiously); Fred A. Lamphere
Sept. 11, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1 (It is critical that the Commission continue to remove barriers to building new
wireless infrastructure such as by setting reasonable timelines to review applications).
302 T-Mobile Comments at 20; Crown Castle Reply at 5 (noting that the adoption of similar time frames by several
states for small cell siting review confirms their reasonableness, and the Commission should apply these deadlines
on a nationwide basis).
303 Alaska Dep’t of Natural Resources Comments at 2 (“[W]e are currently meeting or exceeding the proposed
timeframe of the ‘Shot Clock.’”); see also CTIA Aug. 30, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 5 (“Eleven states—Delaware,
Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia—recently
adopted small cell legislation that includes 45-day or 60-day shot clocks for small cell collocations.”); Jason R.
Saine Sept. 14, 2018 Ex Parte Letter.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
57
jurisdictions require by law that collocation applications be processed in 60 days or less.304 With the
passage of time, siting agencies have become more efficient in processing siting applications.305 These
facts demonstrate that a shorter, 60-day shot clock for processing collocation applications for Small
Wireless Facilities is reasonable.306
107.As we found in 2009, collocation applications are generally easier to process than new
construction because the community impact is likely to be smaller.307 In particular, the addition of an
antenna to an existing tower or other structure is unlikely to have a significant visual impact on the
community. 308 The size of Small Wireless Facilities poses little or no risk of adverse effects on the
environment or historic preservation.309 Indeed, many jurisdictions do not require public hearings for
approval of such attachments, underscoring their belief that such attachments do not implicate complex
issues requiring a more searching review.310
108.Further, we find no reason to believe that applying a 60-day time frame for Small
Wireless Facility collocations under Section 332 creates confusion with collocations that fall within the
scope of “eligible facilities requests” under Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act, which are also subject to a
60-day review.311 The type of facilities at issue here are distinctly different and the definition of a Small
Wireless Facility is clear. Further, siting authorities are required to process Section 6409 applications
involving the swap out of certain equipment in 60 days, and we see no meaningful difference in
processing these applications than processing Section 332 collocation applications in 60 days. There is
304 North Carolina requires its local governments to decide collocation applications within 45 days of submission of
a complete application. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 153A-349.53(a2). The same 45-day shot clock applies to certain
collocations in Florida. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 365.172(13)(a)(1), (d)(1). In New Hampshire, applications for collocation
or modification of wireless facilities generally have to be decided within 45 days (subject to some exceptions under
certain circumstances) or the application is deemed approved. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-K:10. Wisconsin requires
local governments to decide within 45 days of receiving complete applications for collocation on existing support
structure that does not involve substantial modification, or the application will be deemed approved, unless the local
government and applicant agree to an extension. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 66.0404(3)(c). Local governments in Indiana
have 45 days to decide complete collocation applications, unless an extension is allowed under the statute. Ind.
Code Ann. § 8-1-32.3-22. Minnesota requires any zoning application, including both collocation and non-
collocation applications, to be processed in 60 days. Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(a). By not requiring hearings,
collocation applications in these states can be processed in a timely manner.
305 Chicago Comments at 7 (“[T]he City has worked to achieve efficient processing times even for applications
where no federal deadline exists.”); New Orleans Comments at 3 (“City supports the concept proposed by the
Commission . . . to establish . . . more narrowly defined classes of deployments, with distinct reasonable times
frames for action within each class.”); Action 22 Ex Parte at 2 (“While we understand the need for relevant federal
rules and protections appropriate for larger wireless infrastructure, we feel these same rules are not well-suited for
smaller wireless facilities and risk slowing deployment in communities that need connectivity now.”).
306 CCA Comments at 11-14; T-Mobile Comments at 20; Incompas Reply at 9; Sprint Comments at 45-47 (noting
that Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Texas and Virginia all have passed small cell legislation that requires small cell
application attachments to be acted upon in 60 days); T-Mobile Comments at 18 (arguing that the Commission
should accelerate the Section 332 shot clocks for all sites to 60 days for collocations, including small cells).
307 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14012, para. 40.
308 TIA Comments at 4.
309 Wireless Infrastructure Second R&O, FCC 18-30 at para. 42 (citing Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the
Collocation of Wireless Antennas, 47 CFR Part 1, Appx. B, § VI (Collocation NPA)); see also 47 CFR §
1.1306(c)(1) (excluding certain wireless facilities from NEPA review).
310 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14012, para. 46.
311 DESHPO Comments at 2 (“opposes the application of separate time limits for review of facility deployments not
covered by the Spectrum Act, as it would lead to confusion within the process for all parties involved
(Applicants/Carrier, Consultants, SHPO)”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
58
no reason to apply different time periods (60 vs. 90 days) to what is essentially the same review:
modification of an existing structure to accommodate new equipment. 312 Finally, adopting a 60-day
shot clock will encourage service providers to collocate rather than opting to build new siting structures
which has numerous advantages.313
109.Some municipalities argue that smaller facilities are neither objectively “small” nor less
obtrusive than larger facilities.314 Others contend that shorter shot clocks for a broad category of
“smaller” facilities are too restrictive, 315 and would fail to take into account the varied and unique climate,
historic architecture, infrastructure, and volume of siting applications that municipalities face.316 We take
those considerations into account by clearly defining the category of “Small Wireless Facility” in our
rules and allowing siting agencies to rebut the presumptive reasonableness of the shot clocks based upon
the actual circumstances they face. For similar reasons, we disagree that establishing shorter shot clocks
for smaller facilities would impair states’ and localities’ authority to regulate local rights of way.317
110.While some commenters argue that additional shot clock classifications would make the
siting process needlessly more complex without any proven benefits,318 any additional administrative
burden from increasing the number of Section 332 shot clocks from two to four is outweighed by the
likely significant benefit of regulatory certainty and the resulting streamlined deployment process.319 We
312 CTIA Aug. 30, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 6.
313 Letter from Richard Rossi, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, American Tower, to Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 3 (filed Aug. 10, 2018) (“The reason to encourage collocation is
straightforward, it is faster, cheaper, more environmentally sound, and less disruptive than building new
structures.”).
314 League of Az Cities and Towns Comments at 13, 29 (arguing that many small cells or micro cells can be taller
and more visually intrusive than macro cells).
315 See, e.g., Letter from Geoffrey C. Beckwith, Executive Director & CEO, Mass. Municipal. Assoc., Boston, MA,
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, (filed Sept. 11, 2018) (Geoffrey C. Beckwith Sept.
11, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Mike Posey Sept. 11, 2018 Ex Parte Letter; Letter from John A. Barbish, Mayor, City of
Wickliffe, OH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Sept. 13, 2018); Letter from
Pauline Russo Cutter, Mayor, City of San Leandro, CA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-
79 (filed Sept. 12, 2018); Letter from Ed Waage, Mayor, City of Pismo Beach, CA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed Sept. 18, 2018); Letter from Scott A. Hancock, Executive Director, MML,
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed Sept. 18, 2018); Letter from Leon
Towarnicki, City Manager, Martinsville, VA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1
(filed Sept. 18, 2018); Letter from Thomas Aujero Small, Mayor, City of Culver City, CA, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed Sept. 18, 2018).
316 Philadelphia Comments at 4-5 (arguing that shorter shot clocks should not be implemented because “cities are
already resource constrained and any further attempt to further limit the current time periods for review of
applications will seriously and adversely affect public safety as well as diminish the proper role, under our federalist
system, of state and local governments in regulating local rights of way”); Smart Communities Comments, Docket
16-421, at 13 (filed Mar. 8, 2017) (included by reference by Austin’s Comments); Alaska Dept. of Trans. Comments
at 2. See, e.g., TX Hist. Comm. Comments at 2 (current shot clocks are appropriate and that further shortening these
shot clocks is not warranted); Arlington, TX Comments at 2; Letter from William Tomko, Mayor of Chagrin Falls,
OH, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 1-2 (filed Sept. 17, 2018); Nina Beety Sept.
17, 2018 Ex Parte Letter; Georgia Municipal Association Sept. 17, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 4.
317 League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Comments at 26-27, 29-35; Cities of San Antonio et. al Comments at 8;
Philadelphia Comments at 4.
318 T-Mobile Comments at 22; Florida Coalition Comments at 9 (creating new shot clocks would result in “too many
‘shot clocks’ and both the industry and local governments would be confused as to which shot clock applied to what
application”).
319 While several parties proposed additional shot clock categories, we believe that the any benefit from a closer
tailoring of categories to circumstances is not outweighed by the administrative burden on siting authorities and
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
59
also reject the assertion that revising the period of time to review siting decisions would amount to a
nationwide land use code for wireless siting.320 Our approach is consistent with the Model Code for
Municipalities that recognizes that the shot clocks that we are adopting for the review of Small Wireless
Facility deployment applications correctly balance the needs of local siting agencies and wireless service
providers.321 Our balance of the relevant considerations is informed by our experience with the
previously adopted shot clocks, the record in this proceeding, and our predictive judgment about the
effectiveness of actions taken here to promote the provision of personal wireless services.
111.For similar reasons as set forth above, we also find it reasonable to establish a new 90 day
Section 332 shot clock for new construction of Small Wireless Facilities. Ninety days is a presumptively
reasonable period of time for localities to review such siting applications. Small Wireless Facilities have
far less visual and other impact than the facilities we considered in 2009, and should accordingly require
less time to review.322 Indeed, some state and local governments have already adopted 60-day maximum
reasonable periods of time for review of all small cell siting applications, and, even in the absence of such
maximum requirements, several are already reviewing and approving small-cell siting applications within
60 days or less after filing.323 Numerous industry commenters advocated a 90-day shot clock for all non-
collocation deployments. 324 Based on this record, we find it reasonable to conclude that review of an
application to deploy a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure warrants more review time than a
mere collocation, but less than the construction of a macro tower.325 For the reasons explained below, we
(Continued from previous page)
providers to manage these categories. See TX Hist. Comm. Comments at 2 (stating that it “could support a shorter
review period for new structures less than fifty (50) feet tall, or where structures are located within or adjacent to
existing utility rights-of-way (but not transportation rights-of-way) with existing utility structures taller than the
proposed telecommunications structure”); Georgia Dept. of Trans. Comments at 2 (stating that time frames based on
the zoning area are reasonable).
320 Cities of San Antonio et. al Comments, Exh. A at 17-18. In the same vein, the Florida Department of
Transportation contends that “[p]ermit review times should comply with state statutes,” especially if the industry
insists on being treated similarly as other utilities. AASHTO Comments, Attach. at 13 (Florida Dept. of Trans.
Comments); see also Alaska Dept. of Trans. Comments at 2; TX Dept. of Trans. Comments at 2 (explaining that
variations in topography, weather, government interests, and state and local political structure counsel against
standardized nationwide shot clocks). The Maryland Department of Transportation is concerned about the shortened
shot clocks proposed because they would conflict with a Maryland law that requires a 90-day comment period in
considering wireless siting applications and because certain applications can be complex and necessitate longer
review periods. AASHTO Comments, Attach. at 40 (MD Dept. of Trans. Comments).
321 BDAC Model Municipal Code at § 3.2a(i)(B).
322 CTIA Comments, Attach. 1 at 38.
323 T-Mobile Comments at 19-20 (stating that some states already have adopted more expedited time frames to lower
siting barriers and speed deployment, which demonstrates the reasonableness of the proposed 60-day and 90-day
revised shot clocks); Incompas Reply at 9 (stating that there is no basis for differing time-periods for similarly-
situated small cell installation requests, and the lack of harmonization could discourage the use of a more efficient
infrastructure); CCA Comments at 14 n.52 (citing CCA Streamlining Reply at 7-8 that in Houston, Texas, the
review process for small cell deployments “usually takes 2 weeks, but no more than 30 days to process and complete
the site review. In Kenton County, Kentucky, the maximum time permitted to act upon new facility siting requests
is 60 days. Louisville, Kentucky generally processes small cell siting requests within 30 days, and Matthews, North
Carolina generally processes wireless siting applications within 10 days”).
324 CTIA Reply at 3 (stating that the Commission should shorten the shot clocks to 90 days for new facilities); CTIA
Comments at 11-12 (asserting that the existing 150-day review period for new wireless sites should be shortened to
90 days); Crown Castle Comments at 29 (stating that a 90-day shot clock for new facilities is appropriate for macro
cells and small cells alike, to the extent such applications require review under Section 332 at all); ExteNet
Comments at 8 (asserting that the Commission should accelerate the shot clock for all other non-collocation
applications, including those for new DNS poles, from 150 days to 90 days); WIA Reply at 2.
325 CCUA argues that the new shot clocks would force siting authorities to deny applications when they find that
applications are incomplete. Letter from Kenneth S. Fellman, Counsel, CCUA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
60
also specify today a provision that will initially reset these two new shot clocks in the event that a locality
receives a materially incomplete application.
112.Finally, we note that our 60- and 90-day approach is similar to that in pending legislation
that has bipartisan congressional support, and is consistent with the Model Code for Municipalities.
Specifically, the draft STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act, would apply a 60-day shot clock to
collocation of small personal wireless service facilities and a 90-day shot clock to any other action
relating to small personal wireless service facilities.326 Further, the Model Code for Municipalities
recommended by the FCC’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee also utilizes this same 60-day
and 90-day framework for collocation of Small Wireless Facilities and new structures.327
2.Batched Applications for Small Wireless Facilities
113.Given the way in which Small Wireless Facilities are likely to be deployed, in large
numbers as part of a system meant to cover a particular area, we anticipate that some applicants will
submit “batched” applications: multiple separate applications filed at the same time, each for one or more
sites or a single application covering multiple sites.328 In the Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, the
Commission asked whether batched applications should be subject to either longer or shorter shot clocks
than would apply if each component of the batch were submitted separately.329 Industry commenters
contend that the shot clock applicable to a batch or a class of applications should be no longer than that
applicable to an individual application of the same class.330 On the other hand, several commenters,
contend that batched applications have often been proposed in historic districts and historic buildings
(areas that require a more complex review process), and given the complexities associated with reviews of
that type, they urge the Commission not to apply shorter shot clocks to batched applications.331 Some
localities also argue that a single, national shot clock for batched applications would fail to account for
unique local circumstances.332
114.We see no reason why the shot clocks for batched applications to deploy Small Wireless
Facilities should be longer than those that apply to individual applications because, in many cases, the
batching of such applications has advantages in terms of administrative efficiency that could actually
(Continued from previous page)
FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 3 (filed Sept. 18, 2018) (Kenneth S. Fellman Sept. 18, 2018 Ex Parte Letter).
We disagree that this would be the outcome in such an instance because, as explained below, siting authorities can toll
the shot clocks upon a finding of incompleteness.
326 STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act, S. 3157, 115th Cong. (2018).
327 BDAC Model Municipal Code at § 3.2a(i)(B),
328 We define either scenario as “batching” for the purpose of our discussion here.
329 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3338, para. 18; see also Mobilitie PN, 31 FCC Rcd at 13371.
330 See, e.g., Extenet Comments at 10-11 (“The Commission should not adopt a longer shot clock for batches of
multiple DNS applications.”); Sprint Comments, Docket No. 16-421, at 43-44 (filed Mar. 8, 2017); CCA Comments
at 16 (“The FCC also should ensure that batch applications are not saddled with a longer shot clock than those
afforded to individual siting applications . . . .”); Verizon Comments at 42 (“The same 60-day shot clock should
apply to applications proposing multiple facilities—so called ‘batch applications.’”); Crown Castle Comments at 30
(“Crown Castle also does not support altering the deadline for ‘batches’ of requests.”); T-Mobile Comments at 22-
23 (“[A]n application that batches together similar numbers of small cells of like character and in proximity to one
another should also be able to be reviewed within the same time frame . . . .”); CTIA Comments at 17 (“There is,
however, no need for the Commission to establish different shot clocks for batch processing of similar facilities . . .
.”).
331 San Antonio Comments, Exh. A at 17, 19-20; see also Smart Communities Comments, Docket No. 16-421, at 47
(filed Mar. 8, 2017) (referenced by Austin’s Comments).
332 Cities of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. A at 17, 19-20; see also Smart Communities Comments, Docket 16-
421, at 47 (filed Mar. 8, 2017) (referenced by Austin’s Comments).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
61
make review easier.333 Our decision flows from our current Section 332 shot clock policy. Under our
two existing Section 332 shot clocks, if an applicant files multiple siting applications on the same day for
the same type of facilities, each application is subject to the same number of review days by the siting
agency.334 These multiple siting applications are equivalent to a batched application and therefore the
shot clocks for batching should follow the same rules as if the applications were filed separately.
Accordingly, when applications to deploy Small Wireless Facilities are filed in batches, the shot clock
that applies to the batch is the same one that would apply had the applicant submitted individual
applications. Should an applicant file a single application for a batch that includes both collocated and
new construction of Small Wireless Facilities, the longer 90-day shot clock will apply, to ensure that the
siting authority has adequate time to review the new construction sites.
115.We recognize the concerns raised by parties arguing for a longer time period for at least
some batched applications, but conclude that a separate rule is not necessary to address these concerns.
Under our approach, in extraordinary cases, a siting authority, as discussed below, can rebut the
presumption of reasonableness of the applicable shot clock period where a batch application causes
legitimate overload on the siting authority’s resources. 335 Thus, contrary to some localities’ arguments,336
our approach provides for a certain degree of flexibility to account for exceptional circumstances. In
addition, consistent with, and for the same reasons as our conclusion below that Section 332 does not
permit states and localities to prohibit applicants from requesting multiple types of approvals
simultaneously,337 we find that Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) similarly does not allow states and localities to
refuse to accept batches of applications to deploy Small Wireless Facilities.
B.New Remedy for Violations of the Small Wireless Facilities Shot Clocks
116.In adopting these new shot clocks for Small Wireless Facility applications, we also
provide an additional remedy that we expect will substantially reduce the likelihood that applicants will
need to pursue additional and costly relief in court at the expiration of those time periods.
117.At the outset, and for the reasons the Commission articulated when it adopted the 2009
shot clocks, we determine that the failure of a state or local government to issue a decision on a Small
Wireless Facility siting application within the presumptively reasonable time periods above will
constitute a “failure to act” within the meaning of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v). Therefore, a provider is, at a
minimum, entitled to the same process and remedies available for a failure to act within the new Small
Wireless Facility shot clocks as they have been under the FCC’s 2009 shot clocks. But we also add an
additional remedy for our new Small Wireless Facility shot clocks.
118.State or local inaction by the end of the Small Wireless Facility shot clock will function
not only as a Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) failure to act but also amount to a presumptive prohibition on the
provision of personal wireless services within the meaning of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Accordingly,
we would expect the state or local government to issue all necessary permits without further delay. In
cases where such action is not taken, we assume, for the reasons discussed below, that the applicant
333 See, e.g., Sprint Comments, Docket No. 16-421, at 43-44 (filed Mar. 8, 2017); Verizon Comments at 42; CTIA
Comments at 17.
334 WIA Comments at 27 (“Merely bundling similar sites into a single batched application should not provide a
locality with more time to review a single batched application than to process the same applications if submitted
individually.”).
335 See infra paras. 117, 119. See Letter from Nina Beety, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-
79 (filed Sept. 17, 2018); Letter from Dave Ruller, City Manager, City of Kent, OH, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed Sept. 18, 2018).
336 Cities of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. A at 17, 19-20; see also Smart Communities Comments, Docket 16-
421, at 47 (filed Mar. 8, 2017) (referenced by Austin’s Comments).
337 See infra para. 144.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
62
would have a straightforward case for obtaining expedited relief in court.338
119.As discussed in the Declaratory Ruling, a regulation under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)
constitutes an effective prohibition if it materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or
potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.339 Missing shot
clock deadlines would thus presumptively have the effect of unlawfully prohibiting service in that such
failure to act can be expected to materially limit or inhibit the introduction of new services or the
improvement of existing services.340 Thus, when a siting authority misses the applicable shot clock
deadline, the applicant may commence suit in a court of competent jurisdiction alleging a violation of
Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), in addition to a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), as discussed above. The
siting authority then will have an opportunity to rebut the presumption of effective prohibition by
demonstrating that the failure to act was reasonable under the circumstances and, therefore, did not
materially limit or inhibit the applicant from introducing new services or improving existing services.
120.Given the seriousness of failure to act within a reasonable period of time, we expect, as
noted above, siting authorities to issue without any further delay all necessary authorizations when
notified by the applicant that they have missed the shot clock deadline, absent extraordinary
circumstances. Where the siting authority nevertheless fails to issue all necessary authorizations and
litigation is commenced based on violations of Sections 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and/or 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), we
expect that applicants and other aggrieved parties will likely pursue equitable judicial remedies.341 Given
the relatively low burden on state and local authorities of simply acting—one way or the other—within
the Small Wireless Facility shot clocks, we think that applicants would have a relatively low hurdle to
clear in establishing a right to expedited judicial relief. Indeed, for violations of Section 332(c)(7)(B),
courts commonly have based the decision whether to award preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
on several factors. As courts have concluded, preliminary and permanent injunctions fulfill
Congressional intent that action on applications be timely and that courts consider violations of Section
332(c)(7)(B) on an expedited basis.342 In addition, courts have observed that “[a]lthough Congress in the
Telecommunications Act left intact some of local zoning boards’ authority under state law,” they should
not be owed deference on issues relating to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), meaning that “in the majority of
cases the proper remedy for a zoning board decision that violates the Act will be an order. . . instructing
the board to authorize construction.”343 Such relief also is supported where few or no issues remain to be
decided, and those that remain can be addressed by a court.344
121.Consistent with those sensible considerations reflected in prior precedent, we expect that
338 Where we discuss litigation here, we refer, for convenience, to “the applicant” or the like, since that is normally
the party that pursues such litigation. But we reiterate that under the Act, “[a]ny person adversely affected by” the
siting authority’s failure to act could pursue such litigation. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).
339 See supra paras. 34-42.
340 Id.
341 See, e.g., 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12978, para. 284.
342 See, e.g., Green Mountain Realty Corp. v. Leonard, 750 F.3d 30, 41 (1st Cir. 2014) (addressing claimed violation
of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Act); Nat’l Tower, LLC v. Plainville Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 297 F.3d 14, 21-22
(1st Cir. 2002) (Nat’l Tower) (same); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 497 (2d Cir. 1999)
(addressing violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Act); AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC v. Vill. of Corrales, 127 F.
Supp. 3d 1169, 1175-76 (D.N.M. 2015) (addressing violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)); Bell Atl. Mobile of
Rochester v. Town of Irondequoit, 848 F. Supp. 2d 391, 403 (W.D.N.Y. 2012) (addressing violation of Section
332(c)(7)(B)(ii)); New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. City of Manchester, 2014 WL 79932, *8 (D.N.H. Feb. 28,
2014) (addressing violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).
343 See, e.g., Nat’l Tower, 297 F.3d at 21-22; AT&T Mobility, 127 F. Supp. 3d at 1176.
344 See, e.g., Green Mountain Realty, 750 F.3d at 41-42; Nat’l Tower, 297 F.3d at 24-25; Cellular Tel. Co., 166 F.3d
at 497; Bell Atl. Mobile, 848 F. Supp. 2d at 403; New Cingular Wireless PCS, 2014 WL 79932, *8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
63
courts will typically find expedited and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief warranted for
violations of Sections 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the Act when addressing the
circumstances discussed in this Order. Prior findings that preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
best advances Congress’s intent in assuring speedy resolution of issues encompassed by Section
332(c)(7)(B) appear equally true in the case of deployments of Small Wireless Facilities covered by our
interpretation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) in this Third Report and Order.345 Although some courts, in
deciding whether an injunction is the appropriate form of relief, have considered whether a siting
authority’s delay resulted from bad faith or involved other abusive conduct,346 we do not read the trend in
court precedent overall to treat such considerations as more than relevant (as opposed to indispensable) to
an injunction. We believe that this approach is sensible because guarding against barriers to the
deployment of personal wireless facilities not only advances the goal of Section 332(c)(7)(B) but also
policies set out elsewhere in the Communications Act and 1996 Act, as the Commission recently has
recognized in the case of Small Wireless Facilities.347 This is so whether or not these barriers stem from
bad faith. Nor do we anticipate that there would be unresolved issues implicating the siting authority’s
expertise and therefore requiring remand in most instances.
122.In light of the more detailed interpretations that we adopt here regarding reasonable time
frames for siting authority action on specific categories of requests—including guidance regarding
circumstances in which longer time frames nonetheless can be reasonable—we expect that litigation
generally will involve issues that can be resolved entirely by the relevant court. Thus, as the Commission
has stated in the past, “in the case of a failure to act within the reasonable time frames set forth in our
rules, and absent some compelling need for additional time to review the application, we believe that it
would also be appropriate for the courts to treat such circumstances as significant factors weighing in
favor of [injunctive] relief.”348 We therefore caution those involved in potential future disputes in this
area against placing too much weight on the Commission’s recognition that a siting authority’s failure to
act within the associated timeline might not always result in a preliminary or permanent injunction under
the Section 332(c)(7)(B) framework while placing too little weight on the Commission’s recognition that
policies established by federal communications laws are advanced by streamlining the process for
deploying wireless facilities.
123.We anticipate that the traditional requirements for awarding preliminary or permanent
injunctive relief would likely be satisfied in most cases and in most jurisdictions where a violation of
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and/or 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) is found. Typically, courts require movants to establish the
following elements of preliminary or permanent injunctive relief: (1) actual success on the merits for
permanent injunctive relief and likelihood of success on the merits for preliminary injunctive relief, (2)
continuing irreparable injury, (3) the absence of an adequate remedy at law, (4) the injury to the movant
outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party, and (5) award of
injunctive relief would not be adverse to the public interest. 349 Actual success on the merits would be
345 See Green Mountain Realty Corp., 750 F.3d at 41 (reasoning that remand to the siting authority “would not be in
accordance with the text or spirit of the Telecommunications Act); Cellular Tel. Co, 166 F.3d at 497 (noting “that
injunctive relief best serves the TCA’s stated goal of expediting resolution” of cases brought under 47 U.S.C. §
332(c)(7)(B)(v)).
346 See, e.g., Nat’l Tower, 297 F.3d at 23; Up State Tower Co. v. Town of Kiantone, 718 Fed. Appx. 29, 32 (2d Cir.
2017) (Summary Order).
347 See, e.g., Wireless Infrastructure Second R&O, FCC 18-30 at para. 62; Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32
FCC Rcd at 3332, para. 5.
348 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12978, para, 284.
349 Pub. Serv. Tel. Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1263, 1273 (N.D. Ga.), aff’d, 404 F. App’x
439 (11th Cir. 2010); Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 2004); Nat. Res. Def.
Council v. Texaco Ref. & Mktg., Inc., 906 F.2d 934, 941 (3d Cir. 1990); Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 857
(8th Cir. 1999); Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Wagnon, 476 F.3d 818, 822 (10th Cir. 2007); Walters v. Reno,
145 F.3d 1032, 1048 (9th Cir. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc., 875 F.2d 907, 914–15 (1st Cir. 1989).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
64
demonstrated when an applicant prevails in its failure-to-act or effective prohibition case; likelihood of
success would be demonstrated because, as discussed, missing the shot clocks, depending on the type of
deployment, presumptively prohibits the provision of personal wireless services and/or violates Section
332(c)(7)(B)(ii)’s requirement to act within a reasonable period of time.350 Continuing irreparable injury
likely would be found because remand to the siting authority “would serve no useful purpose” and would
further delay the applicant’s ability to provide personal wireless service to the public in the area where
deployment is proposed, as some courts have previously determined.351 There also would be no adequate
remedy at law because applicants “have a federal statutory right to participate in a local [personal wireless
services] market free from municipally-imposed barriers to entry,” and money damages cannot directly
substitute for this right.352 The public interest and the balance of harms also would likely favor the award
of a preliminary or permanent injunction because the purpose of Section 332(c)(7) is to encourage the
rapid deployment of personal wireless facilities while preserving, within bounds, the authority of states
and localities to regulate the deployment of such facilities, and the public would benefit if further delays
in the deployment of such facilities—which a remand would certainly cause—are prevented.353 We also
expect that the harm to the siting authority would be minimal because the only right of which it would be
deprived by a preliminary or permanent injunction is the right to act on the siting application beyond a
reasonable time period,354 a right that “is not legally cognizable, because under [Sections
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)], the [siting authority] has no right to exercise this power.”355
Thus, in the context of Small Wireless Facilities, we expect that the most appropriate remedy in typical
cases involving a violation of Sections 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and/or 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) is the award of
injunctive relief in the form of an order to issue all necessary authorizations.356
124.Our approach advances Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v)’s provision that certain siting disputes,
including those involving a siting authority’s failure to act, shall be heard and decided by a court of
competent jurisdiction on an expedited basis. The framework reflected in this Order will provide the
courts with substantive guiding principles in adjudicating Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) cases, but it will not
dictate the result or the remedy appropriate for any particular case; the determination of those issues will
remain within the courts’ domain.357 This accords with the Fifth Circuit’s recognition in City of Arlington
(Continued from previous page)
Note that the standards for permanent injunctive relief differ in some respects among the circuits and the states. For
example, “most courts do not consider the public interest element in deciding whether to issue a permanent
injunction, though the Third Circuit has held otherwise.” Klay, 376 F.3d at 1097. Courts in the Second Circuit
consider only irreparable harm and success on the merits. Omnipoint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Vill. of Tarrytown Planning
Bd., 302 F. Supp. 2d 205, 225 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). The Third and Fifth Circuits have precedents holding that
irreparable harm is not an essential element of a permanent injunction. See Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857,
873 n. 8 (3d Cir. 1990); Lewis v. S. S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1123–24 (5th Cir. 1976). For the sake of
completeness, our analysis discusses all of the elements that have been used in decided cases.
350 See New Jersey Payphone, 130 F. Supp. 2d at 640.
351 See Vill. of Tarrytown Planning Bd., 302 F. Supp. 2d at 225–26 (quoting Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of
Amherst, N.Y., 251 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1201 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)); see Upstate Cellular Network v. City of Auburn, 257
F. Supp. 3d 309, 318 (N.D.N.Y. 2017).
352 New Jersey Payphone, 130 F. Supp. 2d at 641.
353 City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 234.
354 Contra 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(ii).
355 New Jersey Payphone, 130 F. Supp. 2d at 641.
356 See Cellular Tel. Co, 166 F.3d at 496. While our discussion here focused on cases that apply the permanent
injunction standard, we have the same view regarding relief under the preliminary injunction standard when a
locality fails to act within the applicable shot clock periods. See, e.g., Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555
U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (discussing the standard for preliminary injunctive relief).
357 Several commenters support this position, urging the Commission to reaffirm that adversely affected applicants
must seek redress from the courts. See, e.g., League of Ar Cities and Towns et al. Comments at 14-21; Philadelphia
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
65
that the Act could be read “as establishing a framework in which a wireless service provider must seek a
remedy for a state or local government’s unreasonable delay in ruling on a wireless siting application in a
court of competent jurisdiction while simultaneously allowing the FCC to issue an interpretation of
§ 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) that would guide courts’ determinations of disputes under that provision.”358
125.The guidance provided here should reduce the need for, and complexity of, case-by-case
litigation and reduce the likelihood of vastly different timing across various jurisdictions for the same
type of deployment.359 This clarification, along with the other actions we take in this Third Report and
Order, should streamline the courts’ decision-making process and reduce the possibility of inconsistent
rulings. Consequently, we believe that our approach helps facilitate courts’ ability to “hear and decide
such [lawsuits] on an expedited basis,” as the statute requires.360
126.Reducing the likelihood of litigation and expediting litigation where it cannot be avoided
should significantly reduce the costs associated with wireless infrastructure deployment. For instance,
WIA states that if one of its members were to challenge every shot clock violation it has encountered, it
would be mired in lawsuits with forty-six localities.361 And this issue is likely to be compounded given
the expected densification of wireless networks. Estimates indicate that deployments of small cells could
reach up to 150,000 in 2018 and nearly 800,000 by 2026.362 If, for example, 30 percent (based on T-
Mobile’s experience363) of these expected deployments are not acted upon within the applicable shot clock
(Continued from previous page)
Comments at 2; Philadelphia Reply at 4-6; City of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. B at 14-15; San Francisco
Comments at 16-17; Colorado Munis Comments at 7; CWA Reply at 5; Fairfax County Comments at 12-15;
AASHTO Comments at 20-21, 23 (ID Dept. of Trans. Comments); NATOA Comments, Attach. 3 at 53-55; NLC
Comments at 3-4; Smart Communities Comments at 39-43. Our interpretation thus preserves a meaningful role for
courts under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v), contrary to the concern some commenters expressed with particular focus on
alternative proposals we do not adopt, such as a deemed granted remedy. See, e.g., Colorado Comm. and Utility All.
et al. Comments at 6-7; League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Comments at 14-23; Philadelphia Comments at 2;
Baltimore Reply at 11; City of San Antonio et al. Reply at 2; San Francisco Reply at 6; League of Az Cities and
Towns et al. Reply at 2-3. In addition, our interpretation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) does not result in a regime in
which the Commission could be seen as implicitly issuing local land use permits, a concern that states and localities
raised regarding an absolute deemed granted remedy, because applicants are still required to petition a court for
relief, which may include an injunction directing siting authorities to grant the application. See Alexandria
Comments at 2; Baltimore Reply at 10; Philadelphia Reply at 8; Smart Cities Coal Comments at ii, 4, 39.
358 City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 250.
359 The likelihood of non-uniform or inconsistent rulings on what time frames are reasonable or what circumstances
could rebut the presumptive reasonableness of the shot clock periods stems from the intrinsic ambiguity of the
phrase “reasonable period of time,” which makes it susceptible of varying constructions. See City of Arlington, 668
F.3d at 255 (noting “that the phrase ‘a reasonable period of time,’ as it is used in § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), is inherently
ambiguous”); Capital Network System, Inc. v. FCC, 28 F.3d 201, 204 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“Because ‘just,’ ‘unjust,’
‘reasonable,’ and ‘unreasonable’ are ambiguous statutory terms, this court owes substantial deference to the
interpretation the Commission accords them.”). See also Lightower Comments at 3 (“The lack of consistent
guidance regarding statutory interpretation is creating uncertainty at the state and local level, with many local
jurisdictions seeming to simply make it up as they go. Differences in the federal courts are only exacerbating the
patchwork of interpretations at the state and local level.”).
360 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).
361 WIA Comments at 16.
362 Comment Sought on Streamlining Deployment of Small Cell Infrastructure by Improving Wireless Facilities
Siting Policies; Mobilitie, LLC Petition for Declaratory Ruling, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 13360, 13363-64 (2016)
(citing S&P Global Market Intelligence, John Fletcher, Small Cell and Tower Projections through 2026, SNL Kagan
Wireless Investor (Sept. 27, 2016)).
363 T-Mobile Comments at 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
66
period, that would translate to 45,000 violations in 2018 and 240,000 violations in 2026.364 These sheer
numbers would render it practically impossible to commence Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) cases for all
violations, and litigation costs for such cases likely would be prohibitive and could virtually bar providers
from deploying wireless facilities.365
127.Our updated interpretation of Section 332(c)(7) for Small Wireless Facilities effectively
balances the interest of wireless service providers to have siting applications granted in a timely and
streamlined manner366 and the interest of localities to protect public safety and welfare and preserve their
authority over the permitting process.367 Our specialized deployment categories, in conjunction with the
acknowledgement that in rare instances, it may legitimately take longer to act, recognize that the siting
process is complex and handled in many different ways under various states’ and localities’ long-
established codes. Further, our approach tempers localities’ concerns about the inflexibility of the
Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI’s deemed granted proposal because the new remedy we adopt here
accounts for the breadth of potentially unforeseen circumstances that individual localities may face and
the possibility that additional review time may be needed in truly exceptional circumstances.368 We
further find that our interpretive framework will not be unduly burdensome on localities because a
number of states have already adopted even more stringent deemed granted remedies.369
128.At the same time, there may be merit in the argument made by some commenters that the
FCC has the authority to adopt a deemed granted remedy.370 Nonetheless, we do not find it necessary to
decide that issue today, as we are confident that the rules and interpretations adopted here will provide
substantial relief, effectively avert unnecessary litigation, allow for expeditious resolution of siting
applications, and strike the appropriate balance between relevant policy considerations and statutory
364 These numbers would escalate under WIA’s estimate that 70 percent of small cell deployment applications
exceed the applicable shot clock. WIA Comments at 7.
365 See CTIA Comments at 9 (explaining that, “[p]articularly for small cells, the expense of litigation can rarely be
justified); WIA Comments at 16 (quoting and discussing Lightower’s Comments in 2016 Streamlining Public
Notice); T-Mobile Comment, Attach. A at 8.
366 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 26; CCA Comments at 7, 9, 11-12; CCA Reply at 5-6, 8; Cityscape Consultants
Comments at 1; CompTIA Comments at 3; CIC Comments at 17-18; Crown Castle Comments at 23-28; Crown
Castle Reply at 3; CTIA Comments at 7-9, Attach. 1 at 5, 39-43, Attach. 2 at 3, 23-24; GCI Comments at 5-9;
Lightower Comments at 7, 18-19; Samsung Comments at 6; T-Mobile Comments at 13, 16, Attach. A at 25; WIA
Comments at 15-17.
367 See, e.g., Arizona Munis Comments at 23; Arizona Munis Reply at 8-9; Baltimore Reply at 10; Lansing
Comments at 2; Philadelphia Reply at 9-12; Torrance Comments at 1-2; CPUC Comments at 14; CWA Reply at 5;
Minnesota Munis Comments at 9; but see CTIA Reply at 9.
368 See, e.g., Chicago Comments at 2 (contending that wireless facilities siting entails fact-specific scenarios);
AASHTO Comments, Attach. at 40 (MD Dept. of Trans. SHA Comments) (describing the complexity of reviewing
proposed deployments on rights-of-way); AASHTO Comments, Attach. at 51 (Wyoming DOT Comments);
Baltimore Reply at 11; Philadelphia Comments at 4; Alexandria Comments at 6; Mukilteo Comments at 1; Alaska
Dept. of Trans. Comments at 2; Alaska SHPO Reply at 1.
369 See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 365.172(13)(d)(3.b); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9-594(C) (3); 53 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 11702.4; Cal.
Gov't Code § 65964.1; Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2232; Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2316.4; Va. Code Ann. § 56-484.29; Va.
Code Ann. § 56-484.28; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 100.987; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-K:10; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 66.0404;
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 66-2019(h)(3); Del. Code Ann. tit. 17, § 1609; Iowa Code Ann. § 8C.7A(3)(c)(2); Iowa Code Ann.
§ 8C.4(4)(5); Iowa Code Ann. § 8C.5; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 125.3514. See also CCA Reply at 9.
370 See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 10-11; T-Mobile Comments at 15-18, Verizon Comments at 37, 39-41, WIA
Comments at 17-20.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
67
objectives371 guiding our analysis.372
129.We expect that our decision here will result in localities addressing applications within
the applicable shot clocks in a far greater number of cases. Moreover, we expect that the limited
instances in which a locality does not issue a decision within that time period will result in an increase in
cases where the locality then issues all needed permits. In what we expect would then be only a few cases
where litigation commences, our decision makes clear the burden that localities would need to clear in
those circumstances. 373 Our updated interpretation of Section 332 for Small Wireless Facilities will help
courts to decide failure-to-act cases expeditiously and avoid delays in reaching final dispositions.374
Placing this burden on the siting authority should address the concerns raised by supporters of a deemed
granted remedy—that filing suit in court to resolve a siting dispute is burdensome and expensive on
applicants, the judicial system, and citizens—because our interpretations should expedite the courts’
371 City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 234 (noting that the purpose of Section 332(c)(7) is to balance the competing
interests to preserve the traditional role of state and local governments in land use and zoning regulation and the
rapid development of new telecommunications technologies).
372 See supra paras. 119-20 (explaining how the remedy strikes the proper balance between competing interests).
Because our approach to shot clocks involves our interpretation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) and the consequences
that flow from that—and does not rely on Section 253 of the Act—we need not, and thus do not, resolve disputes
about the potential use of Section 253 in this specific context, such as whether it could serve as authority for a
deemed granted or similar remedy. See, e.g., San Francisco Comments at 9-10; CPUC Comments at 10; Smart
Communities Comments at 4-11, 21; Smart Communities Reply at 78-79; League of Az Cities and Towns et al.
Reply at 4; Alexandria Comments at 5; Irvine Comments at 5; Minnesota Cities Comments at 11-13; Philadelphia
Reply at 2, 7; Fairfax County Comments at 17; Greenlining Reply at 4; NRUC Reply at 3-5; NATOA June 21, 2018
Ex Parte Letter. To the extent that commenters raise arguments regarding the proper interpretation of “prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting” under Section 253 or the scope of Section 253, these issues are discussed in the
Declaratory Ruling, see supra paras. 34-42.
373 See App Association Comments at 9; CCI Comments at 6-8; Conterra Comments at 14-17; ExteNet Comments at
13; T-Mobile Comments at 17; Quintillion Reply at 6; Verizon Comments at 8-18; WIA Comments at 9-10. WIA
contends that adoption of a deemed granted remedy is needed because various courts faced with shot clock claims
have failed to provide meaningful remedies, citing as an example a case in which the court held that the town failed
to act within the shot clock period but then declined to issue an injunction directing the siting agency to grant the
application. WIA Comments at 16-17. However, a number of cases involving violations of the “reasonable period
of time” requirement of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)—decided either before or after the promulgation of the
Commission’s Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) shot clocks—have concluded with an award of injunctive relief. See, e.g.,
Upstate Cellular Network, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 318 (concluding that the siting authority’s failure to act within the
150-day shot clock was unreasonable and awarding a permanent injunction in favor of the applicant); Am. Towers,
Inc. v. Wilson County, No. 3:10-CV-1196, 2014 WL 28953, at *13–14 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 2, 2014) (finding that the
county failed to act within a reasonable period of time, as required under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), and granting an
injunction directing the county to approve the applications and issue all necessary authorizations for the applicant to
build and operate the proposed tower); Cincinnati Bell Wireless, LLC v. Brown County, Ohio, No. 1:04-CV-733,
2005 WL 1629824, at *4–5 (S.D. Ohio July 6, 2005) (finding that the county failed to act within a reasonable period
of time under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) and awarding injunctive relief). But see Up State Tower Co. v. Town of
Kiantone, 718 Fed. Appx. 29 (2d Cir. 2017) (declining to reverse district court’s refusal to issue injunction
compelling immediate grant of application). Courts have also held “that injunctive relief best serves the TCA’s
stated goal of expediting resolution of” cases brought under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v). Cellular Tel. Co., 166 F.3d at
497; Brehmer v. Planning Bd. of Town of Wellfleet, 238 F.3d 117, 121 (1st Cir. 2001). Under these circumstances,
we do not agree with WIA that courts have failed to provide meaningful remedies to such an extent as would require
the adoption of a deemed granted remedy.
374 Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Paramus, N.J., 21 F. Supp. 3d at 383, 387 (more than four-and-a-half
years for Sprint to prevail in court), aff'd, 606 F. App’x 669 (3d Cir. 2015); Vill. of Corrales, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1169
(nineteen months from complaint to grant of summary judgment); Orange County–Poughkeepsie Ltd. P’ship v.
Town of E. Fishkill, 84 F. Supp. 3d 274, 293 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d sub nom., Orange County–County Poughkeepsie Ltd.
P’ship v. Town of E. Fishkill, 632 F. App’x 1 (2d Cir. 2015) (seventeen months from complaint to grant of summary
judgment).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
68
decision-making process.
130.We find that the more specific deployment categories and shot clocks, which
presumptively represent the reasonable period within which to act, will prevent the outcome proponents
of a deemed granted remedy seek to avoid: that siting agencies would be forced to reject applications
because they would be unable to review the applications within the prescribed shot clock period.375
Because the more specific deployment categories and shot clocks inherently account for the nature and
scope of a variety of deployment applications, our new approach should ensure that siting agencies have
adequate time to process and decide applications and will minimize the risk that localities will fail to act
within the established shot clock periods. Further, in cases where a siting authority misses the deadline,
the opportunity to demonstrate exceptional circumstances provides an effective and flexible way for siting
agencies to justify their inaction if genuinely warranted. Our overall framework, therefore, should
prevent situations in which a siting authority would feel compelled to summarily deny an application
instead of evaluating its merits within the applicable shot clock period.376 We also note that if the
approach we take in this Order proves insufficient in addressing the issues it is intended to resolve, we
may again consider adopting a deemed granted remedy in the future.
131.Some commenters also recommend that the Commission issue a list of “Best Practices”
or “Recommended Practices.”377 The joint comments filed by NATOA and other government
associations suggest the “development of an informal dispute resolution process to remove parties from
an adversarial relationship to a partnership process designed to bring about the best result for all
involved” and the development of “a mediation program which could help facilitate negotiations for
deployments for parties who seem to have reached a point of intractability.”378 Although we do not at this
time adopt these proposals, we note that the steps taken in this order are intended to facilitate cooperation
between parties to reach mutually agreed upon solutions. For example, as explained below, mutual
agreement between the parties will toll the running of the shot clock period, thereby allowing parties to
resolve disagreements in a collaborative, instead of an adversarial, setting.379
C.Clarification of Issues Related to All Section 332 Shot Clocks
1.Authorizations Subject to the “Reasonable Period of Time” Provision of
Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)
132.As indicated above, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) requires state and local governments to act
“within a reasonable period of time” on “any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify
personal wireless service facilities.”380 Neither the 2009 Declaratory Ruling nor the 2014 Wireless
Infrastructure Order addressed the specific types of authorizations subject to this requirement. Industry
commenters contend that the shot clocks should apply to all authorizations a locality may require, and to
all aspects of and steps in the siting process, including license or franchise agreements to access ROW,
building permits, public notices and meetings, lease negotiations, electric permits, road closure permits,
aesthetic approvals, and other authorizations needed for deployment.381 Local siting authorities, on the
other hand, argue that a broad application of Section 332 will harm public safety and welfare by not
375 Baltimore Reply at 12; Mukilteo Comments at 1; Cities of San Antonio et al. Reply at 10; Washington Munis
Comments, Attach. 1 at 8-9; but see CTIA Reply at 9.
376 We also note that a summary denial of a deployment application is not permitted under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii),
which requires the siting authority to base denials on “substantial evidence contained in a written record.”
377 KS Rep. Sloan Comments at 2; Nokia Comments at 10.
378 NATOA et al. Comments at 16-17.
379 See infra paras. 145-46.
380 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii).
381 See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 15; CTIA Reply at 10; Mobilitie Comments at 6-7; WIA Comments at 24; WIA
Reply at 13; T-Mobile Comments at 21-22; CCA Reply at 9; Sprint June 18 Ex Parte at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
69
giving them enough time to evaluate whether a proposed deployment endangers the public.382 They assert
that building and encroachment permits should not be subsumed within the shot clocks because these
permits incorporate essential health and safety reviews.383 After carefully considering these arguments,
we find that “any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service
facilities” under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) means all authorizations necessary for the deployment of
personal wireless services infrastructure. This interpretation finds support in the record and is consistent
with the courts’ interpretation of this provision and the text and purpose of the Act.
133.The starting point for statutory interpretation is the text of the statute,384 and here, the
statute is written broadly, applying to “any” request for authorization to place, construct, or modify
personal wireless service facilities. The expansive modifier “any” typically has been interpreted to mean
“one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind,” unless Congress “add[ed] any language limiting the
breadth of that word.”385 The title of Section 332(c)(7) (“Preservation of local zoning authority”) does not
restrict the applicability of this section to zoning permits in light of the clear text of Section
332(c)(7)(B)(ii).386 The text encompasses not only requests for authorization to place personal wireless
service facilities, e.g., zoning requests, but also requests for authorization to construct or modify personal
wireless service facilities. These activities typically require more than just zoning permits. For example,
in many instances, localities require building permits, road closure permits, and the like to make
construction or modification possible.387 Accordingly, the fact that the title standing alone could be read
382 League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Reply at 21-22. See also Arlington County, Sept. 18 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2
(asserting that it is infeasible to have the shot clock encompass all steps related the small cell siting process because
there is no single application to get ROW access, public notice, lease negotiations, road closures, etc.; because these
are separate processes involving different departments; and because the timeline in some instances will depend on the
applicant, or the required information may interrelate in a manner that makes doing them all at once infeasible); Letter
from Robert McBain, Mayor, Piedmont, CA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 3
(filed Sept. 18, 2018).
383 League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Reply at 21-22.
384 Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
11 FCC Rcd 11233 (1996); 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review, Report, 18 FCC Rcd 4726, 4731–32 (2003); Perrin v.
United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979) (“A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise
defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.”); Communications
Assistance for Law Enf’t Act & Broadband Access & Servs., First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd. 14989, 14992–93, para. 9 (2005) (interpreting an ambiguous statute by considering the
“structure and history of the relevant provisions, including Congress’s stated purposes” in order to “faithfully
implement[] Congress’s intent”); Cohen v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 498 F.3d 111, 116 (2d Cir. 2007) (using
legislative history “to identify Congress’s clear intent”); Arnold v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 136 F.3d 854, 858 (1st
Cir. 1998) (same).
385 United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 5 (1997) (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 97
(1976)); HUD v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125, 131 (2002).
386 See Bhd. of R. R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 528–29 (1947) (“[H]eadings and titles are
not meant to take the place of the detailed provisions of the text.” ). Our conclusion is also consistent with our
interpretation that Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) apply to fees for all applications related to a Small Wireless Facility.
See supra para. 50.
387 See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments at 21-22 (stating that deployment of personal wireless facilities
generally requires excavation and building permits); San Francisco Comments at 4-7, 12, 20-22 (describing the
permitting process in San Francisco, the layers of multi-departmental review involved, and the required
authorizations before certain personal wireless facilities can be constructed); Smart Cities Coal. Comments at 33-34
(describing several authorizations necessary to deploy personal wireless facilities depending on the location, e.g.,
public rights-of-way and other public properties, of the proposed site and the size of the proposed facility).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
70
to limit Section 332(c)(7) to zoning decisions does not overcome the specific language of Section
332(c)(7)(B)(ii), which explicitly applies to a variety of authorizations.388
134.The purpose of the statute also supports a broad interpretation. As noted above, the
Supreme Court has stated that the 1996 Act was enacted “to promote competition and higher quality in
American telecommunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of new
telecommunications technologies” by, inter alia, reducing “the impediments imposed by local
governments upon the installation of facilities for wireless communications, such as antenna towers.”389
A narrow reading of the scope of Section 332 would frustrate that purpose by allowing local governments
to erect impediments to the deployment of personal wireless services facilities by using or creating other
forms of authorizations outside of the scope of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii).390 This is especially true in
jurisdictions requiring multi-departmental siting review or multiple authorizations. 391
135.In addition, our interpretation remains faithful to the purpose of Section 332(c)(7) to
balance Congress’s competing desires to preserve the traditional role of state and local governments in
regulating land use and zoning, while encouraging the rapid development of new telecommunications
technologies.392 Under our interpretation, states and localities retain their authority over personal wireless
facilities deployment. At the same time, deployment will be kept on track by ensuring that the entire
approval process necessary for deployment is completed within a reasonable period of time, as defined by
the shot clocks addressed in this Third Report and Order.
136.A number of courts have either explicitly or implicitly adopted the same view, that all
necessary permits are subject to Section 332. For example, in Cox Communications PCS, L.P. v. San
Marcos, the court considered an excavation permit application as falling within the parameters of Section
332.393 In USCOC of Greater Missouri, LLC v. County of Franklin, the Eighth Circuit reasoned that
“[t]he issuance of the requisite building permits” for the construction of a personal wireless services
facility arises under Section 332(c)(7).394 In Ogden Fire Co. No. 1 v. Upper Chichester Township, the
Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s order compelling the township to issue a building permit for the
388 See Bhd. of R. R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 528-29 (1947). If the title of Section
332(c)(7) were to control the interpretation of the text, it would render superfluous the provision of Section
332(c)(7)(B)(ii) that applies to “authorization to . . . construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities” and
give effect only to the provision that applies to “authorization to place . . . personal wireless service facilities.” This
result would “flout[] the rule that ‘a statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no
part will be inoperative or superfluous.’” Clark v. Rameker, 134 S. Ct. 2242, 2248 (2014) (quoting Corley v. United
States, 556 U.S. 303, 314 (2009)).
389 City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. at 115 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
390 For example, if we were to interpret Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) to cover only zoning permits, states and localities
could delay their consideration of other permits (e.g., building, electrical, road closure or other permits) to thwart the
proposed deployment.
391 See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments at 21-22; San Francisco Comments at 4-7, 12, 20-22; Smart
Communities Comments at 33-34; CTIA Comments at 15 (stating that some jurisdictions “impose multiple,
sequential stages of review”); WIA Comments at 24 (noting that “[m]any jurisdictions grant the application within
the shot clock period only to stall on issuing the building permit”); Verizon Comments at 6 (stating that “[a] large
Southwestern city requires applicants to obtain separate and sequential approvals from three different governmental
bodies before it will consider issuing a temporary license agreement to access city rights-of-way”); Sprint June 18
Ex Parte at 3 (noting that “after a land-use permit or attachment permit is received, many localities still require
electric permits, road closure permits, aesthetic approval, and other types of reviews that can extend the time
required for final permission well beyond just the initial approval.”).
392 City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 234.
393 Cox Commc’ns PCS, L.P. v. San Marcos, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (S.D. Cal. 2002).
394 USCOC of Greater Mo., LLC v. County of Franklin, 636 F.3d 927, 931-32 (8th Cir. 2011).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
71
construction of a wireless facility after finding that the township had violated Section 332(c)(7).395 In
Upstate Cellular Network v. Auburn, the court directed the city to approve the application, including site
plan approval by the planning board, granting a variance by the zoning authority, and “any other
municipal approval or permission required by the City of Auburn and its boards or officers, including but
not limited to, a building permit.”396 And in PI Telecom Infrastructure V, LLC v. Georgetown–Scott
County Planning Commission, the court ordered that the locality grant “any and all permits necessary for
the construction of the proposed wireless facility.”397 Our interpretation is also consistent with judicial
precedents involving challenges under Section 332(c)(7)(B) to denials by a wide variety of governmental
entities, many of which involved variances,398 special use/conditional use permits,399 land disturbing
activity and excavation permits,400 building permits,401 and a state department of education permit to
install an antenna at a high school.402 Notably, a lot of cases have involved local agencies that are
separate and distinct from the local zoning authority,403 confirming that Section 332(c)(7)(B) is not
limited in application to decisions of zoning authorities. Our interpretation also reflects the examples in
the record where providers are required to obtain other types of authorizations besides zoning permits
before they can “place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities.”404
137.We reject the argument that this interpretation of Section 332 will harm the public
because it would “mean that building and safety officials would have potentially only a few days to
395 Ogden Fire Co. No. 1 v. Upper Chichester TP., 504 F.3d 370, 395-96 (3d Cir. 2007).
396 Upstate Cellular Network, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 319.
397 PI Telecom Infrastructure V, LLC v. Georgetown–Scott County Planning Commission, 234 F. Supp. 3d 856, 872
(E.D. Ky. 2017). Accord T-Mobile Ne. LLC v. Lowell, Civil Action No. 11–11551–NMG, 2012 WL 6681890, *6-7,
*11 (D. Mass. Nov. 27, 2012) (directing the zoning board “to issue all permits and approvals necessary for the
construction of the plaintiffs’ proposed telecommunications facility”); New Par v. Franklin County Bd. of Zoning
Appeals, No. 2:09–cv–1048, 2010 WL 3603645, *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 10, 2010) (enjoining the zoning board to “grant
the application and issue all permits required for the construction of the” proposed wireless facility).
398 See, e.g., New Par v. City of Saginaw, 161 F. Supp. 2d 759, 760 (E.D. Mich. 2001), aff’d, 301 F.3d 390 (6th Cir.
2002)
399 See, e.g., Virginia Metronet, Inc. v. Bd. of Sup’rs of James City County, 984 F. Supp. 966, 968 (E.D. Va. 1998);
Cellular Tel. Co., 166 F.3d at 491; T-Mobile Cent., LLC v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte County, 546 F.3d 1299, 1303
(10th Cir. 2008); City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 989; Helcher, 595 F.3d at 713-14; AT&T Wireless Servs. of
California LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1152 (S.D. Cal. 2003); PrimeCo Pers. Commc’ns L.P. v.
City of Mequon, 242 F. Supp. 2d 567, 570 (E.D. Wis.), aff’d, 352 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2003); Preferred Sites, LLC v.
Troup County, 296 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir. 2002).
400 See, e.g., Tennessee ex rel. Wireless Income Properties, LLC v. City of Chattanooga, 403 F.3d 392, 394 (6th Cir.
2005); Cox Commc’ns PCS, L.P. v. San Marcos, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (S.D. Cal. 2002).
401 See, e.g., Upstate Cellular Network, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 319; Ogden Fire Co. No. 1 v. Upper Chichester Twp., 504
F.3d 370, 395-96 (3rd Cir. 2007).
402 Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Mills, 65 F. Supp. 2d 148, 150 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff’d, 283 F.3d 404 (2d Cir. 2002).
403 See, e.g., Tennessee ex rel. Wireless Income Props., LLC v. City of Chattanooga, 403 F.3d 392, 394 (6th Cir.
2005) (city public works department); Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 720
(9th Cir. 2009) (city public works director, city planning commission, and city council); Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v.
Mills, 65 F. Supp. 2d at 150 (New York State Department of Education).
404 See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments at 21-22 (stating that deployment of personal wireless facilities
generally requires excavation and building permits); San Francisco Comments at 4-7, 12, 20-22 (describing the
permitting process in San Francisco, the layers of multi-departmental review involved, and the required
authorizations before certain personal wireless facilities can be constructed); Smart Communities Comments at 33-
34 (describing several authorizations necessary to deploy personal wireless facilities depending on the location, e.g.,
public rights-of-way and other public properties, of the proposed site and the size of the proposed facility).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
72
evaluate whether a proposed deployment endangers the public.”405 Building and safety officials will be
subject to the same applicable shot clock as all other siting authorities involved in processing the siting
application, with the amount of time allowed varying in the rare case where officials are unable to meet
the shot clock because of exceptional circumstances.
2.Codification of Section 332 Shot Clocks
138.In addition to establishing two new Section 332 shot clocks for Small Wireless Facilities,
we take this opportunity to codify our two existing Section 332 shot clocks for siting applications that do
not involve Small Wireless Facilities. In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, the Commission found that 90 days
is a reasonable time frame for processing collocation applications and 150 days is a reasonable time frame to
process applications other than collocations.406 Since these Section 332 shot clocks were adopted as part of a
declaratory ruling, they were not codified in our rules. In the Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, the
Commission sought comment on whether to modify these shot clocks.407 We find no need to modify
them here and will continue to use these shot clocks for processing Section 332 siting applications that do
not involve Small Wireless Facilities. 408 We do, though, codify these two existing shot clocks in our rules
alongside the two newly-adopted shot clocks so that all interested parties can readily find the shot clock
requirements in one place.409
139.While some commenters argue for a 60-day shot clock for all collocation categories,410
we conclude that we should retain the existing 90-day shot clock for collocations not involving Small
Wireless Facilities. Collocations that do not involve Small Wireless Facilities include deployments of
405 League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Reply at 21-22.
406 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14012-013, paras. 45, 48.
407 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3332-33, 3334, 3337-38, paras. 6, 9, 17-19.
408 Chicago Comments at 2 (supporting maintaining existing shot clocks); Bellevue et al. Comments at 13-14
(supporting maintaining existing shot clocks).
409 We also adopt a non-substantive modification to our existing rules. We redesignate the rule adopted in 2014 to
codify the Commission’s implementation of the 2012 Spectrum Act, formerly designated as section 1.40001, as
section 1.6100, and we move the text of that rule from Part 1, Subpart CC, to the same Subpart as the new rules
promulgated in this Third Report and Order (Part 1, Subpart U). This recognizes that both sets of requirements
pertain to “State and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities” (the caption of new Subpart U). The reference in paragraph (a) of that preexisting rule to
47 U.S.C. § 1455 has been consolidated with new rule section 1.6001 to reflect that all rules in Subpart U,
collectively, implement both § 332(c)(7) and § 1455. With those non-substantive exceptions, the text of the 2014
rule has not been changed in any way. Contrary to the suggestion submitted by the Washington Joint Counties, see
Letter from W. Scott Snyder et al., Counsel for the Washington Cities of Bremerton, Mountlake Terrace, Kirkland,
Redmond, Issaquah, Lake Stevens, Richland, and Mukilteo, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No.
17-79 et al., at 6-7 (filed June 19, 2018), this change is not substantive and does not require advance notice. We find
that “we have good cause to reorganize and renumber our rules in this fashion without expressly seeking comment
on this change, and we conclude that public comment is unnecessary because no substantive changes are being
made. Moreover, the delay engendered by a round of comment would be contrary to the public interest.” See 2017
Pole Replacement Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9770, para. 26; see also 5 U.S.C. §553(b)(B) (notice not required “when
the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules
issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest”).
410 CCIA Comments at 10; CCA Comments at 13-14; CCA Reply at 6 (arguing for 30-day shot clock for
collocations and a 60-to-75-day shot clock for all other siting applications); WIA Reply at 21. See also Letter from
Jill Canfield, NTCA Vice President Legal & Industry and Assistant General Counsel, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed June 19, 2018) (stating that NTCA supports a revised
interpretation of the phrase “reasonable period of time” as found in Section 332(c) (7)(B)(ii) of the Communications
Act as applicable to small cell facilities and that sixty days for collocations and 90 days for all other small cell siting
applications should provide local officials sufficient time for review of requests to install small cell facilities in
public rights-of-way).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
73
larger antennas and other equipment that may require additional time for localities to review and
process.411 For similar reasons, we maintain the existing 150-day shot clock for new construction
applications that are not for Small Wireless Facilities. While some industry commenters such as WIA,
Samsung, and Crown Castle argue for a 90-day shot clock for macro cells and small cells alike, we agree
with commenters such as the City of New Orleans that there is a significant difference between the review
of applications for a single 175-foot tower versus the review of a Small Wireless Facility with much
smaller dimensions.412
3.Collocations on Structures Not Previously Zoned for Wireless Use
140.Wireless industry commenters assert that they should be able to take advantage of the
Section 332 collocation shot clock even when collocating on structures that have not previously been
approved for wireless use.413 Siting agencies respond that the wireless industry is effectively seeking to
have both the collocation definition and a reduced shot clock apply to sites that have never been approved
by the local government as suitable for wireless facility deployment.414 We take this opportunity to
clarify that for purposes of the Section 332 shot clocks, attachment of facilities to existing structures
constitutes collocation, regardless whether the structure or the location has previously been zoned for
wireless facilities. As the Commission stated in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, “an application is a request
for collocation if it does not involve a ‘substantial increase in the size of a tower’ as defined in the
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas.”415 The
definition of “[c]ollocation” in the NPA provides for the “mounting or installation of an antenna on an
existing tower, building or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency
signals for communications purposes, whether or not there is an existing antenna on the structure.” 416
The NPA’s definition of collocation explicitly encompasses collocations on structures and buildings that
have not yet been zoned for wireless use. To interpret the NPA any other way would be unduly narrow
and there is no persuasive reason to accept a narrower interpretation. This is particularly true given that
the NPA definition of collocation stands in direct contrast with the definition of collocation in the
411 Wireless Infrastructure Second R&O, FCC 18-30 at paras. 74-76.
412 New Orleans Comments at 2-3; Samsung Comments at 4-5 (arguing that the Commission should reduce the shot
clock applicable to new construction from 150 days to 90 days); Crown Castle Comments at 29 (stating that a 90-
day shot clock for new facilities is appropriate for macro cells and small cells alike, to the extent such applications
require review under Section 332 at all); TX Hist. Comm. Comments at 2 (arguing that the reasonable periods of
time that the FCC proposed in 2009, 90 days for collocation applications and 150 days for other applications appear
to be appropriate); WIA Comments at 20-23; WIA Reply at 11 (arguing for a 90-day shot clock for applications
involving substantial modifications, including tower extensions; and a 120-day shot clock for applications for all
other facilities, including new macro sites); CTIA Reply at 3 (stating that the Commission should shorten the shot
clocks to 90 days for new facilities).
413 AT&T Comments at 10; AT&T Reply at 9; Verizon Reply at 32; WIA Comments at 22; ExteNet Comments at 9.
414 Bellevue et al. Reply at 6-7 (arguing that the Commission has rejected this argument twice and instead
determined that a collocation occurs when a wireless facility is attached to an existing infrastructure that houses
wireless communications facilities; San Francisco Reply at 7-8 (arguing that under Commission definitions, a utility
pole is neither an existing base station nor a tower; thus, the Commission simply cannot find that adding wireless
facilities to utility pole that has not previously been used for wireless facilities is an eligible facilities request). See,
e.g., Letter from Bonnie Michael, City Council President, Worthington, OH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 2 (filed Sept. 18, 2018); Letter from Jill Boudreau, Mayor, Mount Vernon, WA, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 2 (filed Sept. 18, 2018).
415 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14012, para 46.
416 47 CFR Part 1, App. B, NPA, Subsection C, Definitions.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
74
Spectrum Act, pursuant to which facilities only fall within the scope of an “eligible facilities request” if
they are attached to towers or base stations that have already been zoned for wireless use.417
4.When Shot Clocks Start and Incomplete Applications
141.In the 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, the Commission clarified, among other things,
that a shot clock begins to run when an application is first submitted, not when the application is deemed
complete.418 The clock can be paused, however, if the locality notifies the applicant within 30 days that
the application is incomplete. 419 The locality may pause the clock again if it provides written notice
within 10 days that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original
notice delineating missing information. 420 In the Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, the Commission
sought comment on these determinations.421 Localities contend that the shot clock period should not
begin until the application is deemed complete.422 Industry commenters argue that the review period for
incompleteness should be decreased from 30 days to 15 days.423
142.With the limited exception described in the next paragraph, we find no cause or basis in
the record to alter the Commission’s prior determinations, and we now codify them in our rules. Codified
rules, easily accessible to applicants and localities alike, should provide helpful clarity. The complaints
by states and localities about the sufficiency of some of the applications they receive are adequately
addressed by our current policy, particularly as amended below, which preserves the states’ and localities’
ability to pause review when they find an application to be incomplete.424 We do not find it necessary at
this point to shorten our 30-day initial review period for completeness because, as was the case when this
review period was adopted in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, it remains consistent with review periods for
completeness under existing state wireless infrastructure deployment statutes425 and still “gives State and
local governments sufficient time for reviewing applications for completeness, while protecting applicants
417 See 47 CFR § 1.40001(b)(3), (4), (5) (definitions of eligible facilities request, eligible support structure, and
existing). Each of these definitions refers to facilities that have already been approved under local zoning or siting
processes.
418 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12970, at para. 258.
419 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14014, paras. 52-53 (providing that the “timeframes do not include the
time that applicants take to respond to State and local governments’ requests for additional information”).
420 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12970, para. 259.
421 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3338, para. 20.
422 See, e.g., Maine DOT Comments at 2-3; Philadelphia Comments at 6; League of Az Cities and Towns et al. at 4,
8-9; Letter from Barbara Coler, Chair, Marin Telecommunications Agency, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 2 (filed Sept. 4, 2018) (Barbara Coler Sept. 4, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Sam
Liccardo, Mayor, San Jose, CA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 5 (filed Sept.
18, 2018).
423 Verizon Comments at 43. See Sprint June 18 Ex Parte at 2 (asserting that the shot clocks should begin to run
when the application is complete and that a siting authority should review the application for completeness within
the first 15 days of receipt or it would waive the right to object on that basis).
424 See, e.g., Barbara Coler Sept. 4, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (the pace of installation may be affected by incomplete
applications); Kenneth S. Fellman Sept. 18, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 3 (not uncommon to find documents not
properly prepared and not in compliance with relevant regulations).
425 Most states have a 30-day review period for incompleteness. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-27-403; Ga.
Code Ann. § 36-66B-5; Iowa Code Ann. § 8C.4; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 66-2019; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 237.163(3c)(b); 53
Pa. Stat. Ann. § 11702.4(b)(1); Cal. Gov’t Code § 65943. A minority of states have adopted either a longer or
shorter review period for incompleteness, ranging from 5 days to 45 days. See N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 153A-349.53
(45 days); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 36.70B.070 (28 days); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-K:10 (15 days); Del. Code
Ann. tit. 17, § 1609 (14 days); Va. Code Ann. §§ 15.2-2316.4; 56-484.28; 56-484.29 (10 days); Wis. Stat. Ann. §
66.0404(3) (5 days).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
75
from a last minute decision that an application should be denied as incomplete.”426
143.However, for applications to deploy Small Wireless Facilities, we implement a modified
tolling system designed to help ensure that providers are submitting complete applications on day one.
This step accounts for the fact that the shot clocks applicable to such applications are shorter than those
established in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling and, because of which, there may instances where the
prevailing tolling rules would further shorten the shot clocks to such an extent that it might be impossible
for siting authorities to act on the application.427 For Small Wireless Facilities applications, the siting
authority has 10 days from the submission of the application to determine whether the application is
incomplete. The shot clock then resets once the applicant submits the supplemental information
requested by the siting authority. Thus, for example, for an application to collocate Small Wireless
Facilities, once the applicant submits the supplemental information in response to a siting authority’s
timely request, the shot clock resets, effectively giving the siting authority an additional 60 days to act on
the Small Wireless Facilities collocation application. For subsequent determinations of incompleteness,
the tolling rules that apply to non-Small Wireless Facilities would apply—that is, the shot clock would
toll if the siting authority provides written notice within 10 days that the supplemental submission did not
provide the information identified in the original notice delineating missing information.
144.As noted above, multiple authorizations may be required before a deployment is allowed
to move forward. For instance, a locality may require a zoning permit, a building permit, an electrical
permit, a road closure permit, and an architectural or engineering permit for an applicant to place,
construct, or modify its proposed personal wireless service facilities. 428 All of these permits are subject to
Section 332’s requirement to act within a reasonable period of time, and thus all are subject to the shot
clocks we adopt or codify here.
145.We also find that mandatory pre-application procedures and requirements do not toll the
shot clocks. 429 Industry commenters claim that some localities impose burdensome pre-application
requirements before they will start the shot clock.430 Localities counter that in many instances, applicants
submit applications that are incomplete in material respects, that pre-application interactions smooth the
application process, and that many of their pre-application requirements go to important health and safety
matters.431 We conclude that the ability to toll a shot clock when an application is found incomplete or by
426 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14014-15, para. 53.
427 See, e.g., Geoffrey C. Beckwith Sept. 11, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1; Letter from Brad Cole, Executive Director,
Illinois Municipal League, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al. at 1 (filed Sept. 14,
2018); Ronny Berdugo Sept. 18, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
428 See Sprint June 18 Ex Parte at 3; cf. Virginia Joint Commenters Comments at 21-22; San Francisco Comments at
4-7, 12, 20-22; CTIA Comments at 15 (“The Commission should declare that the shot clocks apply to the entire
local review process.”).
429 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3338, para. 20.
430 See, e.g., CCA Reply at 7 (noting also that some localities unreasonably request additional information after
submission that is either already provided or of unreasonable scope); GCI Comments at 8-9; WIA Comments at 24;
Crown Castle Comments at 21-22; CTIA Reply at 21; CIC Comments at 18; WIA Reply at 14; Conterra Comments
at 2-3; Crown Castle Comments at 30-31; CTIA Comments at 15; ExteNet Comments at 4, 15-16; Mobilitie
Comments at 6; T-Mobile Comments at 21-22; Verizon Comment at 42-43; AT&T Comments at 26.
431 See, e.g., Philadelphia Reply at 9 (arguing that shot clocks should not run until a complete application with a full
set of engineering drawings showing the placement, size and weight of the equipment, and a fully detailed structural
analysis is submitted, to assess the safety of proposed installations); Philadelphia Comments at 6; League of Az Cities
and Towns et al. Comments at 4 (arguing that the shot clock should not begin until after an application has been “duly
filed,” because “some applicants believe the shot clock commences to run no matter how they submit their request, or
how inadequate their submittal may be”); Colorado Comm. and Utility All. et al. Comments at 14 (explaining that the
pre-application meetings are intended “to give prospective applicants an opportunity to discuss code and regulatory
provisions with local government staff, and gain a better understanding of the process that will be followed, in order
to increase the probability that once an application is filed, it can proceed smoothly to final decision”); Smart
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
76
mutual agreement by the applicant and the siting authority should be adequate to address these concerns.
Much like a requirement to file applications one after another, requiring pre-application review would
allow for a complete circumvention of the shot clocks by significantly delaying their start date. An
application is not ruled on within “a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed” if the state or
locality takes the full ordinary review period after having delayed the filing in the first instance due to
required pre-application review. Indeed, requiring a pre-application review before an application may be
filed is similar to imposing a moratorium, which the Commission has made clear does not stop the shot
clocks from running.432 Therefore, we conclude that if an applicant proffers an application, but a state or
locality refuses to accept it until a pre-application review has been completed,433 the shot clock begins to
run when the application is proffered. In other words, the request is “duly filed” at that time,434
notwithstanding the locality’s refusal to accept it.
146.That said, we encourage voluntary pre-application discussions, which may well be useful
to both parties. The record indicates that such meetings can clarify key aspects of the application review
process, especially with respect to large submissions or applicants new to a particular locality’s processes,
and may speed the pace of review.435 To the extent that an applicant voluntarily engages in a pre-
application review to smooth the way for its filing, the shot clock will begin when an application is filed,
presumably after the pre-application review has concluded.
147.We also reiterate, consistent with the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, that the remedies granted
under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) are independent of, and in addition to, any remedies that may be available
under state or local law.436 Thus, where a state or locality has established its own shot clocks, an applicant
may pursue any remedies granted under state or local law in cases where the siting authority fails to act
within those shot clocks.437 However, the applicant must wait until the Commission shot clock period has
expired to bring suit for a “failure to act” under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v).438
V.PROCEDURAL MATTERS
148.Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. With respect to this Third Report and Order, a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) is contained in Appendix C. As required by Section 603 of
(Continued from previous page)
Communities Comments at 15, 35 (pre-application procedures “may translate into faster consideration of individual
applications over the longer term, as providers and communities alike, gain a better understanding of what is required
of them, and providers submit applications that are tailored to community requirements”); UT Dept. of Trans.
Comments at 5 (“The purpose of the pre-application access meeting is to help the entity or person with the application
and provide information concerning the requirements contained in the rule.”); CCUA at al. Reply at 6 (“[Pre-
application meetings] provide an opportunity for informal discussion between prospective applicants and the local
jurisdiction. Pre-application meetings serve to educate, answer questions, clarify process issues, and ultimately result
in a more efficient process from application filing to final action.”); AASHTO Comments, Attach. at 3 (GA Dept. of
Trans. contending that pre-application procedures “should be encouraged and separated from an ‘official’ “application
submittal”); League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Comments at 5-7 (providing examples of incomplete applications).
432 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12971, at para. 265.
433 See, e.g., CCA Reply at 7; GCI Comments at 8-9; WIA Comments at 24; Crown Castle Comments at 21-22;
CTIA Reply at 21; CIC Comments at 18; WIA Reply at 14; Conterra Comments at 2-3; Crown Castle Comments at
30-31; CTIA Comments at 15; ExteNet Comments at 4, 15-16; Mobilitie Comments at 6; T-Mobile Comments at
21-22; Verizon Comment at 42-43; AT&T Comments at 26.
434 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii).
435 See CCUA et al. Comments at 14; Smart Communities Comments at 15, 35; UT Dept. of Trans. Comments at 5;
CCUA et al. Reply at 6; Mukilteo Reply, Docket No. WC 17-84, at 1 (filed July 10, 2017).
436 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14013-14, para. 50.
437 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14013-14, para. 50.
438 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
77
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared a FRFA of the expected impact on small
entities of the requirements adopted in this Third Report and Order. The Commission will send a copy of
the Third Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
149.Paperwork Reduction Act. This Third Report and Order does not contain new or revised
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law
104-13.
150.Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Declaratory Ruling
and Third Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
VI.ORDERING CLAUSES
151.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i)-(j), 7, 201, 253, 301, 303,
309, 319, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i)-(j), 157,
201, 253, 301, 303, 309, 319, 332, that this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order in WT Docket
No. 17-79 IS hereby ADOPTED.
152.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules is AMENDED as set
forth in Appendix A, and that these changes SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 90 days after publication in the
Federal Register.
153.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Third Report and Order SHALL BE effective 90
days after its publication in the Federal Register. The Declaratory Ruling and the obligations set forth
therein ARE EFFECTIVE on the same day that this Third Report and Order becomes effective. It is our
intention in adopting the foregoing Declaratory Ruling and these rule changes that, if any provision of the
Declaratory Ruling or the rules, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be
unlawful, the remaining portions of such Declaratory Ruling and the rules not deemed unlawful, and the
application of such Declaratory Ruling and the rules to other person or circumstances, shall remain in
effect to the fullest extent permitted by law.
154.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 CFR § 1.4(b)(1), the period for filing
petitions for reconsideration or petitions for judicial review of this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report
and Order will commence on the date that a summary of this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and
Order is published in the Federal Register.
155.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Declaratory Ruling and Third
Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration.
156.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order
SHALL BE sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
78
APPENDIX A
Final Rules
Streamlining State and Local Review of Wireless Facility Siting Applications
Part 1—Practice and Procedure
1. Add subpart U to Part 1 of Title 47 to read as follows:
Subpart U—State and Local Government Regulation of the Placement,
Construction, and Modification of Personal Wireless Service Facilities
§ 1.6001 Purpose.
This subpart implements 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7) and 1455.
§ 1.6002 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart have the following meanings:
(a) Action or to act on a siting application means a siting authority’s grant of a siting application or
issuance of a written decision denying a siting application.
(b) Antenna, consistent with section 1.1320(d), means an apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting
radiofrequency (RF) radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission
authorization, for the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled information services.
For purposes of this definition, the term antenna does not include an unintentional radiator, mobile
station, or device authorized under part 15 of this title.
(c) Antenna equipment, consistent with section 1.1320(d), means 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.
(d) Antenna facility means an antenna and associated antenna equipment.
(e) Applicant means a person or entity that submits a siting application and the agents, employees, and
contractors of such person or entity.
(f) Authorization means any approval that a siting authority must issue under applicable law prior to the
deployment of personal wireless service facilities, including, but not limited to, zoning approval and
building permit.
(g) Collocation, consistent with section 1.1320(d) and the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA)
for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, Appendix B of this part, section I.B, means—
(1) Mounting or installing an antenna facility on a pre-existing structure, and/or
(2) Modifying a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing an antenna facility on that
structure.
(3) The definition of “collocation” in paragraph (b)(2) of section 1.6100 applies to the term as
used in that section.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
79
(h) Deployment means placement, construction, or modification of a personal wireless service facility.
(i) Facility or personal wireless service facility means an antenna facility or a structure that is used for the
provision of personal wireless service, whether such service is provided on a stand-alone basis or
commingled with other wireless communications services.
(j) Siting application or application means a written submission to a siting authority requesting
authorization for the deployment of a personal wireless service facility at a specified location.
(k) Siting authority means a State government, local government, or instrumentality of a State
government or local government, including any official or organizational unit thereof, whose
authorization is necessary prior to the deployment of personal wireless service facilities.
(l) Small wireless facilities, consistent with section 1.1312(e)(2), are facilities that meet each of the
following conditions:
(1) The facilities—
(i) are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in
section 1.1320(d), or
(ii) are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or
(iii) do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or
by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
(2)Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as
defined in the definition of antenna in section 1.1320(d)), 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 facilities do not require antenna structure registration under part 17 of this chapter;
(5)The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and
(6) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the
applicable safety standards specified in section 1.1307(b).
(m) Structure means 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 personal wireless service (whether on its
own or comingled with other types of services).
Terms not specifically defined in this section or elsewhere in this subpart have the meanings defined in
Part 1 of Title 47 and the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
80
§ 1.6003 Reasonable periods of time to act on siting applications
(a) Timely action required. A siting authority that fails to act on a siting application on or before the shot
clock date for the application, as defined in paragraph (e) of this section, is presumed not to have acted
within a reasonable period of time.
(b) Shot clock period. The shot clock period for a siting application is the sum of—
(1)the number of days of the presumptively reasonable period of time for the pertinent type of
application, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, plus
(2)the number of days of the tolling period, if any, pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) Presumptively reasonable periods of time.
(1)The following are the presumptively reasonable periods of time for action on applications seeking
authorization for deployments in the categories set forth below:
(i) Review of an application to collocate a Small Wireless Facility using an existing structure: 60
days.
(ii) Review of an application to collocate a facility other than a Small Wireless Facility using an
existing structure: 90 days.
(iii) Review of an application to deploy a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure: 90 days.
(iv) Review of an application to deploy a facility other than a Small Wireless Facility using a
new structure: 150 days.
(2)Batching.
(i) If a single application seeks authorization for multiple deployments, all of which fall within a
category set forth in either paragraph (c)(1)(i) or paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, then the
presumptively reasonable period of time for the application as a whole is equal to that for a single
deployment within that category.
(ii) If a single application seeks authorization for multiple deployments, the components of
which are a mix of deployments that fall within paragraph (c)(1)(i) and deployments that fall
within paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, then the presumptively reasonable period of time for
the application as a whole is 90 days.
(iii) Siting authorities may not refuse to accept applications under paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and
(c)(2)(ii).
(d) Tolling period. Unless a written agreement between the applicant and the siting authority provides
otherwise, the tolling period for an application (if any) is as set forth below.
(1) For an initial application to deploy Small Wireless Facilities, if the siting authority notifies the
applicant on or before the 10th day after submission that the application is materially incomplete,
and clearly and specifically identifies the missing documents or information and the specific rule or
regulation creating the obligation to submit such documents or information, the shot clock date
calculation shall restart at zero on the date on which the applicant submits all the documents and
information identified by the siting authority to render the application complete.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
81
(2) For all other initial applications, the tolling period shall be the number of days from –
(i) The day after the date when the siting authority notifies the applicant in writing that the
application is materially incomplete and clearly and specifically identifies the missing documents
or information that the applicant must submit to render the application complete and the specific
rule or regulation creating this obligation, until
(ii) The date when the applicant submits all the documents and information identified by the
siting authority to render the application complete,
(iii) But only if the notice pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(i) is effectuated on or before the 30th day
after the date when the application was submitted; or
(3) For resubmitted applications following a notice of deficiency, the tolling period shall be the
number of days from—
(i) The day after the date when the siting authority notifies the applicant in writing that the
applicant’s supplemental submission was not sufficient to render the application complete and
clearly and specifically identifies the missing documents or information that need to be submitted
based on the siting authority’s original request under paragraph (d)(1) or paragraph (d)(2) of this
section, until
(ii) The date when the applicant submits all the documents and information identified by the
siting authority to render the application complete,
(iii) But only if the notice pursuant to paragraph (d)(3)(i) is effectuated on or before the 10th day
after the date when the applicant makes a supplemental submission in response to the siting
authority’s request under paragraph (d)(1) or paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(e) Shot clock date. The shot clock date for a siting application is determined by counting forward,
beginning on the day after the date when the application was submitted, by the number of calendar days
of the shot clock period identified pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section and including any pre-
application period asserted by the siting authority; provided, that if the date calculated in this manner is a
“holiday” as defined in section 1.4(e)(1) or a legal holiday within the relevant State or local jurisdiction,
the shot clock date is the next business day after such date. The term “business day” means any day as
defined in section 1.4(e)(2) and any day that is not a legal holiday as defined by the State or local
jurisdiction.
3.Redesignate § 1.40001 as § 1.6100, remove and reserve paragraph (a) of newly redesignated
§ 1.6100, and revise paragraph (b)(7)(vi) of newly redesignated § 1.6100 by changing
“1.40001(b)(7)(i)(iv)” to “1.6100(b)(7)(i)-(iv).”
4.Remove subpart CC.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
82
APPENDIX B
Comments and Reply Comments
Comments
5G Americas
Aaron Rosenzweig
ACT | The App Association
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal
African American Mayors Association
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Alaska Native Health Board
Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
Alexandra Ansell
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
American Bird Conservancy
American Cable Association
American Petroleum Institute
American Public Power Association
Angela Fox
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
Arizona State Parks & Trails, State Historic Preservation Office
Arkansas SHPO
Arnold A. McMahon
Association of American Railroads
AT&T
B. Golomb
Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Benjamin L. Yousef
BioInitiative Working Group
Blue Lake Rancheria
Board of County Road Commissioners of the County of Oakland
Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation
Cahuilla Band of Indians
California Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation
California Public Utilities Commission
Cape Cod Bird Club, Inc.
Catawba Indian Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Charter Communications, Inc.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Cultural Preservation Office
Chickasaw Nation
Chippewa Cree Tribe
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
Chuck Matzker
Cindy Li
Cindy Russell
Cities of San Antonio, Texas; Eugene, Oregon; Bowie, Maryland; Huntsville, Alabama; and Knoxville,
Tennessee
Citizen Potawatomi Nation
Citizens Against Government Waste
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
83
City and County of San Francisco
City of Alexandria, Virginia; Arlington County, Virginia; and Henrico County, Virginia
City of Arlington, Texas
City of Austin, Texas
City of Bellevue, City of Bothell, City of Burien, City of Ellensburg, City of Gig Harbor, City of
Kirkland, City of Mountlake Terrace, City of Mukilteo, City of Normandy Park, City of Puyallup,
City of Redmond, and City of Walla Walla
City of Chicago
City of Claremont (Tony Ramos, City Manager)
City of Eden Prairie, MN
City of Houston
City of Irvine, California
City of Kenmore, Washington, and David Baker, Vice-Chair, National League of Cities Information
Technology and Communications Committee
City of Lansing, Michigan
City of Mukilteo
City of New Orleans, Louisiana
City of New York
City of Philadelphia
City of Springfield, Oregon
Cityscape Consultants, Inc.
Coalition for American Heritage, Society for American Archaeology, American Cultural Resources
Association, Society for Historical Archaeology, and American Anthropological Association
Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance (CCUA), Rainier Communications Commission (RCC),
City of Seattle, Washington, City of Tacoma, Washington, King County, Washington, Jersey
Access Group (JAG), and Colorado Municipal League (CML)
Colorado River Indian Tribes
Colorado State Historic Preservation Office
Comcast Corporation
Commissioner Sal Pace, Pueblo Board of County Commissioners
Community Associations Institute
Competitive Carriers Association
CompTIA (The Computing Technology Industry Association)
Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Cultural Resources Protection Program
Consumer Technology Association
Conterra Broadband Services, Southern Light, LLC, and Uniti Group, Inc.
Critical Infrastructure Coalition
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
Crown Castle
CTIA
CTIA and Wireless Infrastructure Association
David Roetman, Minnehaha County GOP Chairman
Defenders of Wildlife
Department of Arkansas Heritage (Arkansas Historic Preservation Program)
DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma
Edward Czelada
Elijah Mondy
Elizabeth Doonan
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
84
Ellen Marks
EMF Safety Network, Ecological Options Network
Environmental Health Trust
ExteNet Systems, Inc.
Fairfax County, Virginia
FibAire Communications, LLC d/b/a AireBeam
Florida Coalition of Local Governments
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin
Fort Belknap Indian Community
Free State Foundation
General Communication, Inc.
Georgia Department of Transportation
Georgia Historic Preservation Division
Georgia Municipal Association, Inc.
Gila River Indian Community
Greywale Advisors
History Colorado (Colorado State Historic Preservation Office)
Hongwei Dong
Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources
Illinois Department of Transportation
Illinois Municipal League
INCOMPAS
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
International Telecommunications Users Group
Jack Li
Jackie Cale
Jerry Day
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Jonathan Mirin
Joyce Barrett
Karen Li
Karen Spencer
Karon Gubbrud
Kate Kheel
Kaw Nation
Kevin Mottus
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
Kialegee Tribal Town
League of Arizona Cities and Towns, League of California Cities, and League of Oregon Cities
League of Minnesota Cities
Leo Cashman
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
Li Sun
Lightower Fiber Networks
Lisbeth Britt
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
Maine Department of Transportation
Marty Feffer
Mary Whisenand, Iowa Governor’s Commission on Community Action Agencies
Mashantucket (Western) Pequot Tribe
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
85
Matthew Goulet
Mayor Patrick Furey, City of Torrance, California
McLean Citizens Association
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma
Missouri State Historic Preservation Office
Mobile Future
Mobilitie, LLC
Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut
Montana State Historic Preservation Office
Monte R. Lee and Company
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Muscogee (Creek) Nation
National Association of Tower Erectors (NATE)
National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
National Black Caucus of State Legislators
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
National Congress of American Indians
National Congress of American Indians, National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers,
and United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund
National Congress of American Indians and United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection
Fund
National League of Cities
National League of Cities, United States Conference of Mayors, International Municipal Lawyers
Association, Government Finance Officers Association, National Association of Counties,
National Association of Regional Councils, National Association of Towns and Townships, and
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
National Tribal Telecommunications Association
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Native Public Media
NATOA
Natural Resources Defense Council
Navajo Nation and the Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission
Naveen Albert
NCTA—The Internet & Television Association
nepsa solutions LLC
New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation Division
Nez Perce Tribe
Nina Beety
Nokia
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
Northern Cheyenne Tribal Historic Preservation Office
NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association
Office of Historic Preservation for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation of Connecticut
Ohio State Historic Preservation Office
Oklahoma History Center State Historic Preservation Office
Olemara Peters
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
ONE Media, LLC
Oregon State Historic Preservation Office
Osage Nation
Otoe-Missouria Tribe
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
86
Patrick Wronkiewicz
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office
Prairie Island Indian Community
PTA-FLA, Inc .
Pueblo of Laguna
Pueblo of Pojoaque
Pueblo of Tesuque
Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office
Quad Cities Cable Communications Commission
Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma
R Street Institute
Rebecca Carol Smith
Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Representative Tom Sloan, State of Kansas House of Representatives
Representatives Anna G. Eshoo, Frank Pallone, Jr., and Raul Ruiz, U.S. House of Representatives
Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission
Rosebud Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Cultural Resource Management Office
Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.
S. Quick
Sacred Wind Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Santa Clara Pueblo
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
SCAN NATOA, Inc.
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
Seminole Tribe of Florida
Senator Duane Ankney, Montana State Senate
Shawnee Tribe
Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate
Skokomish Indian Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Skull Valley Band of Goshute
Smart Communities and Special Districts Coalition
Soula Culver
Sprint
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
Starry, Inc.
State of Washington Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
Sue Present
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
Table Mountain Rancheria Tribal Government Office
Tanana Chiefs Conference
Telecommunications Industry Association
Texas Department of Transportation
Texas Historical Commission
Thlopthlocco Tribal Town
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma
Triangle Communication System, Inc.
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians In Oklahoma
Utah Department of Transportation
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
87
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Utilities Technology Council
Verizon
Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah)
WEC Energy Group, Inc.
Wei Shen
Wei-Ching Lee, MD, California Medical Association Delegate of Los Angeles County
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
Wireless Infrastructure Association
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association
Xcel Energy Services Inc.
Reply Comments
Alaska State Historic Preservation Office
American Cable Association
American Public Power Association
Association of American Railroads
California Public Utilities Commission
Catherine Kleiber
Chippewa Cree Tribe
Cities of San Antonio, Texas; Eugene, Oregon; Bowie, Maryland; Huntsville, Alabama; and Knoxville,
Tennessee
City of Baltimore, Maryland
City of New York
City of Philadelphia
Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance (CCUA), Rainier Communications Commission (RCC),
City of Seattle, Washington, City of Tacoma, Washington, King County, Washington, Jersey
Access Group (JAG), and Colorado Municipal League (CML)
Comcast Corporation
Communications Workers of America
Competitive Carriers Association
Consumer Technology Association
Conterra Broadband Services, Southern Light, LLC, and Uniti Group Inc.
Critical Infrastructure Coalition
CTIA
Dan Kleiber
Enterprise Wireless Alliance
Environmental Health Trust
ExteNet Systems, Inc.
Florida Coalition of Local Governments
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Historic Preservation Department
INCOMPAS
Irregulators
League of Arizona Cities and Towns, League of California Cities, and League of Oregon Cities
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, National League of Cities, National
Association of Towns and Townships, National Association of Regional Councils, United States
Conference of Mayors, and Government Finance Officers Association
National Congress of American Indians, United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund,
and National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
National Organization of Black Elected Legislative (NOBEL) Women
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
88
Navajo Nation and the Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission
NCTA—The Internet & Television Association
Pueblo of Acoma
Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc., d/b/a Claro
Quintillion Networks, LLC, and Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC
Rebecca Carol Smith
SDN Communications
Skyway Towers, LLC
SmallCellSite.Com
Smart Communities and Special Districts Coalition
Sue Present
The Greenlining Institute
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Triangle Communication System, Inc.
United States Conference of Mayors
Verizon
Washington, D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Officer
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association
Xcel Energy Services Inc.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
89
APPENDIX C
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1.As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)1 an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),
released in April 2017.2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM,
including comment on the IRFA. The comments received are addressed below in Section B. This present
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3
A.Need for and Objectives of the Rules
2.In the Third Report and Order, the Commission continues its efforts to promote the
timely buildout of wireless infrastructure across the country by eliminating regulatory impediments that
unnecessarily delay bringing personal wireless services to consumers. The record shows that lengthy
delays in approving siting applications by siting agencies has been a persistent problem.4 With this in
mind, the Third Report and Order establishes and codifies specific rules concerning the amount of time
siting agencies may take to review and approve certain categories of wireless infrastructure siting
applications. More specifically, the Commission addresses its Section 332 shot clock rules for
infrastructure applications which will be presumed reasonable under the Communications Act. As an
initial matter, the Commission establishes two new shot clocks for Small Wireless Facilities applications.
For collocation of Small Wireless Facilities on preexisting structures, the Commission adopts a 60-day
shot clock which applies to both individual and batched applications. For applications associated with
Small Wireless Facilities new construction we adopt a 90-day shot clock for both individual and batched
applications.5 The Commission also codifies two existing Section 332 shot clocks for all other Non-Small
Wireless Facilities that were established in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling without codification.6These
existing shot clocks require 90-days for processing of all other Non-Small Wireless Facilities collocation
applications, and 150-days for processing of all other Non-Small Wireless Facilities applications other
than collocations.
3.The Third Report and Order addresses other issues related to both the existing and new
shot clocks. In particular we address the specific types of authorizations subject to the “Reasonable
Period of Time” provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), finding that “any request for authorization to
place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities” under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) means all
authorizations a locality may require, and to all aspects of and steps in the siting process, including
license or franchise agreements to access ROW, building permits, public notices and meetings, lease
negotiations, electric permits, road closure permits, aesthetic approvals, and other authorizations needed
for deployment of personal wireless services infrastructure. 7 The Commission also addresses collocation
on structures not previously zoned for wireless use,8 when the four Section 332 shot clocks begin to run, 9
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601—612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Deployment, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 3330 (2017).
3 See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
4 See supra paras. 23-9.
5 See supra paras. 111-12.
6 See supra paras. 138-39; 2009 Declaratory Ruling.
7 See supra paras. 132-37.
8 See supra para. 140.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
90
the impact of incomplete applications on our Section 332 shot clocks,10 and how state imposed shot
clocks remedies effect the Commission’s Section 332 shot clocks remedies.11
4.The Commission discusses the appropriate judicial remedy that applicants may pursue in
cases where a siting authority fails to act within the applicable shot clock period.12 In those situations,
applicants may commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction alleging a violation of Section
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and seek injunctive relief granting the application. Notwithstanding the availability of
a judicial remedy if a shot clock deadline is missed, the Commission recognizes that the Section 332 time
frames might not be met in exceptional circumstances and has refined its interpretation of the
circumstances when a period of time longer than the relevant shot clock would nonetheless be a
reasonable period of time for action by a siting agency.13 In addition, a siting authority that is subject to a
court action for missing an applicable shot clock deadline has the opportunity to demonstrate that the
failure to act was reasonable under the circumstances and, therefore, did not materially limit or inhibit the
applicant from introducing new services or improving existing services thereby rebutting the effective
prohibition presumption.
5.The rules adopted in the Third Report and Order will accelerate the deployment of
wireless infrastructure needed for the mobile wireless services of the future, while preserving the
fundamental role of localities in this process. Under the Commission’s new rules, localities will maintain
control over the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities, while at the
same time the Commission’s new process will streamline the review of wireless siting applications.
B.Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
6.Only one party—the Smart Communities and Special Districts Coalition—filed
comments specifically addressing the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA. They argue that any
shortening or alteration of the Commission’s existing shot clocks or the adoption of a deemed granted
remedy will adversely affect small local governments, special districts, property owners, small
developers, and others by placing their siting applications behind wireless provider siting applications.14
Subsequently, NATOA filed comments concerning the draft FRFA.15 NATOA argues that the new shot
clocks impose burdens on local governments and particularly those with limited resources. NATOA
asserts that the new shot clocks will spur more deployment applications than localities currently process.
7.These arguments, however, fail to acknowledge that Section 332 shot clocks have been in
place for years and reflect Congressional intent as seen in the statutory language of Section 332. The
record in this proceeding demonstrates the need for, and reasonableness of, expediting the siting review of
certain facility deployments.16 More streamlined procedures are both reasonable and necessary to provide
greater predictability. The current shot clocks do not reflect the evolution of the application review
process and evidence that localities can complete reviews more quickly than was the case when the
original shot clocks were adopted nine years ago. Localities have gained significant experience
processing wireless siting applications and several jurisdictions already have in place laws that require
(Continued from previous page)
9 See supra paras. 141-46.
10 Id.
11 See supra para. 147.
12 See supra paras. Error! Reference source not found.-131.
13 See supra para. 127.
14 Smart Communities Comments at 81; see also Letter from Gerard Lavery Lederer, Counsel, Smart Communities,
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, Ex Parte Submission at 33 (filed Sept. 19, 2018).
15 Letter from Nancy Werner, NATOA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 4-5 (filed
Sept. 19, 2018).
16 See supra para. 106.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
91
applications to be processed in less time than the Commission’s new shot clocks. With the passage of
time, sitting agencies have become more efficient in processing siting applications and this, in turn,
should reduce any economic burden the Commission’s new shot clock provisions have on them.
8.The Commission has carefully considered the impact of its new shot clocks on siting
authorities and has established shot clocks that take into consideration the nature and scope of siting
requests by establishing shot clocks of different lengths of time that depend on the nature of the siting
request at issue. 17 The length of these shot clocks is based in part on the need to ensure that local
governments have ample time to take any steps needed to protect public safety and welfare and to process
other pending utility applications.18 Since local siting authorities have gained experience in processing
siting requests in an expedited fashion, they should be able to comply with the Commission’s new shot
clocks.
9.The Commission has taken into consideration the concerns of the Smart Communities
and Special Districts Coalition and NATOA. It has established shot clocks that will not favor wireless
providers over other applicants with pending siting applications. Further, instead of adopting a deemed
granted remedy that would grant a siting application when a shot clock lapses without a decision on the
merits, the Commission provides guidance as to the appropriate judicial remedy that applicants may
pursue and examples of exceptional circumstance where a siting authority may be justified in needing
additional time to review a siting application then the applicable shot clock allows. 19 Under this
approach, the applicant may seek injunctive relief as long as several minimum requirements are met. The
siting authority, however, can rebut the presumptive reasonableness of the applicable shot clock under
certain circumstances. The circumstances under which a sitting authority might have to do this will be
rare. Under this carefully crafted approach, the interests of siting applicants, siting authorities, and
citizens are protected.
C.Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration
10.Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the
Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the
proposed rules as a result of those comments.20
11.The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this
proceeding.
D.Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will
Apply
12.The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of
the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.21 The RFA generally
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”22 In addition, the term “small business” has the
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.23 A “small business
17 See supra paras. 105-112.
18 Id.
19 See supra paras. 116-131.
20 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
21 See 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
22 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
23 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
92
concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.24
13.Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions,
over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here,
at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.25 First, while
there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility
analysis, according to data from the SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an
independent business having fewer than 500 employees.26 These types of small businesses represent 99.9
percent of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 million businesses.27
14.Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-
for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”28
Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations based on
registration and tax data filed by nonprofits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).29
15.Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined
generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”30 U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2012 Census
of Governments31 indicate that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States.32 Of this number there were
(Continued from previous page)
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
24 15 U.S.C. § 632.
25 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6).
26 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions, Question 1—What is a small business?”
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016).
27 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions, Question 2- How many small businesses are there in
the U.S.?” https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016).
28 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
29 Data from the Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) reporting on nonprofit
organizations registered with the IRS was used to estimate the number of small organizations. Reports generated
using the NCCS online database indicated that as of August 2016 there were 356,494 registered nonprofits with total
revenues of less than $100,000. Of this number 326,897 entities filed tax returns with 65,113 registered nonprofits
reporting total revenues of $50,000 or less on the IRS Form 990-N for Small Exempt Organizations and 261,784
nonprofits reporting total revenues of $100,000 or less on some other version of the IRS Form 990 within 24 months
of the August 2016 data release date. See http://nccs.urban.org/sites/all/nccs-archive/html//tablewiz/tw.php where
the report showing this data can be generated by selecting the following data fields: Report: “The Number and
Finances of All Registered 501(c) Nonprofits”; Show: “Registered Nonprofits”; By: “Total Revenue Level (years
1995, Aug to 2016, Aug)”; and For: “2016, Aug” then selecting “Show Results”.
30 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
31 See 13 U.S.C. § 161. The Census of Government is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for years
ending with “2” and “7”. See also Program Description Census of Government
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=program&id=program.en.CO
G#.
32 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, Local Governments by Type and State: 2012 - United
States-States. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG02.US01. Local governmental
jurisdictions are classified in two categories - General purpose governments (county, municipal and town or
township) and Special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
93
37, 132 General purpose governments (county33, municipal and town or township34) with populations of
less than 50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school districts35 and special
districts36) with populations of less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of
governments in the local government category show that the majority of these governments have
populations of less than 50,000.37 Based on this data we estimate that at least 49,316 local government
jurisdictions fall in the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”38.
16.Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide
services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and
wireless video services.39 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.40 For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were
967 firms that operated for the entire year.41 Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.42 Thus under this category and the
associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications
33 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, County Governments by Population-Size Group and
State: 2012 - United States-States. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG06.US01. There
were 2,114 county governments with populations less than 50,000.
34 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by Population-
Size Group and State: 2012 - United States—States.
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG07.US01. There were 18,811 municipal and 16,207
town and township governments with populations less than 50,000.
35 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, Elementary and Secondary School Systems by
Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2012 - United States-States.
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG11.US01. There were 12,184 independent school
districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000.
36 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, Special District Governments by Function and State:
2012 - United States-States. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG09.US01. The U.S.
Census Bureau data did not provide a population breakout for special district governments.
37 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, County Governments by Population-Size Group and
State: 2012 - United States-States - https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG06.US01;
Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2012 - United States–States -
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG07.US01; and Elementary and Secondary School
Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2012 - United States-States.
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG11.US01. While U.S. Census Bureau data did not
provide a population breakout for special district governments, if the population of less than 50,000 for this category
of local government is consistent with the other types of local governments the majority of the 38, 266 special
district governments have populations of less than 50,000.
38 Id.
39 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except
Satellite),” See
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&typib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.51
7210.
40 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517210.
41 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210,
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
42 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
94
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
17.The Commission’s own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that,
as of May 17, 2018, there are 264 Cellular licensees that will be affected by our actions.43 The
Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect
that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service,
Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services.44 Of
this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.45
Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
18.Personal Radio Services. Personal radio services provide short-range, low-power radio
for personal communications, radio signaling, and business communications not provided for in other
services. Personal radio services include services operating in spectrum licensed under Part 95 of our
rules.46 These services include Citizen Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service, Radio
Control Radio Service, Family Radio Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Medical Implant
Communications Service, Low Power Radio Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service.47 There are a variety
of methods used to license the spectrum in these rule parts, from licensing by rule, to conditioning
operation on successful completion of a required test, to site-based licensing, to geographic area licensing.
All such entities in this category are wireless, therefore we apply the definition of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), pursuant to which the SBA’s small entity size standard is
defined as those entities employing 1,500 or fewer persons.48 For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012
show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.49 Of this total, 955 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.50 Thus
under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms
can be considered small. We note however that many of the licensees in this category are individuals and
not small entities. In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed and shared nature of the spectrum utilized in
many of these services, the Commission lacks direct information upon which to base an estimation of the
number of small entities that may be affected by our actions in this proceeding.
19.Public Safety Radio Licensees. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees as a general matter,
include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency
43 See http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls. For the purposes of this FRFA, consistent with Commission practice for wireless
services, the Commission estimates the number of licensees based on the number of unique FCC Registration
Numbers.
44 See Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology
Division, Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone Service),
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf.
45 See id.
46 47 CFR Part 90.
47 The Citizens Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service, Radio Control Radio Service, Family Radio
Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Medical Implant Communications Service, Low Power Radio
Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service are governed by subpart D, subpart A, subpart C, subpart B, subpart H,
subpart I, subpart G, and subpart J, respectively, of Part 95 of the Commission’s rules. See generally 47 CFR Part
95.
48 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312.
49 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210,
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
50 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
95
medical services.51 Because of the vast array of public safety licensees, the Commission has not
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to public safety licensees. The closest
applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses
business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications. The appropriate size standard for this
category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 52 For this
industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.53 Of
this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000
employees or more.54 Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority of firms can be considered small. With respect to local governments, in
particular, since many governmental entities comprise the licensees for these services, we include under
public safety services the number of government entities affected. According to Commission records,
there are a total of approximately 133,870 licenses within these services.55 There are 3,121 licenses in the
4.9 GHz band, based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of March 29, 2017.56 We estimate
that fewer than 2,442 public safety radio licensees hold these licenses because certain entities may have
multiple licenses.
20.Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees. Private land mobile radio (PLMR) systems serve
an essential role in a vast range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities.
These radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories. Because of the
vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically
applicable to PLMR users. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone
communications.57 The appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that such a business
51 See subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR §§ 90.1-90.22. Police licensees serve state,
county, and municipal enforcement through telephony (voice), telegraphy (code), and teletype and facsimile (printed
material). Fire licensees are comprised of private volunteer or professional fire companies, as well as units under
governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also include state, county, or municipal entities that use
radio for official purposes. State departments of conservation and private forest organizations comprise forestry
service licensees that set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground crews. State and local
governments are highway maintenance licensees that provide emergency and routine communications to aid other
public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular traffic. Emergency medical licensees use these channels
for emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of emergency medical treatment. Additional
licensees include medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, persons with disabilities, disaster relief
organizations, school buses, beach patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and
emergency repair of public communications facilities.
52 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517210.
53 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210.
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
54 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
55 This figure was derived from Commission licensing records as of June 27, 2008. Licensing numbers change
daily. We do not expect this number to be significantly smaller as of the date of this order. This does not indicate
the number of licensees, as licensees may hold multiple licenses. There is no information currently available about
the number of public safety licensees that have less than 1,500 employees.
56 Based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of March 29, 2017. Search parameters: Radio Service =
PA—Public Safety 4940-4990 MHz Band; Authorization Type = Regular; Status = Active.
57 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except
Satellite),” See https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=
ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.517210 (last visited Mar. 6, 2018).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
96
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.58 For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there
were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.59 Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.60 Thus under this category and the
associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of PLMR Licensees are small
entities.
21.According to the Commission’s records, a total of approximately 400,622 licenses
comprise PLMR users.61 Of this number there are a total of 3,374 licenses in the frequencies range
173.225 MHz to 173.375 MHz, which is the range affected by the Third Report and Order.62 The
Commission does not require PLMR licensees to disclose information about number of employees, and
does not have information that could be used to determine how many PLMR licensees constitute small
entities under this definition. The Commission however believes that a substantial number of PLMR
licensees may be small entities despite the lack of specific information.
22.Multiple Address Systems. Entities using Multiple Address Systems (MAS) spectrum, in
general, fall into two categories: (1) those using the spectrum for profit-based uses, and (2) those using
the spectrum for private internal uses. With respect to the first category, Profit-based Spectrum use, the
size standards established by the Commission define “small entity” for MAS licensees as an entity that
has average annual gross revenues of less than $15 million over the three previous calendar years.63 A
“Very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average annual gross
revenues of not more than $3 million over the preceding three calendar years.64 The SBA has approved
these definitions.65 The majority of MAS operators are licensed in bands where the Commission has
implemented a geographic area licensing approach that requires the use of competitive bidding
procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications.
23.The Commission’s licensing database indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, there were a
total of 11,653 site-based MAS station authorizations. Of these, 58 authorizations were associated with
common carrier service. In addition, the Commission’s licensing database indicates that, as of April 16,
2010, there were a total of 3,330 Economic Area market area MAS authorizations. The Commission’s
licensing database also indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, of the 11,653 total MAS station
authorizations, 10,773 authorizations were for private radio service. In 2001, an auction for 5,104 MAS
58 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517210.
59 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210.
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
60 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
61 This figure was derived from Commission licensing records as of September 19, 2016. Licensing numbers
change on a daily basis. This does not indicate the number of licensees, as licensees may hold multiple licenses.
There is no information currently available about the number of PLMR licensees that have fewer than 1,500
employees.
62 This figure was derived from Commission licensing records as of August 16, 2013. Licensing numbers change
daily. We do not expect this number to be significantly smaller as of the date of this order. This does not indicate
the number of licensees, as licensees may hold multiple licenses. There is no information currently available about
the number of licensees that have fewer than 1,500 employees.
63 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
11956, 12008 para. 123 (2000).
64 Id.
65 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (June 4, 1999).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
97
licenses in 176 EAs was conducted.66 Seven winning bidders claimed status as small or very small
businesses and won 611 licenses. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction (Auction 59) of 4,226
MAS licenses in the Fixed Microwave Services from the 928/959 and 932/941 MHz bands. Twenty-six
winning bidders won a total of 2,323 licenses. Of the 26 winning bidders in this auction, five claimed
small business status and won 1,891 licenses.
24.With respect to the second category, Internal Private Spectrum use consists of entities
that use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to accommodate their own internal communications needs, MAS
serves an essential role in a range of industrial, safety, business, and land transportation activities. MAS
radios are used by companies of all sizes, operating in virtually all U.S. business categories, and by all
types of public safety entities. For the majority of private internal users, the definition developed by the
SBA would be more appropriate than the Commission’s definition. The closest applicable definition of a
small entity is the “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)” definition under the SBA
rules.67 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees.68 For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that
operated for the entire year.69 Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12
had employment of 1000 employees or more.70 Thus under this category and the associated small
business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms that may be affected by our
action can be considered small.
25.Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio
Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel
Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to
subscribers and provide two-way high-speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the
Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).71
26.BRS - In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small
business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in
the previous three calendar years.72 The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining
licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the
definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At
this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business
licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately
there are approximately 86 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities (18 incumbent
66 See Multiple Address Systems Spectrum Auction Closes, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21011 (2001).
67 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517210.
68 Id.
69 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210,
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
70 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
71 Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint
Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9593, para. 7 (1995).
72 47 CFR § 21.961(b)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
98
BRS licensees do not meet the small business size standard).73 After adding the number of small business
auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find that there are
currently approximately 133 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or
the Commission’s rules.
27.In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas.
74 The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) a bidder with attributed average annual
gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small
business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual
gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very
small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed
average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur)
received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid.75 Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61
licenses.76 Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 4 licenses; one
bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed
entrepreneur status won six licenses.
28.EBS - The Educational Broadband Service has been included within the broad economic
census category and SBA size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers since 2007. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers are comprised of establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.77 The
SBA’s small business size standard for this category is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.78
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year.79 Of this
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.80 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of
firms in this industry can be considered small. In addition to Census Bureau data, the Commission’s
Universal Licensing System indicates that as of October 2014, there are 2,206 active EBS licenses. The
Commission estimates that of these 2,206 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational
73 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). For these pre-auction licenses, the
applicable standard is SBA’s small business size standard of 1500 or fewer employees.
74 Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86, Public Notice, 24
FCC Rcd 8277 (2009).
75 Id. at 8296 para. 73.
76 Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down
Payments Due November 23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period,
Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572 (2009).
77 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,”,
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517110&search=2017.
78 See 13 CFR § 121.201. The Wired Telecommunications Carrier category formerly used the NAICS code of
517110. As of 2017 the U.S. Census Bureau definition shows the NAICs code as 517311 for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. See, https://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517311&search=2017.
79 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information:
Subject Series - Estab & Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 (517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers).
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517110.
80 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
99
institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.81
29.Location and Monitoring Service (LMS). LMS systems use non-voice radio techniques
to determine the location and status of mobile radio units. For purposes of auctioning LMS licenses, the
Commission has defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million.82 A
“very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million.83 These definitions
have been approved by the SBA.84 An auction for LMS licenses commenced on February 23, 1999 and
closed on March 5, 1999. Of the 528 licenses auctioned, 289 licenses were sold to four small businesses.
30.Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments
primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.”85 These establishments operate
television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the
public.86 These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast
television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule.
Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.
The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: those having $38.5
million or less in annual receipts.87 The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category
operated in that year.88 Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less, 25 had annual
receipts between $25,000,000 and $49,999,999 and 70 had annual receipts of $50,000,000 or more.89
Based on this data we therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small
entities under the applicable SBA size standard.
31.The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to
be 1,377.90 Of this total, 1,258 stations (or about 91 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less,
according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database
(BIA) on November 16, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational
(NCE) television stations to be 384.91 Notwithstanding, the Commission does not compile and otherwise
does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how
81 The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (non-profits) and to small governmental
jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of
less than 50,000). 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)-(6).
82 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring
Systems, Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15182, 15192 para. 20 (1998); see also 47 CFR § 90.1103.
83 Id.
84 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration to Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Feb. 22, 1999).
85 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, “515120 Television Broadcasting,” https://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=515120&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017.
86 Id.
87 13 CFR § 121.201; 2012 NAICS Code 515120.
88 U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series - Establishment and Firm Size:
Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012 (515120 Television Broadcasting).
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~515120.
89 Id.
90 Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2018, Press Release (MB, rel. Jul. 3, 2018) (June 30, 2018 Broadcast
Station Totals Press Release), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-352168A1.pdf.
91 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
100
many such stations would qualify as small entities. There are also 2,300 low power television stations,
including Class A stations (LPTV) and 3,681 TV translator stations.92 Given the nature of these services,
we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business
size standard.
32.We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small”
under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included.93 Our estimate, therefore
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue
figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition,
another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of
operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a
specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of
small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a
small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional
element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated.
The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities
and its estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
33.Radio Stations. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily
engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own
studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.”94 The SBA has established a small business
size standard for this category as firms having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.95 Economic
Census data for 2012 show that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that year.96 Of that number,
2,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts between
$25 million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts of $50 million or more.97 Therefore,
based on the SBA’s size standard the majority of such entities are small entities.
34.According to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC’s Publications, Inc.
Media Access Pro Radio Database (BIA) as of January 2018, about 11,261 (or about 99.92 percent) of
11,270 commercial radio stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition.98 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial AM radio
stations to be 4,633 stations and the number of commercial FM radio stations to be 6,738, for a total
number of 11,371.99 We note, that the Commission has also estimated the number of licensed NCE radio
stations to be 4,128.100 Nevertheless, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have
access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such
stations would qualify as small entities.
92 Id.
93 See 13 CFR § 21.103(a)(1) “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the
power to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.”
94 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, “515112 Radio Stations,” https://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=515112&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017.
95 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112.
96 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject
Series - Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012 NAICS Code 515112,
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~515112.
97 Id.
98 BIA/Kelsey, MEDIA Access Pro Database (viewed Jan. 26, 2018).
99 Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2018, Press Release (MB Jul. 3, 2018) (June 30, 2018 Broadcast Station
Totals), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-352168A1.pdf.
100 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
101
35.We also note, that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the
above definition, business control affiliations must be included.101 The Commission’s estimate therefore
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by its action, because the revenue
figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition,
to be determined a “small business,” an entity may not be dominant in its field of operation.102 We further
note, that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the estimate of
small businesses to which these rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of
a small business on these basis, thus our estimate of small businesses may therefore be over-inclusive.
Also, as noted above, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these
criteria in the context of media entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be
over-inclusive to this extent.
36.FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations. FM translators and Low Power
FM Stations are classified in the category of Radio Stations and are assigned the same NAICS Code as
licensees of radio stations.103 This U.S. industry, Radio Stations, comprises establishments primarily
engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.104 Programming may originate in their
own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.105 The SBA has established a small
business size standard which consists of all radio stations whose annual receipts are $38.5 million dollars
or less.106 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that
year.107 Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year, 17 with
annual receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts of $50 million
or more.108 Therefore, based on the SBA’s size standard, we conclude that the majority of FM Translator
Stations and Low Power FM Stations are small.
37.Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS). MVDDS is a terrestrial
fixed microwave service operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. The Commission adopted criteria for
defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special
provisions such as bidding credits. It defined a very small business as an entity with average annual gross
revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years; a small business as an entity with
average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years; and an
entrepreneur as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding
three years.109 These definitions were approved by the SBA.110 On January 27, 2004, the Commission
101 13 CFR § 121.103(a)(1). “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the
power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has power to control both.”
102 13 CFR § 121.102(b).
103 See, U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, “515112 Radio Stations,” https://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=515112&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017.
104 Id.
105 Id.
106 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 515112.
107 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information:
Subject Series - Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012 NAICS Code
515112, https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~515112.
108 Id.
109 Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-
Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range; Amendment of the Commission’s
Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licensees
and their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers,
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
102
completed an auction of 214 MVDDS licenses (Auction No. 53). In this auction, ten winning bidders
won a total of 192 MVDDS licenses.111 Eight of the ten winning bidders claimed small business status
and won 144 of the licenses. The Commission also held an auction of MVDDS licenses on December 7,
2005 (Auction 63). Of the three winning bidders who won 22 licenses, two winning bidders, winning 21
of the licenses, claimed small business status.112
38.Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms “primarily engaged in
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or
reselling satellite telecommunications.”113 Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite
and earth station operators. The category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in
average annual receipts, under SBA rules.114 For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show
that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year.115 Of this total, 299 firms had annual
receipts of less than $25 million.116 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of satellite
telecommunications providers are small entities.
39.All Other Telecommunications. The “All Other Telecommunications” category is
comprised of establishments that are primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications
services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation.117 This
industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and
associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting
telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.118 Establishments
providing Internet services or voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.119 The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for “All Other Telecommunications,” which consists of all such firms with gross
annual receipts of $32.5 million or less.120 For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there
(Continued from previous page)
Ltd. to Provide A Fixed Service in the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report
and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614, 9711, para. 252 (2002).
110 See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, to Margaret W. Wiener,
Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Feb. 13, 2002).
111 See “Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,”
Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 1834 (2004).
112 See “Auction of Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced
for Auction No. 63,” Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 19807 (2005).
113 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,”
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=517410&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017.
114 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410.
115 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject
Series - Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, NAICS Code 517410,
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~517410.
116 Id.
117 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, NAICS Code “517919 All Other Telecommunications”,
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=517919&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017.
118 Id.
119 Id.
120 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
103
were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year.121 Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual
receipts of less than $25 million and 42 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.122 Thus,
a majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by our action can be considered
small.
40.Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier,123 private-
operational fixed,124 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.125 They also include the Local Multipoint
Distribution Service (LMDS),126 the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),127 the 39 GHz Service
(39 GHz),128 the 24 GHz Service,129 and the Millimeter Wave Service130 where licensees can choose
between common carrier and non-common carrier status.131 At present, there are approximately 66,680
common carrier fixed licensees, 69,360 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,150
broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 411 LMDS licenses, 33 24 GHz DEMS licenses, 777 39 GHz
licenses, and five 24 GHz licenses, and 467 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services.132 The
Commission has not yet defined a small business size standard for microwave services. The closest
applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and the appropriate
size standard for this category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.133 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012, show that there were 967 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year.134 Of this total, 955 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 12 firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and the associated small business
size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be
considered small.
41.The Commission notes that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number of
121 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject
Series - Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, NAICS code 517919,
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~517919.
122 Id.
123 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart I.
124 Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission’s rules can use Private-Operational Fixed Microwave
services. See 47 CFR Parts 80 and 90. Stations in this service are called operational-fixed to distinguish them from
common carrier and public fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed station, and only for
communications related to the licensee’s commercial, industrial, or safety operations.
125 See 47 CFR Parts 74, 78 (governing Auxiliary Microwave Service) Available to licensees of broadcast stations,
cable operators, and to broadcast and cable network entities. Auxiliary microwave stations are used for relaying
broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an
auxiliary studio. The service also includes TV pickup and CARS pickup, which relay signals from a remote location
back to the studio.
126 See 47 CFR §§ 101, 1001-101, 1017.
127 See 47 CFR §§ 101, 101.501-101.538.
128 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart N (reserved for Competitive bidding procedures for the 38.6-40 GHz Band).
129 See id.
130 See 47 CFR §§ 101, 101.1501-101.1527.
131 See 47 CFR §§ 101.533, 101.1017.
132 These statistics are based on a review of the Universal Licensing System on September 22, 2015.
133 13 CFR § 121.201.
134 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject
Series, “Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210,
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
104
licensees. The Commission also notes that it does not have data specifying the number of these licensees
that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the
number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the
SBA’s small business size standard. The Commission estimates however, that virtually all of the Fixed
Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the
SBA definition.
42.Non-Licensee Owners of Towers and Other Infrastructure. Although at one time most
communications towers were owned by the licensee using the tower to provide communications service,
many towers are now owned by third-party businesses that do not provide communications services
themselves but lease space on their towers to other companies that provide communications services. The
Commission’s rules require that any entity, including a non-licensee, proposing to construct a tower over
200 feet in height or within the glide slope of an airport must register the tower with the Commission’s
Antenna Structure Registration (“ASR”) system and comply with applicable rules regarding review for
impact on the environment and historic properties.
43.As of March 1, 2017, the ASR database includes approximately 122,157 registration
records reflecting a “Constructed” status and 13,987 registration records reflecting a “Granted, Not
Constructed” status. These figures include both towers registered to licensees and towers registered to
non-licensee tower owners. The Commission does not keep information from which we can easily
determine how many of these towers are registered to non-licensees or how many non-licensees have
registered towers.135 Regarding towers that do not require ASR registration, we do not collect
information as to the number of such towers in use and therefore cannot estimate the number of tower
owners that would be subject to the rules on which we seek comment. Moreover, the SBA has not
developed a size standard for small businesses in the category “Tower Owners.” Therefore, we are
unable to determine the number of non-licensee tower owners that are small entities. We believe,
however, that when all entities owning 10 or fewer towers and leasing space for collocation are included,
non-licensee tower owners number in the thousands. In addition, there may be other non-licensee owners
of other wireless infrastructure, including Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and small cells that might
be affected by the measures on which we seek comment. We do not have any basis for estimating the
number of such non-licensee owners that are small entities.
44.The closest applicable SBA category is All Other Telecommunications, and the
appropriate size standard consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less.136
For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire
year.137 Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million and 15 firms
had annual receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.138 Thus, under this SBA size standard a majority of
the firms potentially affected by our action can be considered small.
E.Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
45.The Third Report and Order does not establish any reporting, recordkeeping, or other
135 We note, however, that approximately 13,000 towers are registered to 10 cellular carriers with 1,000 or more
employees.
136 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919.
137 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject
Series - Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, NAICS code 517919,
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~517919.
138 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
105
compliance requirements for companies involved in wireless infrastructure deployment.139 In addition to
not adopting any reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements, the Commission takes
significant steps to reduce regulatory impediments to infrastructure deployment and, therefore, to spur the
growth of personal wireless services. Under the Commission’s approach, small entities as well as large
companies will be assured that their deployment requests will be acted upon within a reasonable period of
time and, if their applications are not addressed within the established time frames, applicants may seek
injunctive relief granting their siting applications. The Commission, therefore, has taken concrete steps to
relieve companies of all sizes of uncertainly and has eliminated unnecessary delays.
46.The Third Report and Order also does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping
requirements on state and local governments. While some commenters argue that additional shot clock
classifications would make the siting process needlessly complex without any proven benefits, the
Commission concludes that any additional administrative burden from increasing the number of Section
332 shot clocks from two to four is outweighed by the likely significant benefit of regulatory certainty
and the resulting streamlined deployment process.140 The Commission’s actions are consistent with the
statutory language of Section 332 and therefore reflect Congressional intent. Further, siting agencies have
become more efficient in processing siting applications and will be able to take advantage of these
efficiencies in meeting the new shot clocks. As a result, the additional shot clocks that the Commission
adopts will foster the deployment of the latest wireless technology and serve consumer interests.
F.Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
47.The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered
in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.”141
48.The steps taken by the Commission in the Third Report and Order eliminate regulatory
burdens for small entities as well as large companies that are involved with the deployment of person
wireless services infrastructure. By establishing shot clocks and guidance on injunctive relief for personal
wireless services infrastructure deployments, the Commission has standardized and streamlined the
permitting process. These changes will significantly minimize the economic burden of the siting process
on all entities, including small entities, involved in deploying personal wireless services infrastructure.
The record shows that permitting delays imposes significant economic and financial burdens on
companies with pending wireless infrastructure permits. Eliminating permitting delays will remove the
associated cost burdens and enabling significant public interest benefits by speeding up the deployment of
personal wireless services and infrastructure. In addition, siting agencies will be able to utilize the
efficiencies that they have gained over the years processing siting applications to minimize financial
impacts.
49.The Commission considered but did not adopt proposals by commenters to issue “Best
Practices” or “Recommended Practices,”142 and to develop an informal dispute resolution process and
139 See supra para. 144.
140 See supra para. 110.
141 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(4).
142 KS Rep. Sloan Comments at 2; Nokia Comments at 10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
106
mediation program, 143 noting that the steps taken in the Third Report and Order address the concerns
underlying these proposals to facilitate cooperation between parties to reach mutually agreed upon
solutions.144 The Commission anticipates that the changes it has made to the permitting process will
provide significant efficiencies in the deployment of personal wireless services facilities and this in turn
will benefit all companies, but particularly small entities, that may not have the resources and economies
of scale of larger entities to navigate the permitting process. By adopting these changes, the Commission
will continue to fulfill its statutory responsibilities, while reducing the burden on small entities by
removing unnecessary impediments to the rapid deployment of personal wireless services facilities and
infrastructure across the country.
Report to Congress
50.The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order, including this FRFA,
in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.145 In addition, the Commission will
send a copy of the Third Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the SBA. A copy of the Third Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) also will be published
in the Federal Register. 146
143 NATOA et al. Comments at 16-17.
144 See supra para. 131.
145 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
146 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
107
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI
Re:Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure
Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing
Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84
Perhaps the defining characteristic of the communications sector over the past decade is that the
world is going wireless. The smartphone’s introduction in 2007 may have seemed an interesting novelty
to some at the time, but it was a precursor of a transformative change in how consumers access and use
the Internet. 4G LTE was a key driver in that change.
Today, a new transition is at hand as we enter the era of 5G. At the FCC, we’re working hard to
ensure that the United States leads the world in developing this next generation of wireless connectivity
so that American consumers and our nation’s economy enjoy the immense benefits that 5G will bring.
Spectrum policy of course features prominently in our 5G strategy. We’re pushing a lot more
spectrum into the commercial marketplace. On November 14, for example, our 28 GHz band spectrum
auction will begin, and after it ends, our 24 GHz band spectrum auction will start. And in 2019, we plan
to auction off three additional spectrum bands.
But all the spectrum in the world won’t matter if we don’t have the infrastructure needed to carry
5G traffic. New physical infrastructure is vital for success here. That’s because 5G networks will depend
less on a few large towers and more on numerous small cell deployments—deployments that for the most
part don’t exist today.
But installing small cells isn’t easy, too often because of regulations. There are layers of
(sometimes unnecessary and unreasonable) rules that can prevent widespread deployment. At the federal
level, we acted earlier this year to modernize our regulations and make our own review process for
wireless infrastructure 5G fast. And many states and localities have similarly taken positive steps to
reform their own laws and increase the likelihood that their citizens will be able to benefit from 5G
networks.
But as this Order makes clear, there are outliers that are unreasonably standing in the way of
wireless infrastructure deployment. So today, we address regulatory barriers at the local level that are
inconsistent with federal law. For instance, big-city taxes on 5G slow down deployment there and also
jeopardize the construction of 5G networks in suburbs and rural America. So today, we find that all fees
must be non-discriminatory and cost-based. And when a municipality fails to act promptly on
applications, it can slow down deployment in many other localities. So we mandate shot clocks for local
government review of small wireless infrastructure deployments.
I commend Commissioner Carr for his leadership in developing this Order. He worked closely
with many state and local officials to understand their needs and to study the policies that have worked at
the state and local level. It should therefore come as no surprise that this Order has won significant
support from mayors, local officials, and state legislators.
To be sure, there are some local governments that don’t like this Order. They would like to
continue extracting as much money as possible in fees from the private sector and forcing companies to
navigate a maze of regulatory hurdles in order to deploy wireless infrastructure. But these actions are not
only unlawful, they’re also short-sighted. They slow the construction of 5G networks and will delay if
not prevent the benefits of 5G from reaching American consumers. And let’s also be clear about one
thing: When you raise the cost of deploying wireless infrastructure, it is those who live in areas where the
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
108
investment case is the most marginal—rural areas or lower-income urban areas—who are most at risk of
losing out. And I don’t want 5G to widen the digital divide; I want 5G to help close that divide.
In conclusion, I’d like to again thank Commissioner Carr for leading this effort and his staff for their
diligent work. And I’m grateful to the hardworking staff across the agency who have put many hours into
this Order. In particular, thanks to Jonathan Campbell, Stacy Ferraro, Garnet Hanly, Leon Jackler, Eli
Johnson, Jonathan Lechter, Kate Matraves, Betsy McIntyre, Darrel Pae, Jennifer Salhus, Dana Shaffer,
Jiaming Shang, David Sieradzki, Michael Smith, Don Stockdale, Cecilia Sulhoff, Patrick Sun, Suzanne
Tetreault, and Joseph Wyer from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; Matt Collins, Adam
Copeland, Dan Kahn, Deborah Salons, and John Visclosky from the Wireline Competition Bureau; Chana
Wilkerson from the Office of Communications Business Opportunities; and Ashley Boizelle, David
Horowitz, Tom Johnson, Marcus Maher, Bill Richardson, and Anjali Singh from the Office of General
Counsel.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
109
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re:Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure
Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers
to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84
I enthusiastically support the intent of today’s item and the vast majority of its content, as it will
lower the barriers that some localities place to infrastructure siting. By tackling exorbitant fees,
ridiculous practices, and prolonged delays, we are taking the necessary steps to expedite deployment and
make it more cost efficient. Collectively, these provisions will help facilitate the deployment of 5G and
enable providers to expand services throughout our nation, with ultimate beneficiaries being the American
people.
While this is a tremendous step in the right direction, there are some things that could have been
done to improve the situation further. For instance, the agreement reached by all parties in the 1996
Telecommunications Act was that states and localities would have no role over radio frequency emission
issues, could not regulate based on the aesthetics of towers and antennas, and were prohibited from
imposing any moratoriums on processing wireless siting applications. State and localities did not honor
this agreement and the courts have sadly enabled their efforts via harmful and wrongly decided cases.
Accordingly, I would have preferred that the aesthetics related provisions in the item be deleted, but I will
have to swallow it recognizing that I can’t get the rest without it. At the very least, I do appreciate that, at
my request, it was clarified that the aesthetic requirements, which must be published in advance, must be
objective.
I am also concerned that by setting application and recurring fees that are presumed to be
reasonable, the Commission is inviting localities to adopt these rates, even if they are not cost based.
Providers should be explicitly provided the right to challenge these rates if they believe they are not cost
based. Even if not stated, I hope that providers will challenge unreasonable rates. I thank my colleagues
for agreeing to my edits that the application fee presumption applies to all non-recurring costs, not just the
application fee.
Further, I think there should be a process and standards in place if a locality decides that it needs
more time to review batched applications. Objective criteria are needed regarding what are considered
“exceptional circumstances” or “exceptional cases” warranting a longer review period for batch
processing, when localities need to inform the applicant that they need more time, how this notification
will occur, and how much time they will get. For instance, the item appears to excuse a locality that does
not act within the shot clocks for any application if there are “extraordinary circumstances,” but there are
no parameters on what circumstances we are envisioning. Is a lack of adequate staff or having processing
rules or policies in place a sufficient excuse? Such things should be determined upfront, as opposed to
allowing courts to decide such matters. Without further clarity, I fear that we may be creating
unnecessary loopholes, resulting in further delay.
Finally, I would have liked today’s item to be broader and cover the remaining infrastructure
issues in the record. First, the Commission’s new interpretation of sections 253 and 332 applies beyond
small cells. While our focus has been on these newer technologies, there needs to be a recognition that
macro towers will continue to play a crucial role in wireless networks. One tower provider states that
“[m]acro cell sites will continue to be a central component of wireless infrastructure . . . ,” because 80
[percent] of the population lives in suburban or rural areas where “macro sites are the most efficient way
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
110
to transmit wireless signals.”1 Further, many of the interpretations in today’s item apply not only to these
macro towers, but also to other telecommunications services, including those provided by traditional
wireline carriers and potentially cable companies.
Second, the Commission needs to close loopholes in section 6409 that some localities have been
exploiting. While these rules pertaining to the modification of existing structures are clear, some
localities are trying to undermine Congress’s intent and our actions. For instance, localities are refusing
ancillary permissions, such as building or highway permits, to slow down or prevent siting; using the
localities’ concealment and aesthetic additions to increase the size of the facility or requiring that poles be
replaced with stealth infrastructure for the purpose of excluding facilities from section 6409; placing
improper conditions on permits; and forcing providers to sign agreements that waive their rights under
section 6409. And, I have been told that some are claiming that section 6409 does not apply to their
siting processes. This must stop. I appreciate the Chairman’s firm commitment to my request for an
additional item to address such matters, and I expect that it will be coming in the very near future.
Third, there is a need to harmonize our rules regarding compound expansion. Currently, an entity
seeking to replace a structure is allowed to expand the facility’s footprint by 30 feet, but if the same entity
seeks to expand the tower area to hold new equipment associated with a collocation, a new review is
needed. It doesn’t make sense that these situations are treated differently. And while we are at it, the
Commission should also harmonize its shot clocks and remedies. These issues should also be added to
any future item.
Lastly, the Commission also must finish its review of the comments filed in response to the
twilight towers notice, make the revisions to the program comment, and submit it to Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation for their review and vote. These towers are eligible, yet not permitted, to hold an
estimated 6,500 collocations that will be needed for next-generation services and FirstNet. It is time to
bring this embarrassment, which started in 2001, to an end.
Not only do I thank the Chairman for agreeing to additional infrastructure items, but I also thank
the Chairman and Commissioner Carr for implementing several of my edits to the item today. Besides
those already mentioned, they include applying the aesthetic criteria, including that any requirements
must be reasonable, objective, and published in advance, to undergrounding; stating that undergrounding
requirements that apply to some, but not all facilities, will be considered an effective prohibition if they
materially inhibit wireless service; and adding similar language to the minimum spacing section of the
item. Further, the minimum spacing requirements will not apply to replacement facilities or prevent
collocations on existing structures. Additionally, localities claiming that an application is incomplete will
need to specifically state what rule requires the submission of the missing information.
With this, I approve.
1 American Tower Ex Parte Letter, WT Docket No. 17-79, n.6 (Aug. 10, 2018).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
111
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER BRENDAN CARR
Re:Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure
Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing
Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84
The United States is on the cusp of a major upgrade in wireless technology to 5G. The WALL
STREET JOURNAL has called it transformative from a technological and economic perspective. And
they’re right. Winning the global race to 5G—seeing this new platform deployed in the U.S. first—is
about economic leadership for the next decade. Those are the stakes, and here’s how we know it.
Think back ten years ago when we were on the cusp of upgrading from 3G to 4G. Think about
the largest stocks and some of the biggest drivers of our economy. It was big banks and big oil. Fast
forward to today: U.S.-based technology companies, from FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix,
and Google) down to the latest startup, have transformed our economy and our lives.
Think about your own life. A decade ago, catching a ride across town involved calling a phone
number, waiting 20 minutes for a cab to arrive, and paying rates that were inaccessible to many people.
Today, we have Lyft, Uber, Via, and other options.
A decade ago, sending money meant going to a brick-and-mortar bank, standing in that rope line,
getting frustrated when that pen leashed to the table was out of ink (again!), and ultimately conducting
your transaction with a teller. Now, with Square, Venmo, and other apps you can send money or deposit
checks from anywhere, 24 hours a day.
A decade ago, taking a road trip across the country meant walking into your local AAA office,
telling them the stops along your way, and waiting for them to print out a TripTik booklet filled with
maps that you would unfold as you drove down the highway. Now, with Google Maps and other apps
you get real-time updates and directions right on your smartphone.
American companies led the way in developing these 4G innovations. But it’s not by chance or
luck that the United States is the world’s tech and innovation hub. We have the strongest wireless
economy in the world because we won the race to 4G. No country had faster 4G deployment and more
intense investment than we did. Winning the race to 4G added $100 billion to our GDP. It led to $125
billion in revenue for U.S. companies that could have gone abroad. It grew wireless jobs in the U.S. by
84 percent. And our world-leading 4G networks now support today’s $950 billion app economy. That
history should remind policymakers at all levels of government exactly what is at stake. 5G is about our
leadership for the next decade.
And being first matters. It determines whether capital will flow here, whether innovators will
start their new businesses here, and whether the economy that benefits is the one here. Or as Deloitte put
it: “First-adopter countries . . . could sustain more than a decade of competitive advantage.”
We’re not the only country that wants to be first to 5G. One of our biggest competitors is China.
They view 5G as a chance to flip the script. They want to lead the tech sector for the next decade. And
they are moving aggressively to deploy the infrastructure needed for 5G.
Since 2015, China has deployed 350,000 cell sites. We’ve built fewer than 30,000. Right now,
China is deploying 460 cell sites a day. That is twelve times our pace. We have to be honest about this
infrastructure challenge. The time for empty statements about carrots and sticks is over. We need a
concrete plan to close the gap with China and win the race to 5G.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
112
We take this challenge seriously at the FCC. And we are getting the government out of the way,
so that the private sector can invest and compete.
In March, we held that small cells should be treated differently than large, 200-foot towers. And
we’re already seeing results. That decision cut $1.5 billion in red tape, and one provider reports that it is
now clearing small cells for construction at six times the pace as before.
So we’re making progress in closing the infrastructure gap with China. But hurdles remain.
We’ve heard from dozens of mayors, local officials, and state lawmakers who get what 5G means—they
understand the economic opportunity that comes with it. But they worry that the billions in investment
needed to deploy these networks will be consumed by the high fees and long delays imposed by big,
“must-serve” cities. They worry that, without federal action, they may not see 5G. I’d like to read from a
few of the many comments I’ve received over the last few months.
Duane Ankney is a retired coal miner from Montana with a handlebar mustache that would be the
envy of nearly any hipster today. But more relevantly, he’s a Member of the Montana State Legislature
and chairs its Energy and Telecommunications Committee. He writes: “Where I see the problem is, that
most of investment capital is spent in the larger urban areas. This is primarily due to the high regulatory
cost and the cost recovery [that] can be made in those areas. This leaves the rural areas out.”
Mary Whisenand, an Iowa commissioner, writes: “With 99 counties in Iowa, we understand the
need to streamline the network buildout process so it’s not just the big cities that get 5G but also our small
towns. If companies are tied up with delays and high fees, it’s going to take that much longer for each
and every Iowan to see the next generation of connectivity.”
Ashton Hayward, the Mayor of Pensacola, Florida, writes: “[E]xcessive and arbitrary fees . . .
result[] in nothing more than telecom providers being required to spend limited investment dollars on fees
as opposed to spending those limited resources on the type of high-speed infrastructure that is so
important in our community.”
And the entire board of commissioners from a more rural area in Michigan writes: “Smaller
communities such as those located in St. Clair County would benefit by having the [FCC] reduce the
costly and unnecessary fees that some larger communities place on small cells as a condition of
deployment. These fees, wholly disproportionate to any cost, put communities like ours at an unfair
disadvantage. By making small cell deployment less expensive, the FCC will send a clear message that
all communities, regardless of size, should share in the benefits of this crucial new technology.”
They’re right. When I think about success—when I think about winning the race to 5G—the
finish line is not the moment we see next-gen deployments in New York or San Francisco. Success can
only be achieved when all Americans, no matter where they live, have a fair shot at fast, affordable
broadband.
So today, we build on the smart infrastructure policies championed by state and local leaders. We
ensure that no city is subsidizing 5G. We prevent excessive fees that would threaten 5G deployment.
And we update our shot clocks to account for new small cell deployments. I want to thank Commissioner
Rosenworcel for improving the new shot clocks with edits that protect municipalities from providers that
submit incomplete applications and provide localities with more time to adjust their operations. Her ideas
improved this portion of the order.
More broadly, our decision today has benefited from the diverse views expressed by a range of
stakeholders. On the local government side, I met with mayors, city planners, and other officials in their
home communities and learned from their perspectives. They pushed back on the proposed “deemed
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
113
granted” remedy, on regulating rents on their property outside of rights-of-way, and on limits to
reasonable aesthetic reviews. They reminded me that they’re the ones that get pulled aside at the grocery
store when an unsightly small cell goes up. Their views carried the day on all of those points. And our
approach respects the compromises reached in state legislatures around the country by not preempting
nearly any of the provisions in the 20 state level small cells bills.
This is a balanced approach that will help speed the deployment of 5G. Right now, there is a
cottage industry of consultants spurring lawsuits and disputes in courtrooms and city halls around the
country over the scope of Sections 253 and 332. With this decision, we provide clear and updated
guidance, which will eliminate the uncertainty inspiring much of that litigation.
Some have also argued that we unduly limit local aesthetic reviews. But allowing reasonable
aesthetic reviews—and thus only preventing unreasonable ones—does not strike me as a claim worth
lodging.
And some have asked whether this reform will make a real difference in speeding 5G deployment
and closing the digital divide. The answer is yes. It will cut $2 billion in red tape. That’s about $8,000 in
savings per small cell. Cutting these costs changes the prospects for communities that might otherwise
get left behind. It will stimulate $2.4 billion in new small cell deployments. That will cover 1.8 million
more homes and businesses—97% of which are in rural and suburban communities. That is more
broadband for more Americans.
***
In closing, I want to thank my colleagues for working to put these ideas in place. I want
to thank Chairman Pai for his leadership in removing these regulatory barriers. And I want to recognize
the exceptionally hard-working team at the FCC that helped lead this effort, including, in the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Donald Stockdale, Suzanne Tetrault, Garnet Hanly, Jonathan Campbell,
Stacy Ferraro, Leon Jackler, Eli Johnson, Jonathan Lechter, Marcus Maher, Betsy McIntyre, Darrel Pae,
Jennifer Salhus, Jiaming Shang, and David Sieradzki. I also want to thank the team in the Office of
General Counsel, including Tom Johnson, Ashley Boizelle, Bill Richardson, and Anjali Singh.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
114
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART
Re:Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure
Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing
Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84
A few years ago, in a speech at a University of Colorado event, I called on the Federal
Communications Commission to start a proceeding on wireless infrastructure reform. I suggested that if
we want broad economic growth and widespread mobile opportunity, we need to avoid unnecessary
delays in the state and local approval process. That’s because they can slow deployment.
I believed that then. I still believe it now.
So when the FCC kicked off a rulemaking on wireless infrastructure last year, I had hopes. I
hoped we could provide a way to encourage streamlined service deployment nationwide. I hoped we
could acknowledge that we have a long tradition of local control in this country but also recognize more
uniform policies across the country will help us in the global race to build the next generation of wireless
service, known as 5G. Above all, I hoped we could speed infrastructure deployment by recognizing the
best way to do so is to treat cities and states as our partners.
In one respect, today’s order is consistent with that vision. We shorten the time frames permitted
under the law for state and local review of the deployment of small cells—an essential part of 5G
networks. I think this is the right thing to do because the shot clocks we have now were designed in an
earlier era for much bigger wireless facilities. At the same time, we retain the right of state and local
authorities to pursue court remedies under Section 332 of the Communications Act. This strikes an
appropriate balance. I appreciate that my colleagues were willing to work with me to ensure that
localities have time to update their processes to accommodate these new deadlines and that they are not
unfairly prejudiced by incomplete applications. I support this aspect of today’s order.
But in the remainder of this decision, my hopes did not pan out. Instead of working with our state
and local partners to speed the way to 5G deployment, we cut them out. We tell them that going forward
Washington will make choices for them—about which fees are permissible and which are not, about what
aesthetic choices are viable and which are not, with complete disregard for the fact that these
infrastructure decisions do not work the same in New York, New York and New York, Iowa. So it comes
down to this: three unelected officials on this dais are telling state and local leaders all across the country
what they can and cannot do in their own backyards. This is extraordinary federal overreach.
I do not believe the law permits Washington to run roughshod over state and local authority like
this and I worry the litigation that follows will only slow our 5G future. For starters, the Tenth
Amendment reserves powers to the states that are not expressly granted to the federal government. In
other words, the constitution sets up a system of dual sovereignty that informs all of our laws. To this
end, Section 253 balances the interests of state and local authorities with this agency’s responsibility to
expand the reach of communications service. While Section 253(a) is concerned with state and local
requirements that may prohibit or effectively prohibit service, Section 253(d) permits preemption only on
a case-by-case basis after notice and comment. We do not do that here. Moreover, the assertion that fees
above cost or local aesthetic requirements in a single city are tantamount to a service prohibition
elsewhere stretches the statute beyond what Congress intended and legal precedent affords.
In addition, this decision irresponsibly interferes with existing agreements and ongoing
deployment across the country. There are thousands of cities and towns with agreements for
infrastructure deployment—including 5G wireless facilities—that were negotiated in good faith. So
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
115
many of them could be torn apart by our actions here. If we want to encourage investment, upending
commitments made in binding contracts is a curious way to go.
Take San Jose, California. Earlier this year it entered into agreements with three providers for the
largest small cell-driven broadband deployment of any city in the United States. These partnerships
would lead to 4,000 small cells on city-owned light poles and more than $500 million of private sector
investment. Or take Little Rock, Arkansas, where local reforms to the permitting process have put it on
course to become one of the first cities to benefit from 5G service. Or take Troy, Ohio. This town of
under 26,000 spent time and energy to develop streamlined procedures to govern the placement,
installation, and maintenance of small cell facilities in the community. Or take Austin, Texas. It has been
experimenting with smart city initiatives to improve transportation and housing availability. As part of
this broader effort, it started a pilot project to deploy small cells and has secured agreements with multiple
providers.
This declaratory ruling has the power to undermine these agreements—and countless more just
like them. In fact, too many municipalities to count—from Omaha to Overland Park, Cincinnati to
Chicago and Los Angeles to Louisville—have called on the FCC to halt this federal invasion of local
authority. The National Governors Association and National Conference of State Legislatures have asked
us to stop before doing this damage. This sentiment is shared by the United States Conference of Mayors,
National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, and Government Finance Officers
Association. In other words, every major state and municipal organization has expressed concern about
how Washington is seeking to assert national control over local infrastructure choices and stripping local
elected officials and the citizens they represent of a voice in the process.
Yet cities and states are told to not worry because with these national policies wireless providers
will save as much as $2 billion in costs which will spur deployment in rural areas. But comb through the
text of this decision. You will not find a single commitment made to providing more service in remote
communities. Look for any statements made to Wall Street. Not one wireless carrier has said that this
action will result in a change in its capital expenditures in rural areas. As Ronald Reagan famously said,
“trust but verify.” You can try to find it here, but there is no verification. That’s because the hard
economics of rural deployment do not change with this decision. Moreover, the asserted $2 billion in cost
savings represents no more than 1 percent of investment needed for next-generation networks.
It didn’t have to be this way. So let me offer three ideas to consider going forward.
First, we need to acknowledge we have a history of local control in this country but also
recognize that more uniform policies can help us be first to the future. Here’s an idea: Let’s flip the
script and build a new framework. We can start with developing model codes for small cell and 5G
deployment—but we need to make sure they are supported by a wide range of industry and state and local
officials. Then we need to review every policy and program—from universal service to grants and low-
cost loans at the Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Transportation
and build in incentives to use these models. In the process, we can create a more common set of practices
nationwide. But to do so, we would use carrots instead of sticks.
Second, this agency needs to own up to the impact of our trade policies on 5G deployment. In
this decision we go on at length about the cost of local review but are eerily silent when it comes to the
consequences of new national tariffs on network deployment. As a result of our escalating trade war with
China, by the end of this year we will have a 25 percent duty on antennas, switches, and routers—the
essential network facilities needed for 5G deployment. That’s a real cost and there is no doubt it will
diminish our ability to lead the world in the deployment of 5G.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133
116
Finally, in this decision the FCC treats the challenge of small cell deployment with a bias toward
more regulation from Washington rather than more creative marketplace solutions. But what if instead
we focused our efforts on correcting the market failure at issue? What if instead of micromanaging costs
we fostered competition? One innovative way to do this involves dusting off our 20-year old over-the-
air-reception-device rules, or OTARD rules.
Let me explain. The FCC’s OTARD rules were designed to protect homeowners and renters
from laws that restricted their ability to set up television and broadcast antennas on private property. In
most cases they accomplished this by providing a right to install equipment on property you control—and
this equipment for video reception was roughly the size of a pizza box.
Today OTARD rules do not contemplate 5G deployment and small cells. But we could change
that by clarifying our rules. If we did, a lot of benefits would follow. By creating more siting options for
small cells, we would put competitive pressure on public rights-of-way, which could bring down fees
through competition instead of the government ratemaking my colleagues offer here. Moreover, this
approach would create more opportunities for rural deployment by giving providers more siting and
backhaul options and creating new use cases for signal boosters. Add this up and you get more
competitive, more ubiquitous, and less costly 5G deployment.
We don’t explore these market-based alternatives in today’s decision. We don’t say a thing about
the real costs that tariffs impose on our efforts at 5G leadership. And we don’t consider creative
incentive-based systems to foster deployment, especially in rural areas.
But above all we neglect the opportunity to recognize what is fundamental: if we want to speed
the way for 5G service we need to work with cities and states across the country because they are our
partners. For this reason, in critical part, I dissent.
2018 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Hermosa Beach
Wireless Facilities in Public Right
of Way
Ordinance
&
Design Standards
Lauren Langer, Assistant City Attorney
Gail A. Karish, Partner
Best Best & Krieger LLP
1/8/19 AGENDA, ITEM 5a - WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
SUPPLEMENTAL POWERPOINT PRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ON 1/8/19 AT 7:00 P.M.
Why do we need an ordinance?
Tremendous demand for wireless servicesincreased
interest to locate in the Public Right of Way (PROW)
Streaming videos, multiple devices, internet of things, smart city apps,
autonomous vehicles, etc.
Hermosa’s code is outdated and ambiguous as to whether
PROW is included in prohibition in residential zones
Carriers need different types of capacity and coverage
Small cells fill in the gaps left by macro facilities
Why do we need an ordinance?
Need to make locations available in the city
Since so much is residential, PROW is a great solution
that is in line with carriers technology-small cells
City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance
allowing small cells in the PROW-end of 2017.
Small cells in PROW are preferable
Less intrusive scale, lower output and allows distribution throughout the city
Recap on regulatory situation for local governments
CPUC mainly responsible
for rules on safety of
infrastructure.
Local governments mainly
regulate placement and
aesthetics (within limits).
Decisions must comply with
limits in state and federal law,
e.g. be based on substantial
evidence and cannot
effectively prohibit service.
FCC small cell order puts
new limits on local time for
review and on aesthetic
rules, among other things.
Wireless providers and
telephone companies have a
limited right to use the public
rights-of-way and utility
infrastructure for their
facilities.
Local Regulatory Authority for Small Cells
Cities mainly regulate placement and aesthetics (within limits).
Shall not incommode the public use of the PROW (safety, aesthetic, etc.)
Reasonable control over time, place and manner in which PROW is accessed
City can’t “effectively prohibit” wireless service by materially
inhibiting providers ability to provide service (filling serving
gaps, introduces new services, densifying capacity).
FCC small cell order puts new limits on local time for review
and on aesthetic rules, among other things.
Recap of Small Cell Order-
Establishes shorter shot clocks for processing “small wireless
facilities” applications-60 days or 90 days
Clarifies that all required authorizations included in shot clocks
Clarifies definition of “collocation”
Redefines “effective prohibition” standard
Establishes test for permitted fees, and sets out presumptively
reasonable one-time and recurring fees, including for permits, for use
of PROW and for use of government property located in PROW
Establishes test for permitted aesthetic, undergrounding and spacing
standards
Aesthetic Regulation
FCC states requirements must be:
Reasonable (“technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or
remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character
deployments”)
No more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure
deployments (treat similar installations the same way)
Objective and published in advance (“clearly-defined and ascertainable
standards applied in a principled manner”)
Aesthetic Regulation
EXAMPLES
Location
protecting historic, cultural and scenic resources.
Camouflaging
colors, painting, concealment, so long as required of other similar infrastructure as
well.
Height & Size
presumably ok so long as technically feasible and required of other similar
infrastructure as well (but note FCC definition of small wireless facility has height
and size components)
Approach to Update of Wireless Ordinance
Create a permitting process by ordinance that reflects the new
and ever changing technology
Provide Flexibility (recognizing that deployments and technology
will evolve over time, allow City to respond more nimbly)
City will establish design standards by resolution
As technology changes, City Council can more easily revise the standards
Director of Public Works can implement administrative regulations to manage the program
Reasonably Comply with FCC Order (the FCC Order has
ambiguities which require some judgements as to appropriate
interpretations)
Major Provisions in Wireless Ordinance
Definitions
Intended to be consistent with FCC Order
Scope
Applies to small cell in PROW
Existing illegal or unpermitted facilities must come in for a permit
Administration
Director of Public Works administers the Chapter and processes
applications
Appeal
Decisions can be appealed to a Hearing Officer (2 business day period to
comply with shot clock)
Major Provisions in Wireless Ordinance
Minimum Standards to guide deployment
Specifics set out in the separate design standards
Application Requirements
Public Noticing
Per CC Direction-notice provided to owners and
occupants within 300 feet
Findings for Approval
Major Provisions in Wireless Ordinance
Conditions of Approval
Permit Duration –10 Years, which is authorized under state law
Once approved, construction within one year
Operation Commenced within 90 days
City may enter and support, repair, disable or remove in an emergency
Insurance and Indemnification
Performance Bond for removal of facility
General Maintenance
Abandonment if not operated for a continuous period of 6 months
Encouraging co-location
Major Provisions in Design Standards
Meeting with applicant to walk through standards and
proposal and issue spot at the beginning
Height
Located no higher than 10% or 10 feet higher (whichever is greater)
to adjacent zoning district
Encouraged to be as small, short and unobtrusive as possible
Tradeoff is that carriers may need more locations
Camouflage and concealment requirements
Major Provisions in Draft Design Standards
Locations
On existing or replacement infrastructure such as street lights and
utility poles
Alleys-place above roof line
Walk Streets-placed below roofline
If possible, locate between structures rather than next to them
New tower only available when all existing and replacement options
have been exhausted
Monopalms and artificial trees prohibited
Major Provisions in Draft Design Standards
Antennas small, short and unobtrusive as possible
Accessory equipment enclosed in replacement poles or
underground where feasible
Electric meters, vaults and fans underground where feasible
Lighting prohibited (unless required by FAA)
Very limited signage
Landscaping required around any ground mounted equipment
Cabling and wiring should run internally
Can't use historic structures or decorative street lights
Major Provisions in Draft Design Standards
On street lights, equipment shall be in pole -top shrouds and tubular or
cyclical form
Utility poles
Equipment should match the color of the pole and be narrow
Equipment should be stacked close together on the same side of the pole
Replacement Poles
Should be in the same location as the pole being replaced, unless doesn’t meet standards and then
shall be relocated to meet standards
New Poles
New poles authorized when waiver required under 12.18.060(b) because denial would effectively
prohibit service
New pole must function for a purpose other than a wireless facility (light, utility pole
Must match dimensions and design of similar types of poles in the area
Recommended Changes to Ordinance
Section 12.18.020 Purpose.
a) The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a process for managing, and uniform
standards for acting upon, requests for the placement of wireless facilities within the
ROW of the City adjacent to all zoning districts consistent with the City’s obligation to
promote the public health, safety, and welfare, to manage the ROW, and to ensure that
the use and enjoyment of the ROW is not inconvenienced by the use of the ROW for
the placement of wireless facilities. The City recognizes the importance of wireless
facilities to provide high-quality communications service to the residents and
businesses within the City, and the City also recognizes its obligation to comply with
applicable Federal and State law regarding the placement of personal wireless services
facilities in its ROW. This Ordinance shall be interpreted consistent with those
provisions.
Recommended Changes to Ordinance
Section 12.18.070 Applications.
b) Content. An application must contain:
3) The name of the owner of the structure, if different from the
applicant, and a signed and notarized proof of owner’s
authorization for use of the structure
6) A copy of the lease or other agreement between the applicant
and the owner of the property to which the proposed facility will
be attached. Proprietary information may be redacted.
Recommended Changes to Ordinance
Section 12.18.070 Applications.
e) Rejection for Incompleteness. Wireless facility
applications will be processed, and notices of
incompleteness provided, in conformity with State, local,
and Federal law. If such an application is incomplete, it may
be rejected by the Director by may notifying the applicant
and specifying the material omitted from the application.
Recommended Changes to Ordinance
Section 12.18.090 Conditions of Approval.
3) Timing of Installation. The installation and construction
authorized by a wireless encroachment permit shall begin within
one (1) year after its approval, or it will expire without further
action by the City. The installation and construction authorized
by a wireless encroachment permit shall conclude, including any
necessary post-installation repairs and/or restoration to the
ROW, within thirty (30) ninety (90) days following the day
construction commenced.
Recommended Changes to Ordinance
Section 12.18.090 Conditions of Approval.
(4) Commencement of Operations. The operation of the
approved facility shall commence no later than ninety (90)
one hundred and eighty (180)days after the completion of
installation, or the wireless encroachment permit will expire
without further action by the City. The Permittee shall
provide Director notice that operations have commenced by
the same date.
Recommended Steps
Introduce ordinance on first reading as revised
Staff will review comments from wireless companies on
the Design Standards and bring back a revised version for
approval on consent at a future meeting
Staff will bring back at a future date a permit fee and
proposed master lease agreement for city facilities
Questions?
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0009
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE ALLOCATION OF APPROXIMATELY $71,298 OF
FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDS FOR SIDEWALK CURB RAMPS, AUTHORIZING USE
OF CDBG FUNDS FOR CONTRACTORS, AND GRANTING
THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AUTHORITY TO
SUBMIT A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
(Community Development Director Ken Robertson)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the FY 2019-20 budget resolution which:
1.Approves the FY 2019-2020 CDBG allocation of approximately $71,298;
2.Approves the allocation of approximately $71,298 of Federal CDBG funds in FY 2019-20 for
the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) sidewalk ramp project;
3.Authorizes the use of CDBG funds in FY 2019-20 for a construction contractor and a
Contract/Labor Compliance Officer to provide direct project related services, including, but not
limited to, construction management and inspections; and
4.Grants the Public Works Director authority to submit a notice of completion once work is
complete.
Executive Summary:
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is authorized under Title I of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The primary objective of Title I is to develop
viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding
economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. The CDBG program,
funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), offers communities
opportunities to compete nationally for funds to implement program activities that best meet the
needs of their communities, in accordance with the national objectives and requirements of the
CDBG program.
Approval of the Fiscal Year 2019-20 CDBG budget would allow the City to receive an allocation of
approximately $71,298 and authorize staff to proceed with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
sidewalk ramp project in the FY 2019-20. This project is part of the City’s overall effort to make its
sidewalks more ADA accessible.
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0009
Background
The Community Development Commission of the County of Los Angeles (CDC) administers CDBG
funding on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, which oversees the CDC, and 47
small participating cities throughout the County.
The CDBG Program has three primary objectives:
1.Benefit those with low- and moderate-income;
2.Aid in preventing neighborhood deterioration; and
3.Meet other urgent community development needs due to natural disasters or other
emergencies.
The CDC works closely with diverse communities and elected representatives to assess local needs
and identify funding priorities. The CDC then contracts with local agencies and organizations to
provide funding for the needed services.
Discussion:
The CDC’s administrative deadlines require City Council approval of the next FY 2019-20 CDBG
allocation amount and adoption of the FY 2019-20 budget the January before the start of the
applicable Fiscal Year. The County Community Development Commission (CDC) has estimated that
the City’s FY 2019-20 allocation will be approximately $71,298. Staff recommends that the Council
approve the use of these funds for a construction contractor and a Contract/Labor Compliance
Officer for the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) sidewalk ramp project to provide direct project
related services, including but not limited to construction management and inspections. Use of CDBG
funds currently included in the 2018-19 budget under CIP 17-687 and CIP 18-691 would also cover
design, materials and labor.
The ADA sidewalk ramp project is part of the City’s Capital Improvement Project No. 18-691 to
provide improvements and relocation of sidewalks, curb ramps and obstructions in highly traversed
areas within the City in order to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the latest federal
standards. The project would remove architectural and material barriers and provide unobstructed
paths of travel for elderly and severely disabled adults on various City sidewalks. The project would
provide for the construction of curb ramps where no curb ramps currently exist and the reconstruction
of curb ramps that are too steep, deteriorated, not wide enough or create other accessibility barriers
for severely disabled adults and/or elderly that use wheelchairs, canes, walkers or crutches.
Requisite striping and signage would also be provided.
In addition to the approval of the use of the CDBG funds granted to the City, staff recommends that
the City Council grant the Public Works Director authority to submit a notice of completion (NOC)
once the work is complete. An NOC is a legal document which, when recorded and served, shortens
the time for contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers and equipment lessors to record a
mechanics lien, serve a stop payment notice and make a payment bond claim. The NOC must be
recorded by the property owner with the Office of the County Recorder within 15 calendar days
of the actual date of completion of the project.
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0009
General Plan Consistency:
The proposed project supports the City’s General Plan Mobility Element goals to provide a public
realm that is safe, comfortable, and convenient for travel via foot, bicycle, public transit, and
automobile and creates vibrant, people oriented public spaces that encourage active living and to
provide public right-of-ways supporting a multimodal and people-oriented transportation system that
provides diversity and flexibility on how users choose to be mobile (General Plan Mobility Element
Goals 2 and 3).
The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan policies:
·2.1 Prioritize public right-of-ways. Prioritize improvements of public right-of-ways that provide
heightened levels of safe, comfortable and attractive public spaces for all non-motorized travelers
while balancing the needs of efficient vehicular circulation.
·3.1 Enhance public right-of-ways. Where right-of-way clearance allows, enhance public right-
of ways to improve connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, disabled persons, and public transit
stops.
·3.2 Complete pedestrian network. Prioritize investment in designated priority sidewalks to
ensure a complete network of sidewalks and pedestrian-friendly amenities that enhances
pedestrian safety, access opportunities and connectivity to destinations.
·3.10 Require ADA standards.Require that all public right-of-ways be designed per Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards by incorporating crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals,
and other components to provide ease of access for disabled persons.
Fiscal Impact:
There will be no impact to the City’s General Fund. The City currently has two ADA sidewalk curb
ramp projects, CIP 17-687 for $150,000 and CIP 18-691 for $120,000. The 2019-20 CDBG allocation
of approximately $71,298 and any unexpended prior year allocations will be appropriated to CIP 18-
691 with the 2019-20 Budget. Staff will bring specific project locations back to the City Council with
the 2019-20 Capital Improvement Project budget.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Approving FY 2019-20 Budget
2. CIP-33 - 18-691 ADA Improvements - Various Locations.pdf
Respectfully Submitted by:Nicole Ellis, Associate Planner
Concur: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director
Concur: Glen W.C. Kau, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Noted for Fiscal Impact:Viki Copeland, Finance Director
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
1
RESOLUTION NO. 19-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 ALLOCATION
AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $71,298 AND ALLOCATION OF
APPROXIMATELY $71,298 OF FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 FEDERAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FOR
SIDEWALK CURB RAMPS, AUTHORIZING USE OF CDBG FUNDS
FOR CONTRACTORS, AND GRANTING THE PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF COMPLETION.
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. The County’s Community Development Commission staff has
estimated that the City’s CDBG allocation for the 2019-2020 Fiscal Year will be
approximately $71,298.
SECTION 2. The City Council, pursuant to applicable law, held a duly noticed
public hearing on January 8, 2019 to consider the proposed CDBG allocation and
budget and consider a project utilizing funds from the foregoing CDBG allocation, at
which hearing testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and
considered by the Council.
SECTION 3. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby:
1. Approves the FY 2019-2020 CDBG allocation of approximately $71,298; and
2. Approves the proposed CDBG program budget for the 2019-2020 Fiscal Year
and instructs staff to submit the CDBG Program Planning Summary for approval
to the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission;
3. Authorizes staff to adjust the program budget as necessary to take into account
the final CDBG allocation from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and any amounts remaining unspent at the close of the
Fiscal Year; and
4. Directs staff to submit the required documentation for approval to the Los
Angeles County Community Development Commission; and
5. Approves the allocation of approximately $71,298 of FY 2019-20 Federal
Community Development Block Grant funds for the construction or reconstruction
of sidewalk curb ramps to meet ADA standards through removal of architectural
and material barriers and providing for unobstructed paths of travel for elderly
and severely disabled adults within the City;
6. Authorizes the use of CDBG funds for a construction contractor and a
Contract/Labor Compliance Officer to provide direct project related services
including but not limited to construction management and inspections; and
2
7. Grants the Public Works Director authority to submit a notice of completion once
work is complete.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. This
Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The City Clerk shall
certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, shall cause the original of the
same to be entered among the original resolutions of the City Council, and shall make a
minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the minutes of the City Council meeting
at which the same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th day of January, 2019 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________________________________________
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk City Attorney
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 2018-19
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY NO.: ACCOUNT NO.:
CATEGORY: Street and Highway Improvements 140-8691-4201
PROJECT NO./TITLE: CIP 18-691 ADA Improvements at Various Locations
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project proposes:
Improvements and relocation of sidewalks, curb
ramps and obstructions in highly traversed areas
within the City in order to follow the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and meet the latest Federal
Standards.
STATUS:
MAINTENANCE:
No additional maintenance required.
COST TO COMPLETE PROJECT REMAINING PRIOR YEAR FUNDS
Construction $100,000
Contingency $10,000
Construction Management and Inspection $10,000
CURRENT REQUEST
140 CDBG Funds $120,000
PROJECT TOTAL: $120,000 TOTAL FY 18-19 CIP FUNDING: $120,000
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0006
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
APPROVAL TO IMPLEMENT THE VENDINI ONLINE
TICKETING SERVICE FOR THE COMMUNITY THEATER
AND 2ND STORY THEATER; AND RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
A PER TICKET SERVICE FEE AND A SETUP FEE FOR ITS
USE BY RENTERS OF THE COMMUNITY THEATER
AND 2ND STORY THEATER FACILITIES
(Community Resources Manager Kelly Orta)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1.Approve the implementation of the Vendini online ticketing service for the Community Theater
and 2nd Story Theater; and
2.Approve the resolution establishing a per ticket service fee; and a setup fee for Vendini’s use
by renters of the Community Theater and 2nd Story Theater facilities.
Executive Summary:
The City of Hermosa Beach currently manages and oversees the Community Theater and 2nd Story
Theater facilities,both hosts to a variety of live-stage performances and other events.These events
are produced privately with users renting the facility and paying for technical staff and applicable
equipment on an hourly basis.The City does not manage ticket sales and each individual renter is
responsible for its own ticket management.Over the years,in speaking with event curators who
lease the theater facilities and through research of similar theaters,staff has learned that adding
ticket sales and management services would benefit both the City,the facility users,and patrons.
Staff researched various online ticketing platform and determined Vendini to be the most beneficial
program,providing options to enhance reporting,enhanced professionalism to the venue,and
improved experience of all users and guests.Incorporating an online ticketing service provides the
City a revenue generation opportunity through a per ticket service fee and a vendor setup fee to
recover staff-time costs.Staff recommends Council approve implementation of the Vendini online
ticketing service for the Community Theater and 2nd Story Theater,approve the resolution
establishing a per ticket service fee,and a setup fee for Vendini’s use by renters of the Community
Theater and 2nd Story Theater facilities.
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 1 of 8
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0006
Background:
The City of Hermosa Beach currently manages and oversees the 503-seat Community Theater and
99-seat 2nd Story Theater facilities,both hosts to a variety of live-stage performances and other
events.These facilities are available through private reservation at hourly facility use and technical
staff fee charges,as well as various one-time fees for equipment depending on the performance
needs of each renter.Currently,the City does not manage ticket sales for any event and each
individual renter is responsible for its own ticket management.As a result,it is difficult for the City to
effectively promote upcoming productions or maintain adequate event attendance data given the
various ticketing and payment methods used by event producers.In an effort to provide additional
services to both facility users and guests,staff began researching online ticketing platforms that
could be easily implemented.Vendini was found to be the most beneficial and well-rounded,online
service.
Analysis:
After analyzing several similar online ticketing services in addition to those used independently by
current facility users,staff recommends Vendini because of its ease of use for both the user and staff
on the backend;the real-time transparency and reporting options available;the company’s flexibility
in providing a unique service that best suits the different theater facilities;its marketing and promotion
opportunities;and the potential for an added revenue source for the facility.Vendini provides a
secure,online ticketing service for theater patrons to purchase event tickets for any upcoming event,
allowing the City to provide this additional service to facility users while also providing an additional
revenue source to the City.The Vendini virtual box office is hosted independently and can be
accessed through a link from the City’s website.
Features
Vendini has many features that benefit city staff,facility renters,and theater patrons;optimizing both
customer service and the experience of theater guests. These features are outlined below:
Dedicated Venue Webpage
Administrative staff can customize and update the venue webpage at any time.It is user-friendly
and has an ease of use that allows flexibility and real-time updates without utilizing a lot of staff
time.Pictures of the venue can be included,updated and customized to each event’s production.
Additionally,staff has the ability to include design elements from the City’s webpage,visually
aligning the Vendini webpage look to the City’s,highlighting brand congruence and emphasizing
to theater-goers that it is a service hosted by the City,which is important for customer confidence.
A screenshot of a test page is included below,which depicts the seating area in the background
and a similar header on the page matching those on the City’s current official webpage:
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 2 of 8
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0006
Image 1: Venue Webpage (test page)
Ticketing Options
Similar to other purchases made online,guests are able to have access to virtual tickets or the
option to print them.This eliminates the need to print paper tickets for all seats in the theater,
which can be a wasteful expense if patrons are open to providing virtual tickets for access.Virtual
ticketing allows a more accessible means to purchase tickets,through a 24 hour a day,7 days a
week availability.This convenience is a great advantage for many event producers who solely rely
on phone orders or in-person ticket exchange on select dates prior to the event.
Additionally,Vendini allows flexibility to offer pre-sale ticket promotions will little to no effort for
setup online.This added option provides promotional opportunities to users to increase the
number of patrons attending events.Lastly,users are also able to set up the option to have
assigned seating,available to patrons at the time of purchase.The Vendini team is able to create
a virtual seating chart,allowing patrons to select their desired seating when paying for their
tickets.This service will only be available for the Community Theater due to the various and
ongoing seating changes made in the 2nd Story Theater facility.
Marketing & Promotion Opportunities
Vendini has several options available that allow additional promotional opportunities to users of
the service.Through staff-assigned “tags”for each show entered into the system,staff can share
information on similar shows at the time of ticket purchase in order to cross market shows.
Additionally,staff can create a promotional prompt that will appear for all purchases,outlining
upcoming events,activities,or even important facility or City information.This can be customized
at any time and has the added option of having this information printed on the bottom of each
ticket.In addition to promotional and marketing opportunities,discount codes can be issued asCity of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 3 of 8
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0006
ticket.In addition to promotional and marketing opportunities,discount codes can be issued as
well as promotional codes.
Reports
One of the advantageous functions of Vendini is its reporting capabilities in a secure and
controllable environment,allowing the City to provide secure and limited access for facility users
to track ticket sales and print reports at any time.Staff would create a unique login for each facility
user and can limit this access to only the user’s events.Staff can easily generate reports on event
types,staff-created “tag”categories,and other queries to generate valuable facility usage
information.Additionally,the program provides real-time tracking and reporting of attendees,
which sometimes can be difficult to acquire from each renter.
Agreement Terms & Fees
The proposed agreement with Vendini (Attachment 1)is for a three-year term.The agreement
allows the City to discontinue service at any time following a 30-day notice of intent to terminate after
the first 13 months,without penalty.If approved for implementation,there is a one-time initial cost of
$1,500.11 payable to Vendini for the following setup services:
·Account setup;
·Software and credit card equipment for the facility Box Offices (if necessary); and
·Venue map construction (Community Theater only)
Ongoing Vendini service fees,which cover software maintenance,will be paid by patrons purchasing
tickets and included at the time of purchase;the City will not be required to pay Vendini following the
initial setup costs.This service fee is $1.00 +2.5%of the ticket value.Further,the City has the
ability to add an additional service fee,which staff recommends to be priced at $1.50.This fee would
also be applied to each ticket sold and will also be charged at the time of purchase,provided to the
City for its oversight and management of the program.This recommendation is based on several
factors including a desire to align with,as much as possible,the cost of Vendini’s fees;efforts to keep
the fee as low as possible against these newly implemented service fees to those purchasing tickets;
and a desire to follow industry standards with other similar theater facilities’overall service fee prices.
Each fee is itemized on receipts for transparency to the buyer.The same service fees are charged
regardless of the means of payment (i.e.online,box office,etc.).Table 1 below includes a breakdown
of fees for various ticket prices, applying the above-mentioned service fees:
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 4 of 8
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0006
Table 1: Service Fee Breakdowns
Ticket
Cost
Vendini Service Fee
$1 + 2.5%
City Fee
$1.50
Total Ticket Cost
Total
Service Fees
$10
$1.25
$1.50
$12.75
$2.25
$20
$1.50
$1.50
$23
$3.00
$50
$2.25
$1.50
$53.75
$3.75
The fees listed above do not include the City’s 2.75%Credit Card Service Fee,which is currently
applied to any credit card purchase made payable to the City.Additionally,all service fees are
required regardless of the purchase method (i.e.online,in-person,etc.).The anticipated revenue
from the $1.50 per ticket service fee is approximately $32,941.50 of additional revenue if all facility
users utilize the Vendini service.This total is calculated using facility attendance figures from 2018,
which include an estimated total of 18,200 for the Community Theater and 3,761 for the 2nd Story
Theater.
As a result of some existing event producers having their own preferred method for tickets sales,staff
does not propose requiring the use of Vendini for all events,however,will revisit this option in the
future.Since there is staff time associated with the setup of each event as well as the time
necessary to work with each user to finalize each events’ticket details,staff is further recommending
a $50 setup fee for cost recovery efforts,charged to the renter of the facility.If all users of the
facilities were to use Vendini,using the 2018 figures as an estimate,there would be additional
revenue of $4,050 for the setup fee.
Comparisons to Similar Online Ticketing Programs
Throughout staff’s research in providing an online ticketing program that meets the current needs of
the facility;provides a high-level of flexibility and customization;and offers fully accessible and
comprehensive reporting options,Vendini was found to be far superior and inclusive of all desired
features.While there are similar programs available,none provide a comprehensive approach as
Vendini.Additionally,Vendini service fees are comparable to other programs and in several cases,is
a lower cost.Table 2 includes a comparison of these service fees amongst comparable programs in
addition to their limitations in comparison to Vendini.
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 5 of 8
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0006
Table 2: Comparisons with Similar Online Ticketing Programs
Program
Service Fee s
(per ticket)
*Cost of
Service Fee
for
$20 ticket
Limitations
Vendini
$1 + 2.5% of ticket value
$1.50
Arts People
$0.25 -$1.25
$0.25 -$1.25
1.
Inability to create
subaccounts .
2.
Not user -friendly
on
the backend or for
generating reports.
Brown Paper
Tickets
$0.99
+ 3.5%
of ticket value
$1.69
1.
Features and
functionality
are
for
single
events and
not for venue
management.
Eventbrite
$1.59
+ 3.5%
of ticket value
$2.29
1.
Features and
functionality
are
for
single
events and
not for venue
management.
Paypal
$0.30
+ 2.9%
of ticket value
$0.88
1.
Not a ticketing
platform and
therefore does not
offer features or
reporting
capabilities.
*These costs do not include the additional City fee, as included in Table 1 of this report. The City fee
was omitted for ease of comparison purposes in this table.
The programs included in Table 2 were analyzed and compared due to several factors including:
·Their current utilization by facility users for their independent ticket processing (Brown Paper
Tickets, Eventbrite and Paypal); and
·Programs are utilized by surrounding theater facilities (Arts People and Vendini).
In addition to the programs listed in the table,staff also completed preliminary research into two
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 6 of 8
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0006
In addition to the programs listed in the table,staff also completed preliminary research into two
additional programs that,very early in the process,were found to be less than ideal for a variety of
reasons.Choice Entertainment Technologies (Choice CRM)was reviewed due to its use by the
Armstrong Theatre in Torrance.While this program is dedicated for use by theatre venues,it was
found to be less user-friendly than Vendini,which would result in additional staff time for ongoing
management and event generation.Additionally,staff reviewed PatronManager due to its current use
at the Warner Grand Theatre in San Pedro.Initial estimates included $10,000 for initial setup of the
program.Considering the affordability of more suitable programs at a lower cost,staff did not
analyze this program any further.
Attachment 2 includes the resolution to establish the per-ticket service fee and setup fee.
General Plan Consistency:
This report and associated recommendations have been evaluated for their consistency with the
City’s General Plan. Relevant policies are listed below:
·Governance Goal 1.A high degree of transparency and integrity in the decision-making
process.
o 1.10 -Record systems and technology.Maintain record systems and utilize technology
that promotes public access.
·Governance Goal 3. Excellent customer service through the use of emerging technologies.
o 3.1 -Increased access to services.Strive to provide access to facilities,programs,and
services at times and locations that are convenient for residents and businesses.
o 3.4 -Virtual public counter.As feasible,establish a “virtual”public counter through an
online permitting system.
Fiscal Impact:
Staff estimates additional revenue of approximately $36,991.50 from the combined setup and the per
-ticket service fees as further discussed in the analysis section above.If approved,revenue from the
ticket service fee and setup fee would be estimated with the Midyear Budget.Additionally,staff
estimates the total costs of the initial start up to be approximately $3,000,which includes the initial
Vendini cost,the purchase of two iPads for both Box Offices,and two iPod touches for ticket
scanning purposes at each facility.Funds are available in the Community Resource Department’s
Contract Services account.
Attachments:
1. Vendini Member Services Agreement
2. Resolution 19-xxx Establishing Per Ticket and Setup Fees
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 7 of 8
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0006
Respectfully Submitted by: Kelly Orta, Community Resources Manager
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director
Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/3/2019Page 8 of 8
powered by Legistar™
Vendini Member Service Agreement – Page 1
MEMBER SERVICE AGREEMENT
1. Parties
This Member Service Agreement (“MSA” or “Agreement”) is entered into between Vendini, Inc. located at 660 Market Street,
San Francisco, CA 94104, ("Vendini") and City of Hermosa Beach (“Member”) located at following address 1315 Valley Drive,
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 as of the date of the last party to sign this MSA (the “Effective Date”). The pricing terms set forth via
proposal #50660 constitute an integral part of this MSA and together with this MSA set forth the commercial arrangements
between the parties.
2. Introduction and Definitions
Vendini operates an online service, consisting of ticketing, event, patron management and website services provided by Vendin i,
and by third parties (collectively, the "Services"). "Events" are any events, activities, or resources to which Member is authorized
to sell or provide access. "Tickets" are any and all forms of tickets, reservations, tuitions, memberships, certificates, cou pons,
merchandise, or confirmations that allow the holder access to, participation in, or use of Member events. "Patron" refers to any
person or organization committing to the purchase of Tickets. Unless otherwise specified, each and every reference to a monet ary
amount in this Agreement means United States dollars.
3. Term
Subject to early termination rights as set forth in Section 15, the term of this MSA shall commence on the Effective Date and
continue through the three (3) year anniversary of the initial sale of Tickets. This Agreement will expire at the end of the term
unless renewed by a written amendment to this Agreement.
4. Changes in Terms and Conditions
Vendini has the right to change or discontinue any aspect or feature of the Services that it makes available to its customers
generally, including, but not limited to, content, hours of availability, and equipment needed for access or use, at any time .
Vendini shall provide the Services to Member in the form that Vendini makes such Services generally available from time to time
during the term of this Agreement. Vendini may update or change the Services or change or modify the terms and conditions
applicable to Member's use of the Services, or any part thereof, or to impose new conditions. Such changes, modifications,
additions or deletions shall be effective immediately upon notice thereof, which may be given by means including, but not
limited to, posting on the Services, or by electronic or conventional mail, or by any other means by which Member obtains notice
thereof. Any use of the Services by Member subsequent to such notice shall be deemed to constitute acceptance by Member of
such changes, modifications or additions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event a material aspect or feature of the Services
needs to be changed or discontinued, Vendini shall use reasonable efforts to provide Member with 30 days prior notice to such
change or discontinuance. In the event of a material change in the terms of this MSA that adversely affects Member, Member
shall have the right to terminate the Agreement immediately and without penalty.
5. Exclusivity
Member agrees that Vendini shall have the exclusive right during the term of this Agreement to provide ticketing, event and
patron management services to Member via any and all means and methods where City of Hermosa Beach has control. For
events not exclusively produced by the City of Hermosa Beach, Member can reserve the right to use other third party
platforms.Member shall not directly or indirectly engage any third party to provide services that are the same or similar to those
services provided by Vendini hereunder. This exclusive right shall include all future methods and technologies for ticket
distribution which may be developed from time to time during the term of this Agreement. Member specifically acknowledges
and agrees that this exclusive relationship is an essential element of the agreement with Vendini an d that a breach of this
provision will result in damages to Vendini, which are impossible to ascertain. Accordingly, if Member terminates this
Vendini Member Service Agreement – Page 2
Agreement without cause prior to the expiration of the initial Term, after the first year of service and provided that Vendini has
not materially changed the terms and conditions of this MSA pursuant to Section 4, Member agrees to pay Vendini as liquidate d
damages and not as a penalty an early termination fee equal to the highest grossing fee month multiplied by the number of
months remaining in the applicable term but not less than five-thousand dollars ($5,000).
6. Conduct of Member
(a) Interests; Ownership
Member is a producer, promoter, presenter, or manager of events. Under this Agreement, Member contracts wi th Vendini to
provide the Services. Member represents and warrants to Vendini that it has full power and authority to enter into this Agree ment
and to offer, sell, and honor the tickets to the Events it offers via the Services. Member acknowledges that Vendini owns all
right, title and interest in and to the Services. Member shall not be entitled to: (i) rent, lease, copy, provide access to o r sublicense
the Services to a third party or use the Services to provide a service to a third-party; (ii) incorporate the Services into any other
offering (whether software as a service or otherwise); (iii) reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise seek to o btain
the source code or APIs to the Services, (iv) modify the Services or create any derivative pro duct from any of the foregoing, (v)
remove or obscure any product identification, proprietary, copyright or other notices contained in the Services (including an y
reports or data printed from the Services), or (vi) publicly disparage the performance of the Services.
(b) Responsibility of Member
Member agrees to accept, honor, and fulfill ticketing commitments that have been confirmed by the Services. Verification of
customer name, address, customer number, membership status and/or confirmation number at o r prior to the corresponding Event
is the responsibility of the Member.
(c) Lawful Use
Member shall use the Services for lawful purposes only. Member shall not post or transmit through the Services any material
which: (i) violates or infringes in any way upon the rights of others; (ii) is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of
privacy or publicity rights, vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise objectionable; (iii) encourages conduct that would constit ute a
criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any law; or (iv) contains advertising or any solicitation with
respect to products or services, unless Vendini shall have expressly approved such material in advance of its transmission. A ny
conduct by a Member that in Vendini's discretion restricts, inhibits or negatively impacts any third party's use of the Services is
expressly prohibited.
(d) Uploading Of Intellectual Property
Member shall not upload, post, or otherwise make available through the Services any material protected by copyright, trademark,
or other proprietary right, without the express written permission of the owner of the copyright, trademark, or other proprie tary
right, and the burden of determining that any material is not protected by copyright rests with Member. Without limiting the
application of Section 8, Member shall be solely liable for, and shall indemnify and hold Vendini and its business partners, third-
party suppliers and providers, licensors, officers, directors, employees, distribu tors and agents harmless against any damage
resulting from any infringement of copyrights, proprietary rights, or any other harm resulting from such a submission. By
making material available through the Services, Member automatically grants, or warrants that the owner of such material has
expressly granted Vendini the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify,
adapt, publish, translate, and distribute such material (in whole or in part) worldwide and/o r to incorporate it in other works
solely in furtherance of providing the Services to Member. Member hereby grants Vendini the right to copy, publish, and
distribute any material made available on the Services by Member for the purpose of providing the Services to Member.
(e) Email Marketing
Member represents, covenants, and warrants that it will use the email marketing tools provided in the Services only in
compliance with the Agreement, the federal CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, the Canadian law commonly known as Canada’s Anti-
Vendini Member Service Agreement – Page 3
Spam Legislation, and all other applicable laws (including but not limited to policies and laws related to spamming, privacy,
obscenity, or defamation and child protective email address registry laws). Member agrees that it is solely res ponsible for
compliance with such laws and will maintain necessary policies, procedures, records and other documentation that may be
necessary to establish compliance with such laws. Member will cooperate with Vendini, at the Member’s own expense, in
responding to any regulatory investigation or proceeding in relation to Member’s use of the email marketing tools provided in the
Services, including without limitation, by producing all policies, procedures, records and other documentation necessary to
establish compliance with applicable laws. Member agrees that it will not access or otherwise use third -party mailing lists in
connection with preparing or distributing unsolicited email to any third party. If required by applicable law, Member will en sure
that it has the express consent (in the form and manner required by such applicable law) of the intended recipient of an email
prior to sending email to that recipient using the email marketing tools provided in the Services. Member will not alter, dis able,
disrupt, or otherwise interfere with any unsubscribe mechanism used in the email marketing tools provided in the Services.
Member will give effect to any unsubscribe request that the Member receives other than through the email marketing tools
provided in the Services within 10 days of receipt by amending the Patron record by turning off updates. Without limiting the
application of Section 8, Member agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Vendini and its business partners, third -party
suppliers and providers, licensors, officers, directors, employees, distributors and agents against any damages, losses, liabilities,
administrative monetary penalties, settlements, and expenses (including without limitation costs and reasonable attorneys' fe es) in
connection with any claim, action, regulatory investigation, or other proceeding that arises from an alleged violation of the
foregoing or otherwise arising from or relating to Member's use of the Services. Although Vendini has no obligation to monit or
the content provided by Member in connection with its use of the Services, Vendini may do so and may remove any such content
or prohibit any use of the Services that Vendini believes may be (or is alleged to be) in violation of the foregoing. Patron email
addresses provided to Vendini may be used by Vendini in accordance with Vendini’s then-current privacy policies as described at
www.vendini.com/privacy.
(f) Non-Disclosure and Other Restrictions
Vendini's "confidential information" means any and all products provided by Vendini hereunder and information concerning any
aspect of Vendini's business or proposed business not generally known to persons not associated with Vendini that is: (i)
disclosed and designated to Member in writing, or (ii) disclosed orally and designated "confidential" in writing by Vendini within
thirty (30) days after such oral disclosure. Vendini's confidential information includes, without limitation, information con cerning
Vendini's products, proposed products, product designs, manufacturing processes and techniques, trade secrets, business strategy,
and results from the evaluation and/or services hereunder.
Member's "confidential information" means any information concerning Member's venue or business not generally known to
persons not associated with the Member that is: (i) disclosed and designated to Vendini in writing, or (ii) disclosed orally and
designated "confidential" in writing by Member within thirty (30) days after such oral disclosure.
Each party agrees to not disclose or make use of, or allow others to use, any of other party's confidential information, except to
such party's employees and representatives who have a "need to know" in order to conduct the evaluation and/or services
described above.
Each party shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of other party's confidential
information. Each party shall, at other party's request, promptly return any materials and copies of confidential information
provided by such party.
Neither party shall be under any obligation, with respect to any particular item of confidential information, when such party can
document that such item of information: (i) is publicly known and available not due to such party's act or failure to act, or (ii) was
in such party's possession prior to disclosure by the other party as evidenced by a written instrument, or (iii) comes into such
party's possession through a third party free of any obligation of confidence to other party, or (iv) is disclosed by such pa rty with
the other party's prior written approval.
7. Limitations
(a) Limitations on Liability.
VENDINI’S LIABILITY HEREUNDER SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT PAID BY MEMBER TO VENDINI
Vendini Member Service Agreement – Page 4
DURING THE THREE (3) MONTH PERIOD BEFORE THE ACTION AROSE. VENDINI SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR
(A) ANY LOSS OF USE, LOSS OF DATA, OR INTERRUPTION OF BUSINESS OR (B) ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL,
INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OF ANY KIND (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
LOST PROFITS), REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OR ACTION, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF VENDINI HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. MEMBER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THESE LIMITATIONS ARE AN ESSENTIAL
ELEMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND ABSENT SUCH LIMITATIONS, VENDINI WOULD NOT ENTER INTO THIS
AGREEMENT.
THIS DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY APPLIES TO ANY DAMAGES OR INJURY CAUSED BY ANY FAILURE OF
PERFORMANCE, ERROR, OMISSION, INTERRUPTION, DELETION, DEFECT, DELAY IN OPERATION OR
TRANSMISSION, COMPUTER VIRUS, COMMUNICATION LINE FAILURE, THEFT OR DESTRUCTION OR
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO, ALTERATION OF, OR USE OF RECORD, WHETHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT,
TORTIOUS BEHAVIOR, NEGLIGENCE, OR UNDER ANY OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION.
(b) Use Is At Member's Risk
Member expressly agrees that use of the Services is at Member's own risk. Member shall be responsible for protecting the
confidentiality of Member's password(s), and for all activity that takes place using such passwords. Member acknowledges that
Vendini does not commit to supporting or specifying any particular browsing or operating platform.
(c) Disclaimer of Warranties
THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OTHER THAN THOSE WARRANTIES WHICH
ARE IMPLIED BY AND INCAPABLE OF EXCLUSION, RESTRICTION OR MODIFICATION UNDER THE LAWS
APPLICABLE TO THIS AGREEMENT. NEITHER VENDINI, ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
EMPLOYEES, SHAREHOLDERS, AGENTS, THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS OR LICENSORS, WARRANT THAT THE
SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE; NOR DO THEY MAKE ANY WARRANTY AS TO THE
RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM USE OF THE SERVICES, OR AS TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY
OR CONTENT OF ANY INFORMATION, SERVICE, OR MERCHANDISE PROVIDED THROUGH THE SERVICES.
(d) Member's Waiver of Damages
IN NO EVENT WILL VENDINI, OR ANY PERSON OR ENTITY INVOLVED IN CREATING, PRODUCING, OR
DISTRIBUTING THE SERVICES BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR
PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE
SERVICES.
IN ADDITION TO THE TERMS SET FORTH ABOVE, NEITHER, VENDINI, NOR ITS AFFILIATES, INFORMATION
PROVIDERS, OR CONTENT PARTNERS SHALL BE LIABLE REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE OR DURATION, FOR
ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OMISSIONS, OR OTHER DEFECTS IN, OR UNTIMELINESS OR INTERRUPTION IN
THE TRANSMISSION THEREOF TO A PATRON, OR FOR ANY CLAIMS OR LOSSES ARISING THEREFROM OR
OCCASIONED THEREBY. NONE OF THE FOREGOING PARTIES SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY THIRD-PARTY
CLAIMS OR LOSSES OF ANY NATURE. INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOST PROFITS, PUNITIVE OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.
Because some jurisdictions do not allow for the exclusion of damages, Vendini's liability in such jurisdictions will be limited to
the greatest extent permitted by the law of such jurisdiction. In such jurisdictions, Member agrees that in no event will Ven dini's
liability to Member in connection with Vendini's provision of the Services and the terms of this Agreement exceed the amount
paid by Member to Vendini in the six months immediately preceding the event which gave rise to such liability. In addition,
because some jurisdictions do not permit the disclaimer of certain warranties, the disclaimers set forth in this Section 7 may not
apply to you.
Vendini Member Service Agreement – Page 5
8. Indemnification
Member agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Vendini, its affiliates and their respective directors, officers,
shareholders, employees, agents, and assigns from and against all claims, settlements, administrative monetary penalties and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of Member's use of the Services, including without limitation any dispute be tween
Member and any guest or ticket holder of Member or any investigation or proceeding commenced by a governmental or
regulatory authority. Without limiting the foregoing, Member agrees to defend Vendini, provided that Vendini promptly notifie s
Member of any such claim, administrative monetary penalty, investigation, proceeding or expense, cooperates with such defense
at Member's expense, and Vendini allows Member control of the defense. Vendini shall have the right, but not the obligation, to
be represented by counsel of its choice and to participate in the defense of the claim, administrative monetary penalty,
investigation or proceeding; provided, however, that the expense of such counsel and such participation shall be borne by
Vendini.
Vendini agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Member, its affiliates and their respective officers, employees, agents,
and assigns from and against all claims, settlements, administrative monetary penalties and expenses, including attorneys' fees,
arising out of Vendini’s negligent or wrongful conduct in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, including,
without limitation, liability for copyright infringement. Without limiting the foregoing, Vendini agrees to defend Member,
provided that Member promptly notifies Vendini of any such claim, administrative monetary penalty, investigation, proceeding
or expense, cooperates with such defense at Vendini's expense, and Member allows Vendini control of the defense. Member shall
have the right, but not the obligation, to be represented by counsel of its choice and to participate in the defense of the claim,
administrative monetary penalty, investigation or proceeding; provided, however, that the expense of such counsel and such
participation shall be borne by Member.
9. Fees and Charges; Merchant Accounts
(a) General
For its services, Vendini applies transaction fees to Member's account, which are covered (i) entirely by Member, (ii) entirely by
Patron, or (iii) by a combination of Member and Patron. A complete breakdown of transaction fees is available in Member's
account section immediately after account has been upgraded to live mode. All sales, fees, and funds are payable in U.S. doll ars.
A complete schedule of fees, account activity, and reserve details are provided in Member's account.
(b) Upfront Fees
Member shall pay any upfront fees before the Services are upgraded to live mode. Vendini will communicate details of upfront
fees to Member in proposal #50660.
(c) Ongoing Fees
Ongoing fees for products and services will be communicated to Member from Vendini in proposal #50660. Ongoing fees
are posted in Member's Account Information under Financials immediately after the account has been upgraded to live
mode. Vendini shall have the right to set-off amounts that may be owing by Member to Vendini against amounts that are
payable by Vendini to Member.
(d) Merchant Accounts
Member may elect to have its Patrons purchase Tickets through Member's merchant account (“MMA”) or through Vendini's
merchant account (“VMA”) for either website and/or retail transactions. If Member has elected to have its Patrons purchase
Tickets through VMA, such Tickets are considered to be Vendini inventory, which Vendini sells to Patrons as part of a direct
retail transaction with such Patron.
Vendini Member Service Agreement – Page 6
(e) Credit Card Processing Failover Service
Vendini will provide credit card processing failover service through the VMA in the event Member’s credit card gateway,
Member’s merchant processor, and/or Member’s merchant bank is unavailable or unable to handle credit card
processing. Vendini will charge 3.5% of the transaction for this service, provided that Member may opt out of this service at any
time.
(f) Daily Fee Collection - Member’s Merchant Account
Member agrees that Vendini may deduct all fees and charges via ACH debit (or international equivalent) from the Member's
business checking account for all website and/or retail transactions. Member must have a business checking account. Activatio n
may take up to 7 business days. Member agrees to execute any instruments required by Vendini to give effect to daily fee
collection.
Vendini will initiate an ACH debit to Member's business checking account 2 business days after transactions occur to collect fees
and payments due to Vendini. Vendini will wait until the collection amount is greater than or equal to $25.00 before collecting.
An outstanding balance of less than $25.00 will be collected on a monthly basis.
Member agrees that there will be sufficient funds in Member's business checking account at time of collection. Member agrees
that Vendini will not be held responsible for charges incurred due to insufficient funds. In the event funds are not availabl e in
Member's checking account at time of collection, Vendini will attempt to draft again the next business day. A fee of $25.00 will
be assessed for each transaction if funds are not available.
Vendini can accommodate monthly billing if required of city entities. Vendini will bill member on a monthly basis via invoice .
Member agrees to issue A Purchase Order Number must be submitted no later than 5 days after date of invoice.
Delinquent accounts are subject to termination of Member's account.
(g) Weekly Disbursement and Fee Collection – Vendini Merchant Account
If applicable, Member agrees that Vendini may deposit credit card revenues collected via Vendini's merchant account less any
fees or charges via ACH credit to Member's business checking account. Should any fees or charges exceed credit card revenues,
Member agrees that Vendini will deduct fees via ACH debit (or international equivalent) from Member's business checking
account. Member must have a business checking account. Activation may take up to 7 business days. Member agrees to execute
any instruments required by Vendini to give effect to weekly disbursement and fee collection.
Disbursements and fee collections for events dates that have occurred will be reconciled with Member's checking account the
Wednesday following the event date, unless the event date occurs on a Monday or Tuesday. If the event date occurs on a Monday
or Tuesday, reconciliation will be made the following Wednesday. If Wednesday is a day on which banks are closed in the
United States or the country in which the Member is located, reco nciliation will occur on the next business day after the Holiday
if reconciliation is due.
Reserves are held to cover any applicable refunds, chargebacks, related charges, or fees due. A minimum reserve of 5% of
disbursements will be held at the time an Event is settled and will be paid out on the next disbursement cycle following 90 days
past the settlement date less refunds, chargebacks, related charges, or fees due.
(h) Monthly Disbursement and Fee Collection
If Member has elected to have its Patrons purchase Tickets using VMA, and has not opted for Weekly Disbursement and Fee
Collection, disbursements will be made by check. For all transactions processed with VMA, Vendini will issue payments to
Member on a monthly basis, on the closest business day after the 30th of the month or the last day of the month (whichever
occurs first.) Payments will include credit card revenues collected through VMA as of 11:59:59PM Pacific Time on the 20th day
of the month for Events where the Event date has passed, less any fees or charges. Checks will be mailed via United States Postal
Service First Class Mail to the address provided in the Member account section.
Vendini Member Service Agreement – Page 7
Should the amount of authorized fees or charges exceed the amount of revenues collected, Member's account may be subject to
suspension or termination.
A service fee of $10/month applies and will be deducted from each disbursement.
A reserve may be held to cover any applicable refunds, chargebacks, related charges, or fees due. A reserve of up to 10% of
disbursements may be held at the time an Event is settled and will be paid out on the next disbursement cycle following 90 days
past the settlement date less refunds, chargebacks, related charges, or fees due.
If for any reason a check needs to be re-issued, Vendini will cancel original check and re-issue a new check on the billing cycle
following 6 weeks from original issue date.
(i) Cancellations and Refunds for Transactions using VMA
Vendini may choose to process the refund on any credit card chargebacks init iated by Patrons through their credit card issuing
bank if there is no prompt amicable resolution.
Vendini is authorized to deduct these costs from Member's outstanding balance, or invoice Member for the costs if no balance
exists. Vendini reserves the right to withhold up to 100% of disputed booking revenues for any event for a period up to 180 days
after the event occurs, to allow all returns and disputed charges to clear processing.
VENDINI WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR MONETARY LOSS DUE TO FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS
PROCESSED THROUGH THE VENDINI SERVICE. FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO CREDIT CARD THEFT AND/OR IDENTITY THEFT THAT ARE DISPUTED BY THE CARDHOLDER THROUGH
THE CARDHOLDER'S BANK WILL BE IMMEDIATELY REFUNDED BY VENDINI. MEMBER AGREES THAT
VENDINI MAY COLLECT REFUNDED TRANSACTIONS (INCLUDING ORIGINAL PROCESSING FEES) DUE TO
FRAUD FROM MEMBER. REFUND AND CHARGEBACK FEES ALSO APPLY.
(j) Cancellation and Refunds for Transactions using MMA
VENDINI WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR MONETARY LOSS DUE TO FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS
PROCESSED THROUGH THE VENDINI SERVICE. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF MEMBER TO RESOLVE
ANY ISSUE RELATED TO FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CREDIT CARD
THEFT AND/OR IDENTITY THEFT, THAT ARE DISPUTED BY THE CARDHOLDER AND/OR THE CARDHOLDER'S
BANK.
10. Use of Equipment
If Vendini grants to the Member the right to use equipment (“Equipment”) in connection with the Services at no additional cos t,
then Member is obligated to return the Equipment to Vendini (at Member’s cost) upon termination of this Agreement. Member
shall not rent, lease, sell or otherwise transfer the Equipment to any third parties. Member shall supervise and control the use of
the Equipment by its employees to ensure that its use is in compliance with this Agreement. This Agreement conveys no
ownership interest in the Equipment to Member. Member shall be responsible for the Equipment from the time it is delivered to
Member until it is returned to Vendini. Member shall reimburse Vendini for any damage to the Equipment sustained during this
time period. If Vendini does not receive the Equipment within thirty (30) days of the termination date of this Agreement, Mem ber
shall pay Vendini the Replacement Value (defined as replacement cost, shipping fees, and sales tax not included in replacement
cost). Actual cost will be assessed at time of replacement. THE EQUIPMENT IS PROVIDED “AS IS.” VENDINI MAKES NO
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE EQUIPMENT.
11. Website Manager
If applicable, Vendini will provide Member with a website (the “Site”) that is integrated with the Vendini ticketing system a nd
hosted by Vendini. Member understands and agrees that Vendini will host and create the Site solely in acc ordance with the
Vendini Member Service Agreement – Page 8
information provided by Member. With the exception of any Third -Party Materials and Background Technology as set forth in
this Section 11, the Member owns the Customer Content. "Customer Content" means all content or information (including,
without limitation, any text, music, sound, photographs, video, graphics, data, or software), in any medium, provided by Memb er
to Vendini. "Third-Party Materials" means any content, software, or other computer programming material that is owned by an
entity other than Vendini and licensed by Vendini or generally available to the public, including Member, under published
licensing terms, and that Vendini will use to display or run a Site. Vendini owns the rights to the design of the Site. Upon
termination of this Agreement Member will not be entitled to use the Site for any purposes whatsoever.
“Background Technology" means computer programming/formatting code or operating instructions developed by or for Vendini
and used to host or operate the Site or a Web server in connection with the Site. Background Technology includes, but is not
limited to, any files necessary to make forms, buttons, checkboxes, and similar functions and underlying technology or
components, such as style sheets, animation templates, interface programs that link multimedia and other programs, customized
graphics manipulation engines, and menu utilities, whether in database form or dynamically driven. Background Technology
does not include any Customer Content. Member may not duplicate or distribute any Background Technology to any third party
without the prior written consent of Vendini. All rights to the Background Technology not expressly granted to Member
hereunder are retained by Vendini. Without limiting the foregoing, Member agrees not to reverse-engineer, reverse-assemble,
decompile, or otherwise attempt to derive any source code of the Background Technology, except as allowed by law.
Member hereby grants to Vendini the limited, nonexclusive right and license to copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform,
create derivative works from, modify, and otherwise use and exploit the Site, any Customer Content, or any Customer Marks
provided to Vendini hereunder, solely for the purpose of ren dering the Web Services under this Agreement. Such limited right
and license shall extend to no other materials or for any other purpose and will terminate automatically upon termination of this
Agreement for any reason. Member agrees not to provide Customer Content that (a) infringes on any third party's intellectual
property or publicity/privacy rights; (b) violates any applicable law or regulation; (c) is defamatory, violent, clearly harm ful, or
obscene or pornographic or infringes on citizens' rights; or (d) contains any viruses, Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, cancel
bots, or other computer programming routines that are intended to damage or interfere with any system, data, or personal
information. Vendini reserves the right to refuse any other subject matter it deems inappropriate.
Member hereby acknowledges and agrees that Vendini will not be liable for any temporary delay, outages or interruptions of th e
Web Services. Each party acknowledges that it has not entered into this Agreement in reliance upon any warranty or
representation except those specifically set forth herein.
12. Gift Cards
Vendini will provide Member with software designed to sell Gift Cards (the “Gift Cards”) that is integrated with the Vendini
ticketing system and hosted by Vendini. Member understands and agrees that Vendini will host and create the Gift Cards solely
in accordance with the information provided by Member. The Gift Card can be created and sold to Patrons for future redemption
of eligible Vendini products created by Member. Gift Cards may not be redeemed for the purchase of products from other
Vendini Members. Gift cards cannot be reloaded, resold, transferred for value, redeemed for cash or applied to any other acco unt,
except in the extent required by law. Unused gift card balances may not be transferred.
The risk of loss and title for Gift Cards passes to the Member upon purchase. Vendini is not responsible if Gift Cards are lo st,
stolen, destroyed or used without valid permission. Vendini retains the right to close Member accounts and bill alternative forms
of payment if a fraudulently obtained Gift Card is redeemed and/or used to make purchases with Vendini or any of its affiliat ed
websites.
Gift Cards must be redeemed toward the purchase of eligible Vendini products created by Member. Purchases are deducted from
the Gift Card balance. Any unused balance will remain as the Gift Card balance. If an order exceeds the amount of the Gift Ca rd,
the balance must be paid with a credit card or other available payment method. Vendini may provide Gift Card purchasers with
information about the redemption status of the Gift Cards that they purchase.
Gift Card Balance can be obtained from Vendini’s administrative (the “Member Home”) and point of sale applications where
Gift Cards are managed and sold. A Gift Card cannot be "reloaded" (i.e., additional value cannot be added to a Gift Card once
issued).
Expiration dates do not apply for Gift Cards issued in certain states in the United States and certain provinces in Canad a.
Vendini Member Service Agreement – Page 9
Similarly, Gift Cards are not redeemable for cash except in certain states in the United States and certain provinces in Canada. It
is Member’s responsibility to determine its own obligations pertaining to the use of Gift Cards as such use is subject to applicable
federal and state laws and regulations. Please be advised that many states and some provinces in Canada treat gift cards tha t have
been unused for a certain period of time as abandoned property subject to escheat.
13. Customer Lists
Member agrees that Vendini may use its organization’s name and may use images that are posted on the Site to identify
Member as a customer of Vendini, in investor documents (whether or not filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission), and as part of a list of Vendini’s customers for use and reference in Vendini’s corporate and marketing
literature.
14. Entire Agreement
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all
previous written or oral agreements between the parties with respect to such subject matter. Any amendments or modifications to
this Agreement must be agreed to by Vendini and Member in writing.
If any of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Agreement or the application thereof to any circumstances shall be ruled
invalid or unenforceable, the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, an d each
of the other terms, provisions, and conditions of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by
law.
15. Early Termination
If either party breaches any of its material obligations under this Agreement, the other party will have the right to termina te the
Agreement and/or discontinue delivery of service by giving 30 days' written notice to the breaching party unless the breaching
party remedies the breach within a 30-day period.
Either party has the right to immediately, without notice, terminate this Agreement in the event e ither party terminates or
suspends its business, becomes insolvent, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors or suffers or permits the appointment
of a receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, or similar official.
Upon any expiration or termination of this Agreement, Vendini will stop providing the Services to Member. Termination of this
Agreement will not terminate the confidentiality and indemnification obligations herein.
If member finds service unsatisfactory there will be a 30 day opt out period that will begin 12 months after first ticket sold
through Vendini. The early termination fee will not apply.
Member's obligations to pay the costs, expenses and fees due will survive the termination of this Agreement unless such
termination is the result of a non-cured breach by Vendini. In such instance, Member will be responsible for costs, expenses and
fees due up to the termination date. In the event that Vendini is required to pursue any legal remedies available to it as a result of
Member’s breach of this Agreement, Vendini shall be entitled to seek reimbursement from Member of Vendini’s reasonable
attorneys fees.
In addition to the foregoing, Member's account may be terminated if there has been a period of sales inactivity of over 12 months
(in which case a re-activation fee $995.00 will apply) or if there are unusually high occurrences of refunds or chargebacks.
16. Controlling Law; Attorneys Fees
This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to its conflict of laws
rules. Any cause of action of any nature arising out this Agreement shall be brought in the state or federal courts located i n San
Francisco, California. If either party employs an attorney to enforce any rights arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the
Vendini Member Service Agreement – Page 10
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney fees, costs and other expenses.
17. Addresses and Notices
Any communications under this Agreement shall be in writing and are deemed delivered upon receipt by the addressed party at
the address specified herein. Communications may be sent by hand or messenger, by commercial overnight carrier, or by US mail
(return receipt requested).
Vendini, Inc.
660 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
18. Force Majeure
Except for the payment of any amount due pursuant to this Agreement, neither party will be liable to the other for damages in the
event of any loss, damage, claim, delay or default arising by reason of Acts of Mother Nature, storm, fire, flood, earthquake,
labor disturbance (including strikes, lockouts, and boycotts), war or terrorism, vandalism, civil commotion, shortages or
unavailability of labor, present or future governmental law, ordinance, rule, or regulation, disruption of postal, banking, electrical,
telephone or utility service, or other cause beyond the control of the party sought to be charged.
19. PCI Compliance
The scope of Vendini's Payment Card Industry ("PCI") compliance is limited solely to those systems within Vendini's direct
control and does not extend to hardware purchased by or on behalf of Member whether that hardware is purchased through
Vendini or another vendor. Member is responsible for the full scope of its own PCI compliance at all times. Vendini is
considered to be a "Service Provider" as defined in the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard Glossary,
Abbreviations and Acronyms. As such, Vendini will provide Member with its current PCI Attestation of Compliance at
Member's request.
20. Headings
The section headings used herein are for convenience only and shall not be given any legal import whatsoever.
21. Language/Langue
The parties hereto acknowledge and confirm that they have requested that this Agreement as well as all notices and other
documents contemplated hereby be drawn up in the English language. Les parties aux présentes reconnaissent et confirment
qu'elles ont convenu que la présente convention ainsi que tous les avis et documents qui s'y rattachent soient rédigés dans
la langue anglaise.
22. Signatures
In witness whereof, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the date set out beneath their respective signa tures.
Member Name: City of Hermosa Beach
Signed By: _________________________________
Authorized Signer’s Name: ___________________
Vendini, Inc.
Signed By: ________________________
Name: Mike Farrow
Vendini Member Service Agreement – Page 11
Authorized Signer’s Title: ____________________
Date: __________________________
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: ___________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
RESOLUTION NO. 19-xxx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION 11-6749
(MASTER FEE RESOLUTION) TO ESTABLISH A PER TICKET
SERVICE FEE AND A SETUP FEE TO UTILIZE THE VENDINI
ONLINE TICKETING SERVICE FOR THE COMMUNITY THEATER
AND 2ND STORY THEATER FACILITIES.
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby establishes a per ticket service fee
for online tickets in the Communit y Theater and 2nd Story Theater facility to be
in line with industry standards.
SECTION 2. That the City Council hereby establishes a set-up fee for use of the
Vendini online ticketing service to recover costs of managing this added service
and the fees do not exceed the cost of providing the services .
SECTION 3. That resolution 11-6749 is amended to update Recreation Services
fees, by adding the fees as follows:
Per Ticket Service Fee $1.50
Set-Up Fee $50 per event
SECTION 4. That fee shall be effective immediately upon approval of this
resolution.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th day of January, 2019
________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach,
California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ _______________________________
City Clerk City Attorney
Memorandum
Community Resources Department ● 710 Pier Avenue ● Hermosa Beach, CA ● 90254 ● 310.318.0280
To: Hermosa Beach Mayor and City Council
From: Kelly Orta, Community Resources Manager
Date: January 8, 2019
RE: Supplemental Item – January 8, 2019 City Council Meeting
Item 6(a): Approval to Implement the Vendini Online Ticketing Service for the
Community Theater and 2nd Story Theater; and Resolution Establishing a Per
Ticket Service Fee and a Setup Fee for Its Use By Renters of the Community
Theater and 2nd Story Theater Facilities
There is a necessary revision in the staff report associated with the Vendini online ticketing
service, specifically regarding the term of the recommended agreement. The proposed
agreement (Attachment 1 of the Staff Report) is for a three-year term with the inclusion of a 30-
day opt-out period following the first year of implementation. There would be no cancellation
penalty assessed during this time. Should the City decide not to opt out of the agreement during
this 30-day window, the agreement would remain in effect throughout the final two -years. The
agreement included as Attachment 1 is accurate and is reflective of this term information.
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0008
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
APPOINTMENT OF CITY REPRESENTATIVE
TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST VECTOR AND
VECTOR-BORNE CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD
(City Clerk Elaine Doerfling)
Recommended Action:
City Clerk recommends that the City Council appoint a Hermosa Beach representative to the Los
Angeles County West Vector and Vector-Borne Control District Board for the January 1, 2019 through
December 31, 2020 two-year term.
Background:
In June 2018, the Beach Cities Health District asked the Council to consider appointing a City
representative to the Los Angeles County West Vector and Vector-Borne Control District Board.
The City Council took the following actions at its September 17, 2018 meeting:
§Appointed Councilmember Duclos to serve as the City’s representative to the L.A. County
West Vector and Vector-Borne Control District Board for the remainder of the preset two-year
term ending December 31, 2018; and
§Authorized the City Clerk to advertise and request applications from Hermosa Beach
residents, who are also registered voters, interested in serving on the Board as the City’s
representative for the next preset two-year term of January 2019 through December 2020.
As the City Clerk reported in the recruitment status report presented at the December 11 Council
meeting, no resident applications were received by the December 3 filing deadline. During
discussion at the December 11 meeting, it was suggested that Councilmembers actively recruit bona
fide residents and registered voters of Hermosa Beach and that the City Clerk’s office accept late
applications. To date, none have been received.
The Council has the option to re-appoint Councilmember Duclos, if he agrees to another term, or any
other Councilmember willing to serve as the City’s representative for the 2019-2020 two-year term.
The appointment of any Councilmember would not be affected if the appointee opted not to run for
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0008
another City Council term in next year’s municipal election. Members of the City Council qualify for
consideration to serve as trustee only because they are both residents and registered voters of
Hermosa Beach. As verified by Robert Saviskas, Executive Director, LA County West Vector and
Vector-Borne Control District Board, the change in status from Councilmember to resident would not
require Council action, but merely a change to the City’s records.
General Plan Consistency:
This report and associated recommendations have been evaluated for their consistency with the
City’s General Plan. Relative policies re listed below:
Governance Element:
o 2.6 Responsive to Community Needs. Continue to be responsive to community inquiries,
providing public information and recording feedback from community interactions.
o 4.3 Collaboration with Adjacent Jurisdictions. Maintain strong collaborative relationships with
adjacent jurisdictions and work together on projects of mutual interest and concerns.
Fiscal Impact:
The total cost for the advertisements in the Easy Reader on September 27, 2018 and October 25,
2018 was $215.25.
Attachment:
1.Trustee Information Sheet
Respectfully Submitted by: Linda Abbott, Deputy City Clerk
Concur: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director
Concur: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
1
Los Angeles County West Vector
& Vector-Borne Disease Control District
6750 Centinela Avenue, Culver City, California 90230
(310) 915-7370 ext. 223
rsaviskas@lawestvector.org
Trustee Information Sheet
City of Hermosa Beach
Below is information with respect to the appointment of a Trustee to the Board of the Los Angeles
County West Vector & Vector-Borne Disease Control District (District):
1. A trustee must be a resident and an elector (registered to vote) of the city from which the
appointment is made.
2. Each term is two (2) years in length.
3. Term periods are permanently preset for each city to provide evenly spaced turnover on the
Board of Trustees.
4. Present Term: The present term period for the City of Hermosa Beach began on January
1, 2017 and will end on December 31, 2018. If a new trustee is appointed at any time
after January 1, 2017 and before December 31, 2018, that new trustee will be finishing
out the city’s present two-year established term period that will end on December 31,
2018. Following this set term that ends on December 31, 2018, the city council may
reappoint the existing trustee for another two (2) year term or appoint a new trustee for the
two (2) year term.
5. Regular Meetings: The regular meetings of the Board of Trustees are held:
When: Once every two months on the 2nd Thursday of the month at 7:30 p.m.
Location: 6750 Centinela Avenue, Culver City (District's Headquarters)
Total Number of Meetings/yr. (6): There are a total of six (6) meetings per year in
alternate months (January, March, May, July, Sept., & Nov.)
6. Trustees who attend the regularly scheduled meeting are compensated with a payment of
$100 in lieu of expenses. By law, trustees must attend the meeting to receive this
compensation.
7. Procedure for appointing a Trustee by a city: Appointments or reappointments need to
be put on the agenda of a regularly scheduled city council meeting. After the item is
addressed in open session, a vote is taken to confirm the appointment or reappointment.
Codes require that the District be notified of the appointment by email or in writing through
mail from the City Clerk.
2
Statement of Economic Interest, Form 700: New trustees are required by the Fair Political
Practices Commission to fill out a Statement of Economic Interest, Form 700 (assuming office)
and return it to our office. It must be a wet-signature copy that is sent in to us for filing and
forwarding to the commission. A photocopy is not acceptable.
Please contact me at any of the numbers below if your city council has any additional questions.
Best regards,
Robert Saviskas M.S., R.E.H.S.
Executive Director
Los Angeles County West Vector
& Vector-Borne Disease Control District
6750 Centinela Avenue Culver City, CA 90230
Ph.: (310) 915-7370 Ext. 223
Email: rsaviskas@lawestvector.org
MEMORANDUM
Office of the City Clerk
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Linda Abbott, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: January 8, 2019
SUBJECT: January 8, 2019 Agenda – Supplemental – Item 7(a)
Appointment of City Representative to The Los Angeles County
West Vector and Vector Borne Control District Board
Attached, please find an application from Hermosa Beach resident James Fasola,
received in the Clerk’s Office January 7, 2019. His current voter registration status
has been verified with the County.
As the City Clerk reported in the recruitment status report presented at the
December 11, 2018 Council meeting, no resident applications were received by
the December 3, 2018 filing deadline. During discussion at the December 11, 2018
meeting, it was suggested that Councilmembers actively recruit bona fide
residents and registered voters of Hermosa Beach and that the City Clerk’s office
accept late applications. Mr. Fasola’s was the only one received.
MEMORANDUM
Office of the City Clerk
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Linda Abbott, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: January 8, 2019
SUBJECT: January 8, 2019 Agenda – Supplemental – Item 7(a)
Appointment of City Representative to The Los Angeles County
West Vector and Vector Borne Control District Board
Attached, please find an application from Hermosa Beach resident James Fasola,
received in the Clerk’s Office January 7, 2019. His current voter registration status
has been verified with the County.
As the City Clerk reported in the recruitment status report presented at the
December 11, 2018 Council meeting, no resident applications were received by
the December 3, 2018 filing deadline. During discussion at the December 11, 2018
meeting, it was suggested that Councilmembers actively recruit bona fide
residents and registered voters of Hermosa Beach and that the City Clerk’s office
accept late applications. Mr. Fasola’s was the only one received.
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0028
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING A
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVE ON THE NEW
KHHR COMMUNITIES NETWORK COMMITTEE - A STANDING
COMMITTEE CREATED BY THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE
TO ADDRESS AIRPORT NOISE IMPACTS
(City Manager Suja Lowenthal)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1.Appoint a Council representative to serve on the new KHHR Communities Network
Committee; and
2.Authorize the City Manager to sign an official letter of appointment addressed to City of
Hawthorne Interim City Manager, Arnold Shadbehr.
Background:
The City of Hawthorne maintains the Hawthorne Municipal Airport (KHHR).The Airport's approaching
and departing flight paths cross over residential properties to the east,west and southerly directions.
On October 9,2018,the City of Hawthorne adopted Resolution No.8030 to encourage
implementation of the Voluntary Pilot Guide and noise abatement procedures as a follow-up to the
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)approval of the Hawthorne Airport Noise Compatibility
Program.Recently,some residents of Hawthorne,neighboring cities,and communities of Los
Angeles County unincorporated areas have contacted the City of Hawthorne with questions,
concerns and, in some cases, complaints about noise arising from use of the Airport.
On December 12,2018,the Hawthorne City Council passed Resolution No.8038 (Attachment 1)
forming the KHHR Communities Network Committee,a standing committee with the purpose of
providing an informational forum,engaging representatives from communities affected by FAA
established flight paths,pilots and flight operation managers as well as FAA representatives in
conversations aimed at finding ways to reduce and mitigate noise impacts on the surrounding
communities to the extent possible by pilots and the FAA laws and regulations and safety standards.
The Committee shall be composed of seventeen (17)members.Members shall serve at the pleasure
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0028
The Committee shall be composed of seventeen (17)members.Members shall serve at the pleasure
of the appointing party.One member shall be appointed from and by each of the following
businesses,groups,geographic areas and/or organizations:(1)City Council of the City of Hawthorne
(must be an elected member of City Council);(2)FAA's Flight Standards District Office;(3)
Hawthorne Hangar Operations;(4)Hawthorne Airport,LLC;(5)Advanced Air LLC dba Jet Center Los
Angeles;(6)Star Helicopter;(7)Ramona Homeowner's Association;(8)Holly Glen Homeowner's
Association;(9)Unincorporated L.A.County area of West Athens (must be resident);(10)Holly Park
Homeowner's Association;(11)North Hawthorne Homeowner's Association;(12)City of Redondo
Beach;(13)City of Gardena;(14)City of Hermosa Beach;(15)City of Hawthorne Planning and
Zoning Commission (must be member);(16)Unincorporated L.A.County area of Wiseburn;and (17)
the City of Los Angeles community of Harbor Gateway North (must be resident).
Members from the City Council and the Planning &Zoning Commission must be appointed by the
City Council.Geographic areas located within the City or County of Los Angeles that do not have a
Homeowner's Association to perform the function of appointment shall have members appointed by
the Office of the Supervisor of the Second District,or Office of the Councilmember representing the
District in which it is located.A letter of appointment from the appropriate official of the Supervisorial
District or Councilmember's Office will be required before an individual may serve.
Discussion:
On December 14,2018,Hawthorne Municipal Airport Supervisor Guido Fernandez notified City
Manager Lowenthal of the newly passed Resolution No.8038 and provided information on how the
City of Hermosa Beach could participate (Attachment 3).Mayor Armato and Mayor Pro Tem
Campbell currently serve as the City’s delegate and alternate respectively,on the LAX Community
Noise Roundtable.For efficiency,staff recommends appointing Mayor Armato or Mayor Pro Tem
Campbell to also serve on the new KHHR Communities Network Committee.
Regular meetings shall take place at 6:00 p.m.at the Hawthorne Memorial Center or at the
Hawthorne Municipal Airport on the second Wednesday of the following months:January,April,July,
and October. The first meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 9, 2019.
General Plan Consistency:
This report and associated recommendations have been evaluated for their consistency with the
City’s General Plan. Relevant policies are listed below:
Governance Element:
1.6 Long-term Considerations.Prioritize decisions that provide long-term community benefit and
discourage decisions that provide short-term community benefit but reduce long-term opportunities.
2.6 Responsive to Community Needs.Continue to be responsive to community inquiries,providing
public information and recording feedback from community interactions.
4.1 Regional Governance.Play an active role in the South Bay Cities Council of Governments,theCity of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0028
4.1 Regional Governance.Play an active role in the South Bay Cities Council of Governments,the
Southern California Association of Governments and other regional agencies to protect and promote
the interests of the City.
4.3 Collaboration with Adjacent Jurisdictions.Maintain strong collaborative relationships with
adjacent jurisdictions and work together on projects of mutual interest and concern.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.Committee members are
volunteers and shall not be compensated or reimbursed for their services.
Attachments:
1.City of Hawthorne Resolution No. 8038 and Staff Report
2.Link to City of Hawthorne December 11, 2018 meeting video - Agenda Item No. 13 discussion
3.Email from Hawthorne Municipal Airport Supervisor Guido Fernandez
4.Draft City of Hermosa Beach appointment letter
Respectfully Submitted by: Ann Yang, Executive Assistant
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
,.
RESOLUTION NO.8038
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HAWTHORNE,CALIFORNIA,CREATING THE KHHR
COMMUNITIES NETWORK COMMITTEE
WHEREAS,the City of Hawthorne maintains the Hawthorne Municipal Airport ("Airport"),
which is currently the subject of a master lease agreement between the City of Hawthorne and
Hawthorne Airport,LLC;
WHEREAS,the Airport's approaching and departing flight paths cross over residential
properties to the east,west and southerly directions;
WHEREAS,on October 9,2018,the City of Hawthorne adopted Resolution No.8030 to
encourage implementation of the Voluntary Pilot Guide and noise abatement procedures as a follow-
up to the Federal Aviation Administration's ("FAA")approval of the Hawthorne Airport Noise
Compatibility Program;
WHEREAS,recently,some residents of Hawthorne,neighboring cities,and communities of
Los Angeles County unincorporated areas have contacted the City with questions,concerns and,in
some cases,complaints about noise arising from use of the Airport;
WHEREAS,because the City wishes to ensure that the public has an adequate forum in
which to voice concerns regarding aircraft noise and flight paths and to otherwise engage with airport
users,lessees,sub lessees,and other community representatives;
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Hawthorne wishes to establish a standing
committee to address Airport concerns in an open,transparent and organized manner.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.The recitals of facts set forth above are true and correct.
Section 2.The City Council of the City of Hawthorne hereby approves creation of the
KHHR Communities Networks Committee ("KHHR Committee").
Section 3.The City Council of the City of Hawthorne hereby approves the following
bylaws for the KHHR Committee:
I.Purpose.The purpose of the KHHR Committee is to provide an informational forum
engaging representatives from communities affected by FAA established flight paths,pilots and flight
operation managers as well as FAA representatives in conversations aimed at finding ways to reduce
and mitigate noise impacts on the surrounding communities to the extent possible by pilots and the
FAA laws and regulations and safety standards.
II.Membership.The Committee shall be composed of seventeen (17)members.Members shall
serve at the pleasure of the appointing party.One member shall be appointed from and by each of the
following businesses,groups,geographic areas and/or organizations:(1)City Council of the City of
Hawthorne (must be an elected member of City Council);(2)FAA's Flight Standards District Office;
(3)Hawthorne Hangar Operations;(4)Hawthorne Airport,LLC;(5)Advanced Air LLC dba Jet
Center Los Angeles;(6)Star Helicopter;(7)Ramona Homeowner's Association;(8)Holly Glen
Homeowner's Association;(9)Unincorporated L.A.County area of West Athens (must be resident);
(10)Holly Park Homeowner's Association;(11)North Hawthorne Homeowner's Association;(12)
City of Redondo Beach;(13)City of Gardena;(14)City of Hermosa Beach;(15)City of Hawthorne
Planning and Zoning Commission (must be member);(16)Unincorporated L.A.County area of
Wiseburn;and (17)the City of Los Angeles community of Harbor Gateway North (must be resident).
Members from the City Council and the Planning &Zoning Commission must be appointed by the
City Council.Geographic areas located within the City or County of Los Angeles that do not have a
Homeowner's Association to perform the function of appointment shall have members appointed by
the Office of the Supervisor of the Second District,or Office of the Councilmember representing the
District in which it is located.A letter of appointment from the appropriate official of the
Supervisorial District or Councilmember's Office will be required before an individual may serve.
III.Chair &Vice-Chair.Every two years,the Committee shall elect a chair and a vice-chair
who shall act as chair only when the chair is absent,and whose duties shall be consistent with
Robert's Rules of Order.In the event the chair and vice-chair are absent,the Secretary shall select a
representative from the Committee to serve as acting chair.For the first meeting of the Committee,
the chair of the Committee shall be the member from Advanced Air LLC dba Jet Center Los Angeles
and Vice-Chair shall be the member from Hawthorne Airport,LLC.Elections shall take place in
January of each new year.
IV.Secretary.The City's Airport Supervisor shall serve as Secretary of the Committee.The
Secretary shall be responsible for providing a meeting room and preparing and copying documentary
meeting materials,such as agenda reports.The City Clerk's Office shall provide to the Committee
necessary technical and administrative assistance as follows:a)Preparation of and posting of public
notices as required by the Ralph M.Brown Act,Government Code Section 54950,et seq.;b)
Ensuring that all notices to the public are provided in the same manner as notices regarding meetings
of the City Council;and (c)Retaining all Committee records,and providing public access to such
records on an Internet website maintained by the City.
V.Meetings.Regular meetings shall take place at 6:00 p.m.at the Hawthorne Memorial Center
or at the Hawthorne Municipal Airport on the second Wednesday of the following months:January,
April,July,and October.
VI.Conduct of Meetings.All meetings shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph
M.Brown Act,Government Code Section 54950 et seq.Each member of the Committee will be
given a current copy of the Ralph M.Brown Act.
VII.Quorum A majority of the Committee members (including vacancies)shall constitute a
quorum for purposes of holding a meeting and the transaction of any business.Any nine (9)members
shall constitute a quorum.
VIII.Agendas.Agendas shall be prepared by the Secretary in accordance with the requirements of
the Ralph M.Brown Act.Any item supported by two members is sufficient to ensure it is on the
next agenda.All items or reports shall be provided to the Secretary at least seven (7)days in advance
of a scheduled regular meeting.Members shall receive agendas within 72 hours of the regular
meeting.
IX.Compensation &Dues.Committee members are volunteers and shall not be compensated or
reimbursed for their services.
X.Robert's Rules of Order.All meetings shall be conducted consistent with Robert's Rules of
Order,unless a majority deems otherwise.A majority of members may at any time adopt additional
rules for a certain meeting or a certain purpose only.
XI.Oral Communication.All agendas shall provide an opportunity for members of the public
to speak on matters within the subject matter of the Committee,in accordance with the Brown Act.
Oral Communication shall be limited to a maximum of one (l)hour and each person shall be
permitted to speak for no more than three (3)minutes.The Committee may adopt other rules of
decorum consistent with the Brown Act.
XII.Community Liaison.The Committee shall have two liaisons.Liaisons shall interact with
residents and provide feedback to complaints received in an effective and customer friendly manner
after reviewing webtrack or other similar websites,create and maintain a logging system
documenting all complaints received,provide documentation by taking minutes of each meeting,
provide sign-in sheets and provide agenda items for the next meeting to the Secretary,including,but
not limited to,reports regarding current events or news articles related to the Airport and aviation in
general as well as newly adopted FAA regulations.Liaisons shall be representatives of Hawthorne
Airport LLC and Advanced Air LLC dba Jet Center Los Angeles.Community liaisons shall make
publicly available their contact information,including email addresses,to all interested residents.
Sign-in sheets must be prepared by liaisons and utilized at meeting.Sign-in sheets must be provided
to the City Clerk and will become a public record.
XIII.Minutes.The Community Liaison(s)shall prepare minutes in a time manner (within 30 days
after each meeting)that will be reviewed and finalized by the Secretary.Minutes shall include:(l)
The time and place of each meeting of the Committee;(2)The names of the Committee members
present;(3)Actions taken by the Committee,if any;and (4)A summary of all reports made to the
Committee.All minutes shall be reduced to writing and presented to the Committee at its next regular
meeting for approval,amendment or correction.The minutes or true copies thereof shall be open to
public inspection.Copies of said minutes shall be filed with the City Clerk.Sign-in sheets shall be
included with all official minutes.
XIV.Duties.It shall be the duty of the Committee to discuss,analyze and respond to concerns
raised by residents in surrounding communities and,in particular,to monitor pilot responsiveness to
residents'noise complaints and discuss ways to mitigate noise impact within the established Federal
rules and safety parameters.The Committee shall have no oversight authority over any City
Department,personnel,consultant,or budget.The Committee has no authority to bind the City to any
contractual agreements.The Committee has no decision-making authority and may not compel or
prevent a governmental decision either by reason of an exclusive power to initiate the decision or by
reason of a veto that may not be overridden nor can it make any recommendations or presentations to
the City Council.Individual members shall be required to prepare themselves for each meeting by
reading agenda,reports,and other materials and communicating any questions to the Secretary,Chair
or Vice-Chair in advance of the meeting.Individual members must inform the Secretary of any
absence at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.
XV.Bylaws.This Resolution,as adopted and amended,shall constitute bylaws of the Committee.
The Committee may adopt additional rules and regulations not in conflict with the bylaws contained
herein.
Section 4.This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
ATTEST:
PASSED,APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11th day of December,2018
APPRO VEDAS TO FORM:
/flt27
CityClerk
City of Hawthorne,
California
RUSSELL MIY A ,City
Attorney City of Haw thome,California
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)~
CITY OF HAWTHORNE )
1,Monica Dicrisci,the duly appointed Acting City Clerk of the
City of Hawthorne,California,DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing Resolution,being Resolution No.8038 was duly
adopted by the City Council of the City of Hawthorne,at the
regular meeting of the City Council held December 11,2018
and that it was adopted by the following vote,to wit:
AYES:Councilmembers Awad,Michelin,Monteiro,Valentine,
Mayor Vargas.
NOES:None.
ABSTAIN:None.
ABSENT:None.
M nica QicIj .
Acting City Cler
City of Hawthorne,California
From: "Fernandez, Guido" <GFernandez@cityofhawthorne.org>
Date: December 14, 2018 at 4:34:46 PM MST
To: Suja Lowenthal <suja@hermosabch.org>
Cc: "Shadbehr, Arnie" <AShadbehr@cityofhawthorne.org>
Subject: Appointment letter for new members of KHHR Communities Network Committee
Hi Suja,
Arnie wanted me to contact you regarding our newly passed Resolution No. 8038
creating the KHHR Communities Network Committee. I attached a copy of the
resolution.
We are reaching out to individuals who might be interested in participating in the
new Communities Network Committee (CNC).
For each geographic neighborhood listed on the attached Resolution one person
representative assigned to be serving in the committee will need to submit an
appointment letter from their Homeowner’s Association (HOA), or district
Supervisor or council member, in case there is no HOA serving that neighborhood
(Section 3.II.Membership).
The letter must state that the appointed individual is representing their
geographic area in the soon to be established Communities Network Committee
(CNC).
Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks.
Guido Fernandez
Airport Supervisor
Hawthorne Municipal Airport
(310) 349-1636
City of Hermosa Beach
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885
January 8, 2019
Mr. Arnold Shadbehr, Interim City Manager
City of Hawthorne
4455 W. 126th Street
Hawthorne, CA 90250
Via Email: AShadbehr@cityofhawthorne.org
Re: City of Hermosa Beach Appointment of Representative to the KHHR Communities
Network Committee
Dear Mr. Shadbehr,
On behalf of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, I would like to thank the City of
Hawthorne for creating a standing committee and providing an informational forum where
representatives from communities affected by aircraft noise coming from the Hawthorne
Municipal Airport can come together to work on solutions to reduce and mitigate noise impacts on
the surrounding communities.
As one of several communities that are impacted by Hawthorne Municipal Airport operations, our
City Council believes there is value in having a seat at the table and has therefore determined a
need for an elected official to be part of the KHHR Communities Network Committee. I am
pleased to inform you that on January 8, 2019, the Hermosa Beach City Council appointed
_______ as the City’s representative to serve on the KHHR Communities Network Committee.
We ask that you please add _______ to your committee roster and include them in any future
notifications as appropriate. Should you have any follow-up questions, please contact Ann Yang
from my office at anny@hermosabch.org or 310-750-3605.
Sincerely,
Suja Lowenthal
City Manager
Copy: Guido Fernandez, Hawthorne Municipal Airport Supervisor,
GFernandez@cityofhawthorne.org
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 19-0007
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2019
TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the tentative future agenda items.
Attachments:
Tentative Future Agenda
City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 1/4/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
December 31, 2018
Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of
of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 8, 2019
TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
MONDAY, JANUARY 14 , 2019 @ 6:00 PM
JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH EPAC
JANUARY 22, 2019 @ 6:00 PM INITIAL
DATE CLOSED SESSION
JANUARY 22, 2019 @ 7:00 PM
PRESENTATIONS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE SERVICES AND MCCORMICK AMBULANCE QUARTERLY UPDATE
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing
Revenue and Expenditure Reports Finance Director Ongoing
City Treasurer’s and Cash Balance Report City Treasurer Ongoing
Public Works Project Status Report Public Works Director Ongoing
Planning Commission Tentative Future Agenda Community Development Director Ongoing
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting of January 15, 2019
Community Development Director Ongoing
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks,
Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of
December 4, 2018
Community Resources Manager Ongoing
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Emergency
Preparedness Advisory Commission meeting of November 5, 2018
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Ongoing
Request for Approval of Sponsorship Donation to Mira Costa High School
Grad Nite 2019
City Manager Annual
2017-18 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Finance Director Annual
Purchase of Police Department vehicles Police Chief Staff Request
Nov 28, 2018
CONSENT ORDINANCES
Second Reading of Ordinance to allow and regulate wireless communication
facilities in the public right-of-way, and update on AT&T’s proposal for
multiple installation of smaller wireless communication facilities to provide
replacement coverage to existing sites located at 20th and 29th Court
City Clerk Council Direction
Dec 11, 2018
PUBLIC HEARINGS – 7:30 PM
Consideration of an Ordinance regulating Sidewalk Vending in compliance
with Senate Bill 946
Community Development Director Staff Request
Nov. 2018
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Adoption of Resolution Authorizing City Clerk Salary Adjustment and Direct
Staff to Draft a Ballot Measure for the November 2019 Election
City Clerk / City Manager’s Office Staff Request
Nov 5, 2018
Update on Visual Identity and Brand for the City of Hermosa Beach Environmental Analyst / Assistant to
the City Manager
Council Direction
Feb 7, 2018
Approval to Implement an Annual Skate Park Membership Program and
Resolution Establishing an Annual Skate Park Membership Fee
Community Resources Manager Staff Request
Nov 27, 2018
Approval of Fourth Amendment to the Chamber of Commerce Wednesday
Farmers’ Market Agreement including term extension and language updates
regarding market vendors (Continued from meeting of December 11, 2018)
Community Resources Manager Council Direction
Dec 11, 2018
Parking Lot D (Manhattan Ave and 14th Street) Final Designs Environmental Analyst Staff Request
Aug. 2018
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS – CITY COUNCIL
Updates from City Council Subcommittees
OTHER MATTERS – CITY COUNCIL
Tentative Future Agenda City Manager Ongoing
2
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2019 @ 6:00 PM
STUDY SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 2019 @ 6:00 PM INITIAL
DATE CLOSED SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 2019 @ 7:00 PM
PRESENTATIONS
RECOGNIZING HERMOSA BEACH GREEN BUSINESSES
UPDATE ON BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT AND
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE HEALTHY LIVING CAMPUS
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks,
Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of
January 2, 2019
Community Resources Manager Ongoing
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works
Commission meetings of May 16, 2018, July 18, 2018, September 19, 2018
and November 28, 2018.
Public Works Director Ongoing
CONSENT ORDINANCES
Second Reading of Ordinance regulating Sidewalk Vending in compliance
with Senate Bill 946
City Clerk Council Direction
Dec 11, 2018
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Update on South Bay Guidelines for a Shared Mobility (bikeshare and e -
scooters) Pilot Program
Environmental Analyst Council Direction
Aug 28, 2018
Document Retention Policy City Clerk Staff Request
Nov 28, 2018
Review of Municipal Lease Policy Subcommittee’s Recommended Policy
Guidelines
Community Resources Manager Staff Request
Dec 3, 2018
Consideration of a One-Year Extension to the Rotary Club Lease Agreement
for Use of the Rotary Club Facility
Community Resources Manager Staff Request
Dec 3, 2018
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS – CITY COUNCIL
Updates from City Council Subcommittees
OTHER MATTERS – CITY COUNCIL
Tentative Future Agenda City Manager Ongoing
FEBRUARY 26, 2019 @ 6:00 PM INITIAL
DATE CLOSED SESSION
FEBRUARY 26, 2019 @ 7:00 PM
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting of February 19, 2019
Community Development Director Ongoing
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
EV Charging Policy Recommendations Environmental Analyst Staff Request
Nov 27, 2018
Purchase and installation of Pier Avenue Bus Stop Shelters & Furniture Environmental Analyst New Item
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND MEETING ATTENDA NCE REPORTS – CITY COUNCIL
Updates from City Council Subcommittees
OTHER MATTERS – CITY COUNCIL
Tentative Future Agenda City Manager Ongoing
3
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6 , 2019 @ 6:00 PM
STUDY SESSION
SATURDAY, MARCH 9, 2019 @ 9:00 AM
CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
MARCH 12, 2019 @ 6:00 PM INITIAL
DATE CLOSED SESSION
MARCH 12, 2019 @ 7:00 PM
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks,
Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of
February 5, 2019
Community Resources Manager Ongoing
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Emergency
Preparedness Advisory Commission meeting of January 7, 2019
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Ongoing
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS – CITY COUNCIL
Updates from City Council Subcommittees
OTHER MATTERS – CITY COUNCIL
Tentative Future Agenda City Manager Ongoing
MONDAY, MARCH 18, 2019 @ 7:00 PM
JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD
MARCH 26, 2019 @ 6:00 PM INITIAL
DATE CLOSED SESSION
MARCH 26, 2019 @ 7:00 PM
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting of March 19, 2019
Community Development Director Ongoing
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works
Commission meeting of January 16, 2019.
Public Works Director Ongoing
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS – CITY COUNCIL
Updates from City Council Subcommittees
OTHER MATTERS – CITY COUNCIL
Tentative Future Agenda City Manager Ongoing
4
PENDING STRATEGIC PLAN ITEMS INITIAL
COMPLETION
DATE
Update Personnel Policies Human Resources Manager
Beach Policy/Regulations (Continued from meeting of October 27, 2016) Community Resources Manager Sept-2016
Alternative Fuel Transportation Report Environmental Analyst Nov-2016
Encroachment Direction City Attorney Nov-2016
CCA Direction Environmental Analyst Dec-2016
Information Item – Phase 3 Parking Meter Purchase Police Chief / Assistant to the City
Manager
Jul-2017
PENDING NEW ITEMS INITIAL
REQUEST
Initial Report on Options and Strategies for Installing a Permanent Carousel
or other Family Friendly Features at the Entry Point to Pier Plaza. In
Cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce, this would include a
Preliminary Cost Benefit Analysis and Implementation of the City Decision
Making Tool (supported by Duclos and Fangary)
Public Works Director Other Matters
Tree ordinance with respect to tree removal Public Works Director Staff Request
Consideration of re-establishing, on an as needed basis, both funding and
discretion for the director of Public Works to contract services to pump major
beach storm outfalls drains prior to anticipated major storm events (supported
by Duclos, Armato and Petty)
Public Works Director Other Matters
Policy discussion regarding city responsibilities and expectations when
donations are made to city
Finance Director Council Direction
Consideration of a position letter on federal gun control legislation
(supported by Fangary, Armato and Massey)
Assistant to the City Manager Other Matters
Report on Phase II of Library Assessment including Location Alternatives Community Resources Manager Staff Request
Strand Bikeway and Walkway Improvements at 35th Street Public Works Director Staff Request
Award of Contract for On-Call Traffic Engineering Services Public Works Director Staff Request
Special Event Policy Update and Subcommittee Direction Community Resources Manager
Update on bicycle infrastructure implementation & consideration of
designating a route in honor of Julian Katz
Environmental Analyst Council Direction
Consideration of proposed changes to the city right of way and public
facilities in the area of the proposed North School Project
Environmental Analyst Staff Request
Farmers Market Contract Renewal Community Resources Manager Staff Request
Approval of a One-Year Extension to the Rotary Club Lease Agreement Community Resources Manager Staff Request
Review of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory
Commission’s Municipal Lease Policy Subcommittee Drafted Policy
Guidelines
Community Resources Manager Staff Request
Ordinance on plastic service ware (supported by Duclos, Campbell and
Armato)
Environmental Analyst Other Matters
Adoption of Athens Organic Rates Environmental Analyst Staff Request
Fiesta Hermosa Contract Community Resources Manager Staff Request
Update to Document Retention Policy City Clerk Staff Request
Fiesta Contract Assistant to the City Manager Staff Request
Measure H Grant Acceptance Assistant to the City Manager Staff Request
Consent for use of “Lot B” for construction staging area for Pier/Strand
project
Community Development Director Staff Request
CITY MANAGER UPDATES
January 8, 2019
INFILTRATION PROJECT UPDATE
• We are working on scheduling the second meeting of the Council Subcommittees.
• At this meeting, we are hoping to identify potential site options to explore such as Francisco Street
and the second small greenbelt option in HB
• The City received a breach of agreement notice from the State Water Resources Control Board
dated December 20 and received direction to provide revised and outstanding documents by
February 28, 2019.
NORTH SCHOOL FINAL EIR UPDATE
• I would like to provide Council and the community with a brief update on the North School
Environmental Impact Report process. On December 28th, the Final Environmental Impact Report
was issued and the School Board will consider taking action to certify the Final EIR and approve
the project at their meeting tomorrow evening.
• Like many others, our staff was surprised to learn over the holiday that the Final EIR had been
released, but our team worked quickly to review the Final EIR documents, as well as the draft,
Resolution, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program released last week so that we could offer thoughtful and constructive comments from the
City’s perspective that move this important community project forward in a timely, transparent, and
collaborative manner.
• While we at the City are clear that the School District is the Lead Agency, and that the
modernization projects are not subject to land use approval by the City of Hermosa Beach, there
are components of the proposed projects which involve changes to City property, right-of-way, or
utility infrastructure and the range of possible actions being considered by the School District
further considers measures that involve City personnel and ongoing operational or maintenance
resources that are subject to approval by the City.
• Throughout the documents, the School District has stated they are committed to partnering with the
City in the successful implementation of this project. However, in that stated spirit of collaboration,
our staff was disappointed to see the release of the Final EIR occur, without any coordination or
follow up from the School District team following the submission of our comment letter in
September 2018.
• After reviewing the Final EIR and associated documents, City staff feel it is appropriate and
responsible for us to re-state our continued concerns, and offer proposed solutions that
demonstrate our commitment to working with the School District to find effective solutions that
mitigate significant traffic impacts and implement our collective community vision to provide
exceptional local schools to the Hermosa Beach community. We will be doing so in the form of a
letter to the School Board prior to their meeting tomorrow evening, and we will plan to share that
letter with Council and the community once it is finalized.
CITY MANAGER UPDATES
January 8, 2019
a) UPDATES TO THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AGENDA PREPRATION PROCESS
b) INFILTRATION PROJECT UPDATE
• Staff are currently scheduling the second meeting of the Council Subcommittees.
• At this meeting, hoping to identify potential site options to explore. Staff would like to confirm
that the City of RB is agreeable to exploring Francisco Street and the second small greenbelt
option in HB????
• The City received a breach of agreement notice from the State Water Resources Control Board
dated December 20 and received direction to provide revised and outstanding documents by
February 28,2019.
c) UPDATE ON NORTH SCHOOL FINAL EIR